The Supreme Court has dismantled a decade-old system of human rights protections for disabled people, in a ruling that disability charities have described as the biggest rollback of disability rights in a generation. In a unanimous decision handed down on June 2, 2026, the court overturned the landmark 2014 “Cheshire West” judgment, which had established a straightforward “acid test” for determining when a person was being deprived of their liberty. That test held that anyone under continuous supervision and control and not free to leave their home or care setting was entitled to legal safeguards, regardless of whether they appeared compliant or their care seemed normal.
The new ruling replaces that binary test with a multifactorial assessment that gives weight to the individual’s own wishes and feelings, their compliance with care, the nature of their setting, and the “type, duration, effects and manner of implementation” of any restrictive measures. Crucially, the court indicated that a person’s subjective consent, expressed through their wishes and feelings, can be taken into account even if they lack formal legal capacity. The judgment takes immediate effect, meaning care providers and local authorities must adjust their practices without waiting for formal guidance. The Care Quality Commission has already urged providers to review their practices without delay and to seek legal advice where necessary.
What are deprivation of liberty safeguards?
The protections at the heart of this case are known as deprivation of liberty safeguards, or Dols. Introduced as an amendment to the Mental Capacity Act 2005, they apply in England and Wales to any person who is under continuous supervision and control and not free to leave the place they live. Such individuals are entitled to annual assessments, independent advocacy, and legal aid. The system was designed to prevent overburdened social care departments from disregarding the human rights of those in their care. Although the safeguards are most commonly associated with older people with dementia, they also cover children and younger adults with autism, learning disabilities, and brain injuries.
The Dols system has long been overwhelmed. Before the Cheshire West ruling widened eligibility, England saw around 20,000 applications a year. In the year to April 2025, that figure had reached 364,900 – a 9.8% increase on the previous year. Of those, only 353,935 were completed, leaving 118,150 unfinished by the end of the period. The backlog stood at 123,790 uncompleted cases as of March 31, 2024. Completion times have also ballooned: just 21.1% of standard applications were finished within the statutory 21-day window in 2024-2025, with the average time for all completed applications hitting 144 days. A streamlined replacement, the Liberty Protection Safeguards, was legislated for in the Mental Capacity (Amendment) Act 2019 but has never been enacted, and the new government is not expected to announce proposals soon.
Fears for vulnerable individuals
Charities including Mencap, Mind, the National Autistic Society, and Sense have reacted with alarm, warning that the ruling strips fundamental human rights protections from potentially hundreds of thousands of disabled people. They describe the decision as a “major blow” that risks reversing decades of progress. Critics argue that the reduced oversight and the potential for fewer independent checks could make it easier for abuse and neglect to go unnoticed in care settings, particularly in closed institutions where abuse has previously occurred. The removal of automatic access to advocacy and legal aid is a further grave concern.
Some advocates have also pointed to a deeper philosophical worry: that the ruling implies individuals with profound cognitive disabilities cannot be “deprived” of liberty because their condition limits their ability to experience it, thereby devaluing their fundamental rights. In the original Cheshire West judgment, Baroness Brenda Hale wrote that the “extreme vulnerability” of those involved required erring on the side of caution.
There is a sharp divergence of views between service users and rights groups on one side and local authorities on the other. Councils, which are responsible for Dols authorisations, have long been frustrated by what they see as a poor use of scarce resources, pointing to inappropriate inspections of family homes as an example. Some optimistic social care bosses hope that more selectively applied safeguards could lead to better outcomes, and certain legal experts agree that the previous position was untenable, noting that other countries operate effective protections outside the “deprivation of liberty” framework.
Nevertheless, the risks are clear. The safeguards were originally established precisely to mitigate the danger that human rights would be given insufficient weight by overburdened social care departments. If the ruling leads to reduced consideration of how people in care homes feel about their lives, or weaker oversight of closed settings, harm is the probable result.
The case itself also raises questions about process. It was brought by the Attorney General for Northern Ireland, who sought to allow individuals aged 16 and over who lack decision-making capacity to consent to restrictive care through the expression of their wishes and feelings. Ministers from the Scottish, Welsh, and UK governments were all involved. A change of this magnitude has therefore taken place without either a parliamentary debate or a case working its way up through the lower courts – at a time when Baroness Louise Casey is already reviewing the wider adult social care system in England, with her first-phase findings expected by mid-2026. The Department of Health and Social Care, which supported Northern Ireland’s initiative, must now urgently explain why it acted as it did, how the new Dols system will operate, and what safeguards will be put in place for those who have lost an entitlement.