This page contains freely available resources on the Liberty Protection Safeguards, contained in the Mental Capacity (Amendment) Act 2019, which are due to come into force in 2020 to replace the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.
The background to the Act lies in the decision of the Supreme Court in Cheshire West: for resources related to that decision and its implications, see my dedicated resource page here.
Primary legislation, regulations and other statutory materials
The Act itself can be found here. The Explanatory Notes can be found here. Links to debates and other official documents produced during its passage here. We do not yet have regulations, or the Code of Practice that will be required to before the Act can come into force, but they will be added here in due course. The Government has confirmed that it expects to lay the final draft of the Code before Parliament in Spring 2020, along with the regulations, ahead of an expected implementation date for the Act of 1 October 2020.
My overview paper with the background to and an outline of the LPS can be found here.
A good summary by Tim Spencer-Lane, who led the project at the Law Commission which led to the Bill (and to which I acted as consultant) and was then involved in the passage of the Bill itself, can be found here.
An admirably short and to the point summary by Hannah Nicholas at Hill Dickinson can be found here.
If you have a freely-available commentary that you think should be on here, please do email me, although I reserve editorial rights to determine whether to put it up. As LPS is now a-coming and debates about whether or not it is a ‘good thing’ are of interest but of only limited practical significance, I am primarily interested in commentary which:
(1) flags up particular issues that will have to be addressed in implementation;
(2) flags up things that can be done ahead of implementation.
Until the regulations and the Code of Practice are published, there is still substantial flesh to be put on the bones of the legislative scheme. I strongly suggest that you are cautious about checking whether commentaries and/or training relating to the Act make clear the extent to which they contain speculation and, where they do, the basis upon which that speculation is advanced.