Deprivation of liberty safeguards: the supervisory body is responsible for monitoring compliance with conditions

In an application under s21A MCA 2005 the District Judge considered, where a supervisory body grants a standard authorisation with conditions, who is responsible for monitoring compliance with those conditions.

Schedule A1, paragraph 53 MCA 2005 states:

1. A standard authorisation may be given subject to conditions.
   .
2. Before deciding whether to give the authorisation subject to conditions, the supervisory body must have regard to any recommendations in the best interests assessment about such conditions.
   .
3. The managing authority of the relevant hospital or care home must ensure that any conditions are complied with. The Official Solicitor on behalf of W and W’s sister submitted that it is the supervisory body that must monitor compliance with conditions. The supervisory body (the local authority) argued that it was not required to do so.
   .
   .
   The district judge held:

• the duty is on the supervisory body to monitor compliance with conditions;
  .
• as to frequency of monitoring, this depends on the circumstances of the individual case;
  .
• in this case, alternative monthly monitoring was sufficient, taking into account that the sister was very vigilant of W’s welfare needs;
  .
• whereas there is an obligation on the RPR, so far as he/she is able, to ensure that conditions are complied with, it is not the function of the RPR to monitor compliance and report back to the supervisory body.
  .
  .Transcript of the judgment:http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCOP/2016/58.html