Manchester City Council v CP & Ors [2023] EWHC 133 (Fam)
Restricting a patient’s use of their mobile phone during their admission to a mental health ward is a thorny issue. This is especially given that 88% of adults in the UK now own a smartphone, and spend an average 4 hours per day on their device. There is often uncertainty as to whether clinicians are permitted to restrict a patient’s access to their phone, and if so, on what legal basis.
A recent High Court case considered restrictions that were placed upon a young person’s use of their mobile phone, tablet and laptop. The court provided some useful guidance in this area, which is of relevance to mental health trusts grappling with the same issue.
What are the facts of the case?
The case concerned a 16 year old girl, P, with a diagnosis of ADHD. She had complex emotional difficulties and was functioning at the level of a 7 year old. Due to abusive and violent incidents involving both her parents, she was the subject of a full care order and Manchester City Council therefore had parental responsibility for her. She lived in a residential placement.
P had a history of serious self-harming behaviours and, when in a heightened state, had made threats to end her life. She had also threatened violence towards others, including her family, peers and supervising staff. These difficulties could be exacerbated by P’s use of her mobile phone, tablet and laptop and by access to social media.
Multiple restrictions were placed upon P at the residential placement, including 3:1 supervision, physical restraint to protect P from harming herself, regular supervision and observation, the removal of items that P may use to harm herself and restriction on P’s access to the kitchen. These restrictions amounted to a deprivation of liberty (DoL) and were authorised by the court at an earlier hearing. However, the local authority also proposed significant restrictions on P’s use of her mobile phone, laptop and tablet, and access to social media, including:
- Supervised calls to friends, which would be recorded, logged and shared with her social worker.
- Turning off the wi-fi to restrict P’s access to social media, when there were worries about her behaviour.
- Taking P’s phone away if her behaviours were escalating.
- Not allowing P to take her phone into the bathroom.
- Checking P’s mobile and other devices and reporting issues of concern to her social worker.
The local authority maintained that these restrictions also amounted to a DoL, and as such asked the court to authorise them under a DoL order.
What did the court decide?
The court reiterated that Article 5(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) protects our right to liberty. The acid test for a DoL is as follows:
- the person is unable to consent to the DoL,
- the person is subject to continuous supervision and control, and
- the person is not free to leave.
The court said that whilst the removal of, and the restrictions on the use of, P’s mobile phone, tablet, laptop and social media might form part of a regime of continuous supervision and control, the measures did not act to restrict P’s physical liberty. The restrictions were aimed at preventing P broadcasting online indiscriminately, preventing contact from those giving her harmful advice, preventing her sharing details online with those who may pose a risk to her and restricting contact with those who had allegedly abused her. The judge recognised that a young person may well equate the possession and use of a mobile phone, tablet and laptop, and access to social media, as “liberty” or being free, however Article 5(1) of the ECHR is concerned with liberty in its classic sense – the physical liberty of the person. Accordingly, the court found that it would be wrong to authorise the restrictions under a DoLS order, because those restrictions were not depriving her of her physical liberty.
So how can restrictions on a mobile phone or other device be authorised?
The court said that the restrictions on P’s use of her mobile phone, tablet and laptop, and limitations on her access to social media, should be characterised as an interference with her rights under Article 8 ECHR – namely her right to respect for private and family life. Before a court could endorse such interference, it would have to be satisfied that that interference was necessary and proportionate, pursuant to Article 8(2).
In this particular case, there was in fact no need for the court to authorise the restrictions. This was because P largely co-operated with requests to surrender her phone and other devices when asked. She also had a degree of understanding as to why these steps were necessary. Accordingly, as the local authority had parental responsibility for P and did not need to use force or restraint to remove her phone and other devices from her, it could exercise its shared parental responsibility (under s.33(3)(b) of the Children Act 1989) to confiscate and restrict P’s use of her mobile phone or other device. Although such steps constituted an interference in P’s Article 8(1) rights, they were being taken on the basis of evidence and in order to avoid harm caused by the unrestricted use of the devices, and so they were necessary and proportionate for the purposes of Article 8(2).
What principles can health and social care providers take from this case?
- Restrictions around a person’s access to their mobile phone or other device are not usually specifically directed at restricting P’s physical liberty. As such, they are not usually restrictions that can be authorised under a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) authorisation.
- Removing or restricting an individual’s use of their mobile phone is an interference with that person’s human rights under Article 8 ECHR (right to respect for private and family life). Any interference with that right would therefore need to be necessary and proportionate – either to safeguard and promote the person’s welfare or to protect the health and safety of others and decided under a procedure prescribed by law. A range of factors may need to be considered such as;
- whether the person consents to the restriction,
- whether they lack capacity to do so but such restrictions are in their best interests and there are no objections to the same,
- whether the person is detained under the Mental Health Act and if so, the interplay between their mobile/device access and their mental health or associated risks,
- where the person is under 18, who has parental responsibility and what their views are,
- the extent, likely duration and impact of the restrictions on the person’s life,
- where the restrictions are significant and likely to be ongoing for some time, where there is an objection or for example where related physical restraint is required, whether court approval is likely to be required.
- The Mental Health Act (MHA) Code of Practice provides some helpful guidance on this issue where the person is in receipt of in patient mental health care. Chapter 8 of the Code highlights the fact that patients should have every opportunity to maintain contact with family and friends by telephone, mobile, e-mail or social media. Hospital staff should make conscious efforts to respect the privacy and dignity of patients as far as possible, which includes communicating with people of their choosing in private. It goes on to state that when patients are admitted, staff should assess the risk and appropriateness of them having access to their mobile phone and other electronic devices and this should be detailed in the patient’s care plan. Patients should be able to use mobile phones and other electronic devices if deemed appropriate and safe for them to do so and access should only be limited or restricted in certain risk-assessed situations.
