Search results

The Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) are due to be implemented imminently. This legislation serves as an extension of the Mental Capacity Act designed to close the ‘Bournewood Gap’ and is of particular relevance to learning disability services. This article discusses the DoLS from a legal, philosophical and ethical perspective.

The study explains why Parliamentarians in the United Kingdom (UK) focused on accountability through data during the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as on how data could be used to improve the government’s response to the pandemic.

Understanding the implications of accountability for COVID-19 is crucial to understanding how governments should respond to future pandemics. This article provides an account of what a select committee in the UK thought were the essential elements of these accountability relationships. To do so, the authors use a neo-Roman concept of liberty to show how Parliamentary oversight of the pandemic for accountability was crucial to maintaining the liberty of citizens during the crisis and to identify what lessons need to be learnt for future crises.

The study shows that Parliamentarians were concerned that the UK government was not meeting its obligations to report openly about the COVID-19 pandemic to them. It shows that the government did make progress in reporting during the pandemic but further advancements need to be made in future for restrictions to be compatible with the protection of liberty.

The study extends the concept of neo-Roman liberty showing how it is relevant in an emergency situation and provides an account of why accountability is necessary for the preservation of liberty when the government uses emergency powers.

Governments and Parliaments need to think about how they preserve liberty during crises through enhanced accountability mechanisms and the publication of data.

The study extends previous work on liberty and calculation, providing a theorisation of the role of numbers in the protection of liberty.

The study focusses on explaining why advocates for reform to state audit in the United Kingdom (UK) in the early 1980s, focussed on improving the links between the new National Audit Office (NAO) and Parliament, rather than on traditional notions of audit independence. The study shows how this focus on the auditor's link to Parliament depends on a particular concept of liberty and relates this to the wider literature on the place of audit in democratic society.

Understanding the issue of independence of audit in protecting the liberties and rights of citizens needs addressed. In this article, the authors investigate the creation of audit independence in the UK in the National Audit Act (1983). To do so, the authors employ a neo-Roman concept of liberty to historical archives ranging from the late 1960s to 1983.

The study shows that advocates for audit reform in the UK from the 1960s to the 1980s were arguing for an extension to Parliament's power to hold the executive to account and that their focus was influential on the way that the new NAO was established. Using a neo-Roman concept of liberty, the authors show that they believed Parliamentary surveillance of the executive was necessary to secure liberty within the UK.

The neo-Roman republican concept of liberty extends previous studies in considering the importance of audit for public accountability, the preservation of liberty and democracy.

Public sector audit can be a fundamentally democratic activity. Auditors should be alert to the constitutional importance of their work and see parliamentary accountability as a key objective.

The neo-Roman concept of liberty extends previous studies in considering the importance of audit for public accountability, preservation of liberty and democracy.

The paper aims to examine and compare two understandings of liberty that have dealt successfully with the normative and analytical challenge of reconciling liberty with social justice: Philip Pettit's republican liberty as nondomination and Hobhouse's concept of liberty as personal growth available to all. The paper focuses on one particular question: how successful each of these thinkers has been in resolving the tension between voluntariness of action, implicit in the “primary” meaning of liberty (as defined by T.H. Green), with the often heavy demands of social justice policies aiming at social equality and entailing economic redistribution.

The paper analyses two theories of liberty by spelling out the difficulties they aimed to deal with and by assessing the level of success they have achieved in resolving these difficulties, with the objective to demonstrate their originality in the broader context of conceptualising liberty.

The paper criticises Pettit's republican theory from a new perspective and develops an original critique of it; it spells out the achievements of Hobhouse's understanding of liberty in a new light – related to the specific critique of Pettit's republican liberty; and by spelling out the analytical and normative achievements of Hobhouse's liberty as “personal growth available to all” it offers a viable concept of liberty that fits with contemporary conceptualisations but overcomes their shortcomings.

As the project is based on analysing texts that have been easy to access, there have not been significant research limitations.

The two theories of freedom assessed here (the contemporary republican and the “new liberal”) entail some subtle, but potentially significant differences in public policy implications. While both can justify extended state action, the latter could tailor specific policies in a manner more mindful of the well-being of all parties, even those on the wrong side of social justice.

The paper makes an original contribution in three areas: contemporary republican theory of liberty, Hobhouse's theory of liberty and conceptualisations of liberty in general.

The object of this research is the reconstruction of the existing legal response by European Union states to the phenomenon of immigration. It seeks to analyse the process of conferral of protection.

One main dimension is selected and discussed: the case law of the national courts. The study focuses on the legal status of immigrants resulting from the intervention of these national courts.

The research shows that although the courts have conferred an increasing protection on immigrants, this has not challenged the fundamental principle of the sovereignty of the states to decide, according to their discretionary prerogatives, which immigrants are allowed to enter and stay in their territories. Notwithstanding the differences in the general constitutional and legal structures, the research also shows that the courts of the three countries considered – France, Germany and Spain – have progressively moved towards converging solutions in protecting immigrants.

