Author: Wendy Bennett

A Chance to Reset Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards by Andrew Gambrill, Talking Life trainer

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. 

Lights, Camera, Courtroom? Why Court Skills Training Starts with Unpicking some Myths – by Andrei Szerard, Barrister and Talking Life Court Skills trainer

Well, we’ve all seen it. The grumpy Judge in a full‑bottomed wig. The smug witness calmly batting away the cross‑examination of the clever but seemingly outgunned barrister until – surprise! – the barrister approaches the witness box. “Can you confirm for the jury that this is your signature on the bottom of this document?” A moment passes. The barrister raises his voice. “Yes or no?” The witness looks to the Judge for help. The Judge peers down implacably through half‑rim glasses. The witness stammers “I…I…Er…”
“Objection my lord!”
“Overruled!”
“YES OR NO?”
“Alright! Yes! I signed it and I’d do it again!”
The public gallery erupts with outrage. The Judge bangs his gavel. “Case dismissed!” Constables come to arrest the witness.

Image of a bundle of materials for Talking Life's Court Skills Training

It’s scenes like this that make Court Skills Training so necessary, because almost every detail in these dramatic portrayals is gloriously, hopelessly wrong.

I confess that after a career at the bar, scenes like this are quite a difficult watch for me, as they say. I mean, it’s all wrong. Hideously, stupidly wrong. Judges never wear full‑bottomed wigs – even in the criminal courts. Barristers don’t wander up to the witness box (fyi – it’s not a witness stand). Nobody does the “Objection!” “Overruled!” routine and don’t get me started on Judges banging a gavel – they have never, ever been used in any court in the UK.

Literature is just as bad. There’s a book by a very famous author about family law which has a High Court Judge referring to a witness stand (as if) and a “prohibitive steps order” for pity’s sake. I gave up after 30 pages and have avoided the film, much as I admire Emma Thompson.

My irritation with these things has led to some disharmony at home. My wife has, effectively, banned me from watching legal dramas with her. I think she finally tipped over the edge at my reaction to a scene in Broadchurch where barristers attend the exhumation of the victim’s body. My harrumphing was enough to provoke the domestic red card.

Her view is that it’s just entertainment after all and that no‑one is ever going to confuse what they see on the screen with real life. And yet…

Court Skills in the Training Room; Myths and Fears

I’ve been conducting court skills courses for Talking Life for over 15 years now and have met hundreds of delegates on the way. One of my stock questions early on is to ask when you might see a Judge using a gavel.

Gavel not used in Courts in UK

“To keep order”, “When handing down a decision”, “At the end of the session” are the usual answers. Out of the hundreds of delegates, perhaps five have ever said “They don’t exist” – and that worries me. Most people seem to get their understanding of the court process almost entirely from fictional sources. The ease with which the mythical Judge’s gavel has implanted itself in our collective consciousness suggests that many other false ideas are lying there as well.

Prime amongst these is to be drawn from fictional representations of cross‑examination. In films, no witness gets out unscathed. They are reduced to tears, talked over, shouted at, insulted, humiliated. They are never allowed to provide complex or nuanced answers as barristers interrupt constantly and demand “yes or no?”. Careers are ruined, lives destroyed.

I think that this, to an extent, explains the fear that many professionals have at the prospect of giving evidence in court. Rationalise cliché‑driven films as much as you like but deep down there’s something digging away – “I know it’s just a story, but…”

I would imagine that, for many people, the example of cross‑examination that first comes to mind is that in the film A Few Good Men (mild spoilers ahead) where Tom Cruise’s idealistic naval officer lawyer takes on grizzled Colonel Jack Nicholson in relation to the death of a young recruit. It culminates in a shouting match between the two before the Nicholson character finally breaks – “You can’t handle the truth!” – before angrily confessing everything and perhaps inadvertently suggesting that psychological resilience in the US military is overstated.

Of course it’s unrealistic. It’s the antithesis of a good cross‑examination which should be focussed, measured and controlled – and usually is. As a lawyer, if you have a great question to ask of a witness, why do you need to shout it? The lawyer shouldn’t be the focus of the court’s attention; it should be the witness struggling to provide a cogent answer.

Nevertheless these images have been deeply embedded, and my role as a trainer is to try to unpick the myth from the reality. It can be difficult at times. I have heard many “friend of a friend” stories from delegates of vicious cross‑examination and witnesses being “ripped apart”. These stories, however, seem to evaporate upon the lightest enquiry and usually turn out to be grossly over‑dramatised versions of standard questioning. As an aside, I’m beginning to think that some people would like it all to be true. The drama! The terror! I’ll give it further thought.

Many of the anxieties professionals bring into court come straight from these fictional depictions, which is why effective Court Skills Training has to start by dismantling the myths before we can build real confidence.

To be clear, there are many things to worry about in a court appearance and that’s ultimately what I try to address when all the nonsense is stripped away. The reality is that the best ways to deal with a day in the witness box are all rather undramatic. They concern day‑to‑day good practice, an ability to produce fair, analytical assessments and cogent, readable reports. On the day itself it’s all about professionalism and focus – staying calm, considered and remembering that good witnesses are there to assist the court to make the best decision. The atmosphere in court will be quiet and forensic – “serious people talking about serious things, seriously” as a Judge once described it to me.

Court Skills Training with Talking Life

So, my advice to those that attend my course is to forget about the films. With the right preparation and a clear understanding of how real courts operate, Court Skills Training can show you that you absolutely can handle the truth – you just need to know what it is.

Oh, and if you want to watch courtroom dramas (and just to prove I’m not a joyless curmudgeon) do try Anatomy of a Murder and the eternally charming Rumpole of the Bailey.