This Practice Note covers two forms of court procedure that arise in deprivation of liberty cases: • applications that arise where the lawfulness of the detention of someone under the deprivation of liberty authorisation procedure may be brought into question • applications that may be made by a public authority for authorisation of the deprivation of a person's liberty outside the scope of the regime contained in Schedule A1 to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA 2005) Both sets of procedure fall outside the scope of allocation to case pathways as both have their own set of specific procedural requirements. Note: the procedure for seeking judicial authorisation of deprivation of liberty is under review by the Court of Protection in light of the decision of the Supreme Court in A Reference by the Attorney General for Northern Ireland of a devolution issue under paragraph 34 of Schedule 10 to the Northern Ireland Act 1998. Applications questioning the lawfulness of detention under MCA 2005, Sch A1 Where a standard

Local Government analysis: The High Court considered the continuing deprivation of liberty of AD, an almost 16-year-old child at serious risk of self-harm, who remained confined in hospital despite requiring no physical treatment and repeatedly being assessed as not meeting the criteria for detention under the Mental Health Act 1983 (MeHA 1983). The court held that his deprivation of liberty was justified under Article 5(1)(e) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), but required effective scrutiny of its purpose and the absence of an identified therapeutic pathway. It therefore joined the responsible NHS Trust as a party. The decision highlights both the limits of the inherent jurisdiction and the need for mental health services to engage directly where deprivation of liberty is authorised without a clear, deliverable treatment plan. Analysis produced in partnership with Hannah Markham KC, of 36 Family.

An individual appointed by the Court of Protection to make decisions on behalf of a protected person in respect of either their property and financial affairs or health and welfare. The duties of deputies are set out in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA 2005) and its accompanying practice'>Code of Practice.

1 Introduction This job description and role profile relates to the combined position of Deputy Money Laundering Compliance Officer (MLCO) and Deputy nominated officer (nominated officer). References to the MLR 2017 are to the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017, SI 2017/692, as amended. 2 MLCO/nominated officer role holder details Name of firm [Insert firm name] Name of Deputy MLCO/nominated officer [Insert name] Reports to MLCO/nominated officer [Insert name of MLCO/nominated officer ] Full time/part time ☐ Full time☐ Part time Details of any other roles held within the firm [Insert details] Date appointed by the firm [Insert date] 3 Role summary 3.1 Act as deputy to the firm’s MLCO/nominated officer. 3.2 In the absence of the firm’s MLCO/nominated officer[ and in consultation with [state who, eg the COLP or senior partner]]: 3.2.1 be the main point of contact with the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) on any matter relating to anti-money laundering (AML), counter-terrorist financing (CTF) and counter-proliferation financing; 3.2.2 receive and review internal suspicious activity reports (SARs) and determine whether they give rise to knowledge or suspicion (or reasonable grounds for knowledge

Dispute Resolution analysis: This was a second appeal to the Court of Appeal on the ground that the Deputy Master at trial made a genuine mistake in restricting the appellants, who were litigants in person, from cross-examining the respondent on certain key matters when, in fact, the questions had been asked during examination-in-chief. The court held that the error in preventing cross-examination caused serious prejudice to the appellants and allowed the appeal. The Court of Appeal provided useful guidance in the approach to be taken by Judges dealing with trials involving litigants-in-person at the evidential stage. Written by Natalie Wood, barrister at 2 King’s Bench Walk Chambers.

The Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Justice, David Lammy, has declared the 2 October 2025 incident at Heaton Park Hebrew Congregation Synagogue in Crumpsall a major incident under section 34(2) of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 (VPA 2024). Following this declaration, the Independent Public Advocate (IPA) has been stood up to ensure that victims, as well as their close friends and family members, understand their rights and can access emotional and practical support. The IPA will also assist victims in navigating potential future investigations, such as statutory inquiries under the Inquiries Act 2005 (IA 2005) and inquests under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 (CJA 2009).

The Ministry of Housing and Communities and Local Government has published a letter from the Deputy Prime Minister, Angela Rayner, to local leaders on next steps to devolution, to authorities without a devolution deal, to start proposals for extension of powers. This comes as part of the government's plan to widen and deepen devolution to drive regional growth.

1 Details of Deputy money laundering compliance officer (deputy MLCO) Name of firm [Insert name] Name of Deputy MLCO [Insert name] Reports to money laundering compliance officer (MLCO) [Insert name of MLCO ] Full time/part time ☐ Full time☐ Part time Details of any other roles held within the firm [Insert details] Date appointed by the firm [Insert date] 2 Role summary 2.1 Act as the deputy to the firm’s MLCO. 2.2 In the absence of the firm’s MLCO[ and in consultation with [state who, eg the nominated officer, COLP or senior partner]]: 2.2.1 be the main point of contact with the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) on any matter relating to anti-money laundering (AML), counter-terrorist financing (CTF) and counter-proliferation financing; 2.2.2 take a leading role on AML, CTF and counter-proliferation financing issues within the senior management

For all those appointed by the Court of Protection to act as a deputy for property and financial affairs or health and welfare, either as a lay deputy or a professional deputy, there is a requirement to complete an annual return to the Office of the Public Guardian (OPG). The OPG has paid significant attention to the manner of reporting by deputies and the requirements on them to account for all transactions. Of particular interest to professional deputies is the increasingly close relationship and information sharing between the OPG and the Senior Courts Costs Office (SCCO), which is the body responsible for assessing how much a professional deputy can charge. In this Practice Note, references are made to 'P', 'the protected person' and 'the client' depending on the language used in the relevant legislation or guidance. In each case, this refers to the person for whom the deputy has been appointed. The requirements on deputies to keep accounts Section 57 of the Mental Capacity Act

Duties The duties of court-appointed deputies are set out in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA 2005) and the Mental Capacity Act 2005 Code of Practice (MCA 2005 Code of Practice). In addition, the Office of the Public Guardian (OPG)’s deputy standards set out what is expected of lay, Public Authority and professional court appointed deputies. Further duties are set out in the deputy’s declaration in Form COP4 and general duties under the law of agency also apply. The deputyship order A deputy has a duty to act only within the specific scope of the powers granted by the court, as set out in the order of appointment. In situations where the deputy considers that the powers set out in the order of appointment are insufficient to discharge their duties effectively, they must make an application to the court (using Form COP1 and witness statement on Form COP24) to either: • ask the court to make the decision in question, or • ask the court to vary the powers set out in the order of appointment For

Local Government analysis: The Deregulation Act 2015 (DA 2015) has ushered in a myriad of changes, but what do local authorities need to be most aware of? Richard Auton, director at Walker Morris LLP, outlines the key changes and the likely impact for local authorities.

Parts of a wrecked ship that have been washed ashore.