- The MHA Code stipulates that mental health hospitals should have policies on the possession and use of mobile phones and other devices, and on the use of social media, which should not seek to impose blanket restrictions on patients.
In summary, these cases are often complex, nuanced and multifactorial. The approach taken will often depend partly on which legal framework the care provider seeks to rely on (for example consent, the Mental Capacity Act, the Mental Health Act or the Children Act). What we know from this case is that authorisation of such restrictions cannot be simply ‘tagged onto’ a standard DoLS authorisation; such issues require separate assessment, consideration and in some cases court approval.
Browne Jacobson has extensive experience in advising on mental health issues such as this. Please do get in touch for further advice or guidance.
You may be interested in...
Legal Update
The new Mental Health Bill 2025: A closer look at its key provisions
Opinion - Shared Insights
Browne Jacobson submits recommendations and proposals to the government for England’s 10 Year Health Plan
Opinion
New Mental Health Bill to be introduced in Parliament
Guide
Guide to inquests for mental health patients
Legal Update
Working together to support student wellbeing
Legal Update - Maternity services
DISCERN study published: How to improve discussions with families when things go wrong in maternity care
Opinion
Lord Darzi’s report on the NHS in England and the future of mental health care
Online Event - Shared Insights
Shared Insights: Complex medical treatment decisions for patients with mental disorder
Legal Update
Relying on parental consent for treatment and restraint against a child's wishes
Opinion
Court of Appeal finds there is no requirement for “belief” in the Mental Capacity Act functional test
Legal Update
UK government announces new Mental Health Bill to modernise the Mental Health Act 1983
Legal Update
Labour’s mental health care plans: What to expect under the new government
Press Release
General election reaction from Browne Jacobson’s health and life sciences team
Legal Update
Mr M Temperton v Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust
Legal Update
Government response to the recommendations regarding the draft Mental Health Bill
Legal Update
Mental health law round up – February 2024
Published Article
Legal frameworks for mental health
On-Demand - Shared Insights
The challenges caused by disordered eating in education, health and social care settings
Legal Update
Section 117 after-care services: Who should pay?
Legal Update
Inquests and Article 2 of the ECHR: A practical guide following the case of Maguire
Legal Update
Student suicide and universities’ duty of care
Legal Update
Navigating the complexities of detention: insights from a recent Mental Health Act / Mental Capacity Act interface case
Legal Update
Liberty Protection Safeguards (LPS) update – June 2023
Legal Update
Restricting a patient’s use of their mobile phone – is it lawful?
Legal Update
LPS consultation and ‘go live’ planning
On-Demand - Shared Insights
Shared Insights: Prolonged disorders of consciousness
Legal Update
Liberty Protection Safeguards: points to note as consultation period continues
Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards was due to transition to Liberty Protection Safeguards in October 2020 but delayed due to the pandemic. While the public consultation has now closed and we’re still unclear of what the final legislation and code will look like, it’s worth noting and keeping a watching brief.
On-Demand
LPS - it's out - what do you need to know? Part 3: the practicalities of implementation
This on-demand session deals with what we now know so far about the finer detail of the LPS proposals, particularly focussing on the practicalities of implementing the LPS system.Legal Update
The Liberty Protection Safeguards – how can we help?
The Liberty Protection Safeguards (LPS) were introduced in the Mental Capacity (Amendment) Act 2019 and will replace the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) system. The LPS framework aims to deliver improved outcomes for people who are or who need to be deprived of their liberty.
On-Demand
LPS - it's out - what do you need to know? Part 2: the most significant changes
This on-demand session considers some of the most significant changes to the Code.Legal Update
Liberty Protection Safeguards – It’s out: MCA LPS Consultation
Following on from the first webinar in the Liberty Protection Safeguards (“LPS”) series delivered by Mark Barnett and Chris Stark, the key points below from the webinar are summarised below.
On-Demand
LPS - it's out - what do you need to know?' Part 1: Regulations and Code of Practice
This on-demand session deals with what we now know so far about the finer detail of the LPS proposals, particularly focussing on the practicalities of implementing the LPS system.Opinion
LPS - it’s out
The long-awaited draft Mental Capacity Act Code of Practice, including the Liberty Protection Safeguards (“LPS”), has landed.
Legal Update
Is a review of Article 2 application in inquests on the horizon?
The Supreme Court has granted permission to appeal the decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of Jacqueline Maguire v HM Senior Coroner for Blackpool and Fylde in which the Coroner ruled that Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the right to life) was not engaged.
Legal Update
Liberty Protection Safeguards: What are they and will they ever happen?
On-Demand - Shared Insights
Shared Insights: Mental Health Units (Use of Force) Act: What does it mean for hospitals in the mental health and acute sector?
On-Demand - Shared Insights
Shared Insights: Mental Health in Maternity
Legal Update
The Liberty Protection Safeguards: brief update
The Liberty Protection Safeguards (LPS) will be used to authorise the proportionate and necessary deprivation of liberty for people aged 16 and above who lack the mental capacity to consent to their care arrangements.
On-Demand
Mental Health and Court of Protection Legal Update webinar
Watch now on-demand our Mental Health and Court of Protection Legal Update webinar, there have been some interesting recent legal developments in this area and topics that were covered during the session.