As suspected, the Cheshire West ruling has been challenged and overturned. My only surprise is how long it has taken. My suspicions were aroused when, just before the Supreme Court hearing, the current Labour Government announced a 2026 consultation on implementing the Liberty Protection Safeguards. Maybe I was putting two and two together and making five, or perhaps I was just plain naive to think this signalled a clear route to implementation. Or was it simply a coincidence?
On balance, it was a poorly worded piece of legislation that caused a bureaucratic nightmare: a real blunt instrument when something more refined and precise was needed. This gives us an opportunity to reset and do things properly, while consulting the right people, including advocates, local authorities, social workers and, of course, those with lived experience and their supporters.
Perhaps the real challenge is the timeframe, and the vacuum created by the absence of clear guidance or replacement legislation for DoLS. We need to tread the line between moving quickly and doing things properly or at least have some clear temporary guidance.
Building on that point, this gives us the opportunity to add nuance, context and a multifactorial approach, so that we can distinguish necessary safety measures from genuine safeguarding situations.
This also appears to be the direction of the Supreme Court’s reasoning. As Mental Capacity Law and Policy summarised it, the starting point is now “the specific situation of the individual concerned”, with an assessment that is “multifactorial” and takes account of “a whole range of factors including the type, duration, effects and manner of implementation” of the arrangements.
It is important to acknowledge the administrative burden placed on already overstretched local authorities. I am sure all practitioners can recall having to submit an application where their own professional judgement told them the application was unwarranted or unnecessary.
Alex Ruck Keene captured this practical reality neatly on Community Care’s Learn on the go podcast: “if it felt like a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards application, it probably was.” For practitioners, that phrase describes the professional instinct many relied on under the old framework, even when the application itself felt disproportionate.
This is an opportunity to take the spirit of the Care Act, Human Rights Act and Mental Capacity Act, and of course Making Safeguarding Personal, and apply protection in a pragmatic and person-centred way.
However, the focus on the here and now is crucial. We need to move fast to create interim guidance for frontline practitioners. Leadership needs to step up with clarity and strength: to continue to protect those who need our support, but also to protect practitioners with sound guidance that is clearly worded and to the point. It is unrealistic to suggest this will be easy, or that it will not require frequent rethinking, reviews and strong communication when the inevitable bumps in the road occur. And when I talk about leadership, I also mean unified leadership throughout the land, rather than individual local authorities taking different approaches. I am sure this is going to require many difficult conversations, but a united front and consistency are perhaps what matter most here.
Without firm guidance, practitioners will quickly lose confidence, and we risk defensive practice becoming the default option rather than defensible decision-making. The impact will be universal across every team in adult social care, but we must be resolute: the old system may have been too broad, but the new one cannot simply be “less scrutiny” by default.
Community Care has described the ruling as having “radically changed the law on deprivation of liberty”, which is why the practical response cannot be left to individual interpretation alone. The legal position may have shifted immediately, but the practice response still needs structure, shared language and confidence.
Another important issue for me is ensuring that training is well thought out and wide-ranging. Where we start to rely more on professional judgement, that judgement needs to be supported through strong training programmes in which guidance is clear, but conversations are encouraged so that practitioners can bring context to the discussion.
At the forefront of training conversations should be professional curiosity, problem-solving, wishes and feelings, and, of course, proportionality. Proportionality was perhaps the main element missing from the previous ruling.
Social workers will, of course, be at the forefront, but this would initially need to be devised by directors and assistant directors, who can bring their processes and procedures to life by working directly with trainers to ensure the message is delivered clearly. Equally, directors may need to respond to queries raised.
This is not a niche legal issue, as it affects social workers, best interests assessors and approved mental capacity professional-related roles, care home managers, nurses and ward teams, commissioners, safeguarding professionals, legal teams and service managers.
If the law is moving from a rule-based test to a more evaluative one, the workforce needs the confidence and capability to apply that judgement safely and consistently.
The scale of the issue is significant. 39 Essex Chambers described the decision as one that will “redefine the domestic understanding of a deprivation of liberty” and affect approximately 400,000 people in England and Wales who are considered to be deprived of their liberty in health and social care settings.
Right now, what is needed is leadership from government, with clear interim guidance, a best-practice framework and learning hubs with practice examples. All of this needs to be developed with bodies such as Mencap, Mind and the National Autistic Society, alongside disabled people’s organisations, advocacy groups, carers’ organisations, local authorities, NHS partners, legal experts and frontline practitioners. It also needs funding for national, coordinated training and regular feedback sessions to learn from practitioners on the frontline operating in this new phase. While we are in this period and feeling a little adrift, our anchors are the Human Rights Act and the values that have guided our profession throughout. If a priority is needed, though, we must consider those who were going through the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards process and those who were transitioning from the Children Act to the Care Act. We cannot panic, but we must move at pace.
In conclusion, this is an opportunity to bring about workable, pragmatic and proportionate legislation that works for everyone involved, moving us towards a less bureaucratic and more values-based system where professional judgement is able to cut through. But right now, the immediate task is clear: we need leadership, interim guidance, a consistent national message and practical methods to deliver it, so that practitioners have the clarity and confidence to support and protect those who need it.
Andrew Gambrill is an independent practice educator with over 40 years of experience in social care. His professional background is in statutory social work with older people, but he has worked across all service groups throughout his career. He has been instrumental in the development of Newly Qualified Social Workers (NQSWs) and Practice Educators in training, serving as a Learning Development Officer for Social Care at a Local Authority. He has also been a Teaching Fellow at the University of Warwick. Andrew has written articles for Professional Social Work and has developed a number of theories in Practice Education. He is registered with Social Work England.
References
Department of Health and Social Care and Stephen Kinnock MP, “Improved safeguarding and protections for vulnerable people”, GOV.UK, 18 October 2025.
Stephen Kinnock MP, letter to Layla Moran MP, Chair of the Health and Social Care Select Committee, “Announcement of Consultation on Liberty Protection Safeguards”, 18 October 2025.
Community Care, “Alex Ruck Keene on the Supreme Court’s AGNI ruling and what it means for you”, 10 June 2026.
Learn on the go: the Community Care podcast, “Alex Ruck Keene talks Cheshire West, the Supreme Court ruling and what it means for you”, Omny.fm, published 9 June 2026.
Mental Capacity Law and Policy, “Supreme Court overrules Cheshire West”, 2 June 2026, updated 7 June 2026.
