Held, declaration under the inherent jurisdiction not made. (1) The following principles, distilled from the established authorities, were applicable to an assessment as to whether medical treatment provided to someone in lawful detention amounted to a further deprivation of their liberty: (a) the starting point was that it would only be in exceptional cases where something that happened to a person who had already been lawfully deprived of their liberty would amount to a further deprivation of that person’s residual liberty; (b) article 5 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms arose for consideration only in an exceptional case because the usual position was that article 5(1)(e) was not in principle concerned with suitable treatment or conditions; and (c) the acid test for the engagement of article 5 in any case involving an alleged deprivation of residual liberty was whether there was an unacceptable element of arbitrariness in the actions taken by a state body which were said to deprive a person of their residual liberty. Therefore, save in exceptional circumstances, any proper and lawful exercise of clinical judgment by clinicians in administering medical treatment to a detained person did not amount to a deprivation of that person’s residual liberty where there was no element of arbitrariness in the actions of the clinical staff. Where restraint was imposed to enable the administration of treatment for a physical health condition to a person who lacked capacity to consent under the Mental Capacity Act 2005, the lawfulness of that restraint was set out in section 6 of the 2005 Act and, where those condition were satisfied, there was no independent breach of a person’s rights under article 5 of the Convention. Here, where the trust was discharging its duty to provide the vulnerable adult with appropriate medical treatment to meet her physical and psychological needs in a non-arbitrary manner, the acts taken by the clinical staff did not amount to the type of exceptional circumstances which could lead to a further deprivation of the vulnerable adult’s residual liberty. Accordingly, where the 2005 Act provided a sufficient framework for governing the lawfulness of the trusts actions, there was no need for a declaration under the inherent jurisdiction (paras 32, 33, 38).

(2) Although the vulnerable adult’s rights under article 8 of the Convention were engaged by decisions made by the trust, both to restrain and administer treatment to her, the decision-making process mandated by sections 4 and 6 of the 2005 Act satisfied the requirements of fairness and properly respected her article 8 rights. Where the further procedural requirements introduced by the Mental Health Units (Use of Force) Act 2018 were, on the evidence, also being diligently followed there was no need to supplement the existing legal obligations imposed on the trust with a separate court order ensuring compliance with the vulnerable adult’s article 8 rights, as had been imposed in older authorities (paras 34–37).