The research contributes to a better understanding of the different legal orders analysed.

The purpose of this paper is to specifically analyse whether parents should have the legal authority to authorise a deprivation of liberty for children with a learning disability. As a result of parental consent being recognised as holding legal authority, these children have their right to liberty under Article 5 engaged. It will be argued that the courts’ failure to support this view stems from the confusing concept of the “zone of parental control”.

A doctrinal methodology is used, examining domestic law and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), with analysis of relevant literature.

Decisions regarding deprivation of liberty in children under the age of 16 should undoubtedly include parental consent. The concern expressed here is the sovereignty of parental consent over all else. The law is confusing. In one respect rights under the ECHR are universal. However, both UK and European courts have accepted the premise that it is entirely within the zone of parental control to effectively deprive a child of liberty without procedural or judicial review. Furthermore, there are wider potential issues for children being considered to be deprived of liberty following Cheshire West.

The paper is a discussion piece that is critical of the existing law and uses the literature and original opinions to recommend an alternative approach.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the level of influence that civil liberties has on the marginal effect of remittances on gross domestic investment and consumption separately and measures it across all levels of civil liberties.

The authors employ a two‐stage system generalized method of moments procedure and the civil liberties subset of the Freedom in the World Index as a proxy for civil liberty.

The findings indicate a substitution effect from investment to consumption as civil liberties deteriorate for developing south economies, though not for emerging economies. In addition, the marginal effect of remittances on investment diminishes less quickly as economies become less free than it increases for consumption indicating that the substitution is not quite one‐for‐one.

Economies with low levels of civil liberties could benefit by improving them in ways that would encourage recipients to channel remittances into investment rather than consumption.

This paper differs from previous research in that the authors evaluate investment and consumption separately rather than embedding these component parts within growth. In addition, when interactions are employed in existing literature, the inference drawn is static with regard to the varying degrees of institutional development. Third, none of the prior studies directly explores civil liberties proper; they usually aggregate civil liberties with other aspects of political or economic freedom.

This paper's aim is to consider three ways in which, recently, the English courts have sought to define deprivation of liberty (and, maybe, limit the effect of safeguards against it).

Two significant decisions of the Court of Appeal were considered, together with one each of the House of Lords and the European Court of Human Rights. Consideration was also given to the context of those decisions, as disclosed in official policy documents and at least one piece of academic research.

The decisions in question have limited the circumstances that will amount to deprivation of liberty and thereby reduced the scope of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The English courts' understanding of false imprisonment is diverging from their understanding of deprivation of liberty. The English courts differ from the European Court of Human Rights in their understanding of the relevance of “purpose” to the question of deprivation of liberty. If the former are correct, the DoLS – and maybe even the Mental Health Act – are redundant.

This is the first time these cases, and this subject, have been analysed in this way; and that these findings have been published together.

The purpose of this paper is to review a case of a man with a mild learning disability and autistic spectrum disorder who successfully appealed against a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards authorisation under English law.

The authors wanted to identify the factors contributing to the individual’s deprivation of liberty and subsequent successful appeal. The authors examined the accounts from the experts involved on each side of the case including different views on the person’s capacity to make certain decisions. The authors examined several of the individual’s psychological and psychiatric assessments. The authors interviewed the individual on two occasions: once during the appeals process, and following his successful appeal.

The authors identified several reasons as to why the individual was successful in appealing against the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. First, the individual was able to seek legal support to appeal independently. Second, experts involved on each side of the case had differing opinions regarding capacity to make certain decisions. Third, the indication for the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards was subsequently declared not valid. Finally, the authors found that the quality of life and psychological well-being for the individual improved following removal of restrictions.

The authors highlight the wider issues relating to an individuals’ rights to challenge authorisations in the Court of Protection as well as to future considerations and directions of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards legislation in light of evolving case law.

The authors highlight the importance of empowering patients in matters relating to their care and treatment, as well as protecting their human rights, dignity and autonomy.

The authors examine the barriers to challenging Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards authorisation and the ever-evolving Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards process.

This study presents an example of sustainable cultural heritage tourism. The heritage tourism at the site of the ship USAT Liberty in the small fishing village of Tulamben on the northeast coast of Bali Island plays a significant role in the lives of the local people who live nearby, who actively participate in the site's management.

This study assessed the management of the site by the local community by means of formal interviews with major stakeholders, informal conversations, and observations in the field.

Although it lacks any direct historical connection with the local community, the reuse of the shipwreck as a tourist asset has motivated the community to participate in the conservation of the site and sustain its values. This article argues that the case of the USAT Liberty demonstrates that the management of heritage sites can be effectively sustained using bottom-up approaches.

The USAT Liberty case study provides insights and practical recommendations that could be valuable for other cultural heritage sites in implementing management with a bottom-up approach. This paper enriches the knowledge of community-based management and promotes it as a pathway to sustainable cultural heritage tourism.