Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards: what has changed and what Hft is doing
You may have seen recent news about changes to Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. These are also known as DoLS.
We know this can be a worrying and confusing subject, especially for families of learning disabled people. You might not know if the new DoLS will affect your family, especially if you didn’t need to know the details of the old system.
Here is an overview of what has changed, why Hft is concerned, and what we’re doing to make sure the voices of learning disabled people and their families are heard.
What are Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards?
Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards are legal protections for people who may lack mental capacity. This includes anyone who can’t consent to very restrictive care arrangements. For example, situations where
- someone is under constant supervision,
- is not free to leave,
- or has important decisions made on their behalf about where they live and the support they get.
These safeguards are not designed to stop people from receiving care. They’re there to make sure that people who’s liberty is restricted have protection. This protection includes
- checks by independent assessors,
- a clear route to challenge the restrictions,
- and support from an Independent Mental Capacity Advocate.
What has changed?
On 2 June 2026, the Supreme Court gave a judgment that changed the legal test for deciding whether someone is deprived of their liberty.
For more than a decade, the key test came from a 2014 case known as Cheshire West. That judgement said that a person was deprived of their liberty if they were under constant supervision or control and were not free to leave. It also made clear that just because someone looks content or compliant, that doesn’t mean they don’t need safeguards.
The new Supreme Court ruling changes that position. Decision-makers must now look at a wider range of factors than in the earlier test. These include
- the type, duration, effect and manner of the restrictions,
- whether the person appears to object,
- and what the person is able to express about their wishes and feelings.
The Government has said these changes apply right away across the UK. It has also said that, in the long term, the ruling is likely to significantly reduce the number of people who fall within the scope of deprivation of liberty authorisations.
Why is Hft concerned?
Our concern is that this change could reduce important safeguards for some learning disabled people.
Learning disabled people have the same rights as everyone else to freedom, dignity, autonomy and justice. Those rights should not depend on whether someone can
- object loudly,
- understand complex legal decisions,
- or communicate distress in a way that others recognise right away.
As Steve Veevers, our Chief Executive, has said, this is not simply a technical legal change. It could have real consequences for people whose care arrangements involve significant restrictions.
One of our key concerns is that compliance may be mistaken for consent. A person may seem settled or content for many reasons:
- because they have adapted to restrictions,
- because they do not know there are other options,
- because they are afraid of consequences,
- because they want to please the people around them,
- or because they communicate distress differently.
That’s why independent safeguards matter. They help make sure people are seen, heard and protected. This is especially important where restrictions are taking place behind closed doors or where someone may not be able to speak up for themselves.
There are pressures in the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard system. The previous system created backlogs and workloads for local authorities, providers and the courts. But the answer should be proper capacity, clarity and reform. Not fewer safeguards for people whose liberty may be restricted.
What does this mean now?
This ruling does not mean that safeguards no longer exist. Where someone is deprived of their liberty, legal processes still apply. Providers, local authorities and health bodies also continue to have duties under wider law. This includes the Mental Capacity Act and the Care Act.
But the judgment does mean that some people who used to received Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard protections may now be reviewed differently. And some might be considered outside the scope of DoLS in future.
For families, the most important point is this: if you are worried that your family member’s liberty is being restricted, or that their wishes and feelings are not being properly understood, those concerns should be taken seriously. This is especially important where someone
- communicates differently,
- appears distressed,
- is subject to significant restrictions,
- is being restrained or sedated,
- is unable to leave a setting,
- or doesn’t seem to have had their views fully explored.
What is Hft doing?
Our public affairs work on this issue is ongoing.
Learning disabled people must not lose vital protections as a result of this ruling. We will carry on raising our concerns with policymakers and government. We will also continue to share our view as a specialist learning disability provider. And we’ll draw on the experiences of the people we support, their families and our colleagues to do this.
We believe the Government should offer clear guidance about Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. They should protect access to independent advocacy and routes to challenge, and work directly with disabled people, families, advocacy organisations and specialist providers before making any further changes to deprivation of liberty policy.
Across this and other areas of policy, we’ll keep working to make sure that the voices of learning disabled people are heard by decision-makers.
If you have concerns, questions or feedback about this issue, we’d like to hear from you. Please contact Sam East at sam.east@hft.org.uk.