Deprivation of Liberty Has Changed. What Does This Mean for Safeguarding Professionals?
A significant legal change has taken effect across the UK following a recent Supreme Court judgment that redefines what constitutes a deprivation of liberty for people who lack the mental capacity to make decisions about their care and residence. The Department of Health and Social Care has now published guidance outlining the implications for health and social care providers, commissioners and safeguarding professionals.
For many organisations, this will require more than simply updating a policy. It requires us to revisit one of safeguarding's most fundamental questions:
How do we protect a person's rights whilst ensuring they receive the care and support they need?
What has changed?
The Supreme Court's judgment, published on 2 June 2026, overturns the long-standing approach established by the 2014 Cheshire West case, including the well-known "acid test" that many professionals have relied upon for over a decade. Instead, the Court has confirmed that determining whether someone is deprived of their liberty should involve a broader, more holistic assessment of the person's individual circumstances, rather than applying a single test.
The changes apply immediately across the UK.
In practical terms, this is expected to:
reduce the number of situations requiring formal deprivation of liberty authorisations over time
require organisations to review how they assess restrictions placed on individuals
place greater emphasis on professional judgement and the individual circumstances of each case
require policies, procedures, guidance and staff training to be reviewed and updated.
The Department of Health and Social Care is encouraging providers to share the judgment widely, upskill their workforce and review operational documents so they reflect the new legal framework.
Why this matters for safeguarding
Whenever legislation or case law changes, there can be a temptation to focus solely on compliance.
Have we updated the forms?
Have we amended the policy?
Have staff been informed?
These are all important questions but safeguarding has always been about much more than process.
Deprivation of liberty sits at the intersection of human rights, autonomy, proportionality and protection. The law exists because people who lack capacity are among the most vulnerable members of our communities, and history has repeatedly shown the devastating consequences when care is delivered without sufficient oversight.
While the new judgment may reduce unnecessary bureaucracy for some individuals, it also places greater responsibility on professionals to exercise sound judgement, record decision-making clearly and continually ask:
Is this the least restrictive option available?
Have the person's wishes, feelings and lived experience been properly considered?
Are restrictions genuinely necessary and proportionate?
Could the current arrangements unintentionally limit someone's rights more than is required?
These are safeguarding questions as much as they are legal ones.
What should organisations be doing now?
This judgment should prompt organisations to review not only their documentation but also their safeguarding culture.
Consider whether your organisation has:
reviewed policies and procedures relating to the Mental Capacity Act and deprivation of liberty
updated operational guidance and public-facing information
identified staff who require refresher training
strengthened governance and quality assurance arrangements
ensured leaders understand the implications of the new legal framework.
Safeguarding is about balancing protection and rights
One of the greatest challenges in safeguarding is recognising that keeping someone safe should never automatically mean removing their freedom. Every restriction placed upon a person should be lawful, necessary, proportionate and regularly reviewed.
This latest judgment reminds us that safeguarding is not about applying checklists or legal tests in isolation. It is about understanding the person behind the paperwork, respecting their rights, and making thoughtful, evidence-based decisions that balance protection with independence.
At RLB, we support organisations to navigate complex legal and safeguarding developments through consultancy, audits and specialist training. Changes like these demonstrate why safeguarding cannot stand still. Policies, professional knowledge and organisational culture must evolve alongside the law to ensure we continue protecting people's rights as well as their safety.
Because outstanding safeguarding isn't just about compliance. It's about ensuring every decision we make preserves the dignity, voice and human rights of the people we exist to protect.
Guidance- UK Supreme Court 2026 judgment on what constitutes a deprivation of liberty