Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS)

The Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards came into force in April 2009 and form part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

The Mental Capacity Act is a wide-reaching piece of law that champions adult autonomy and governs the care and support of people that lack capacity to make decisions in areas of their life. Think of it like a book, with chapters, the Act has Sections and it guides you through how to support someone.

When a person is unable to make a decision because of an impairment of, or disturbance in, the functioning of their mind or brain, the Act provides a legal framework for decisions to be made on their behalf. This includes the role of a Lasting Power of Attorney. It also allows decision-makers to make decisions for that unique individual using the Best Interests checklist set out in Section 4 of the Act.

The Act acknowledges that there may also be times when a person needs care to keep them safe and healthy and because of their level of need the care plan contains restrictions. The whole situation then may amount of a deprivation of their liberty, protected by their Human Right Article 5. If this occurs, a higher level of authorisation is required and we need safeguards to protect individuals who may be deprived of their liberty under the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

If the person is in a Registered Care Home or Hospital, we can consider the situation through the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards Authorisation process. If the person lives in their own home or in a community setting such as supported living, it can be dealt with through an application to the Court of Protection.

Registered care homes and hospitals are known as Managing Authorities under DoLS. They are responsible for preventing unnecessary deprivations of liberty and for recognising when a deprivation of liberty is occurring or is likely to occur. They can grant an ‘urgent authorisation’ where necessary and must make a referral to the ‘Supervisory Body’ to consider whether a ‘standard authorisation’ should be granted.

Community settings must also recognise when a deprivation of liberty may be taking place. If you are a provider and believe a person’s care arrangements amount to a deprivation of liberty in the community, the DoLS process cannot be used. Instead, you should work with the commissioner to consider initiating an application to the Court of Protection for a community deprivation of liberty.

Identification of a deprivation of liberty

We all have human rights. One of those rights is Article 5 – the right to liberty.

Sometimes a person's liberty may need to be restricted to keep them safe. When that happens, we must ensure there is a legal process in place to protect the person's rights.

There have been two important Supreme Court judgments which have shaped how we identify a deprivation of liberty.

The 2014 Supreme Court judgement

In March 2014, The Supreme Court introduced the Acid Test to help identify when a deprivation of liberty was taking place.

This Acid Test stated that a person is deprived of their liberty if:

  • They are under continuous supervision and control
  • They are not free to leave
  • They lack capacity to consent to those arrangements

The Court decided that the following factors were not relevant when determining whether a deprivation of liberty exists:

  • The person’s compliance or happiness or lack of objection
  • The suitability or relative normality of the placement when compared with someone of a similar age and condition
  • The reason or purpose behind a placement

The 2026 Supreme Court judgement

On 2 June 2026, the Supreme Court issued a further judgment which means that the Acid Test should no longer be relied upon on its own when deciding whether a person is deprived of their liberty. Instead, we must take a multifactorial approach.

The Mental Capacity Act itself has not changed. What has changed is how we define the objective element of a deprivation of liberty.

Rather than applying a single test, we now look at the person's concrete situation and the totality of the restrictions they experience. This includes:

  • The type of restrictions in place
  • How often and for how long they occur
  • The way they are applied
  • Whether the arrangements resemble normal life in a care home or hospital
  • Whether they instead amount to restrictive confinement

We must also consider the person's own experience of the arrangements.

For example, do they experience the restrictions as a major intrusion into their life? Or do their wishes, feelings and behaviours suggest they are content within the setting?

No single factor will determine the outcome. We need to look at the whole picture.

It is important not only to look at the care plan and restrictions themselves, but also at how the person experiences those restrictions.

When a person may fall outside the definition

A person may fall outside the definition of a deprivation of liberty where:

  1. The arrangements involve no coercion and support the person to live as normal a life as possible in the circumstances. For example, a person who is very unwell or has significant cognitive impairment may be unable to leave, but is otherwise experiencing an ordinary care home placement or hospital stay.
  2. The person's wishes, feelings or positive responses indicate they are content with the arrangements. This does not mean they have capacity to decide on their care, treatment and accommodation.

Where there is uncertainty about how the person feels, professionals should err on the side of caution. Mere compliance should not automatically be interpreted as contentment.

What should be considered?

When deciding whether a deprivation of liberty exists, it is important to consider:

  • Any restrictions in place for the individual
  • The individual's experience of their care arrangements and their response to them
  • The purpose of the arrangements
  • The justification for the arrangements
  • The overall impact of those arrangements on the person's liberty

What if there is no authorisation?

Without an authorisation, does the provider have to let the person go?

The answer is no.

Best Interests still applies and providers must continue to take appropriate action to keep people safe and prevent harm.

However, circumstances can change. If a person begins trying to leave and staff have to stop them, the restrictions may become more coercive. Equally, the person's actions may indicate they are no longer content with the arrangements.

In those circumstances, the situation may fall within the definition of a deprivation of liberty and the provider should make the appropriate referral.

Department of Health and Social Care publications

There have been two significant Supreme Court judgments relating to the definition of a deprivation of liberty, in March 2014 and June 2026.

The current Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards Code of Practice was published before both of these judgments. As a result, parts of the Code do not reflect the current legal position and should be read alongside the principles established by the Supreme Court.

Deprivation of Liberty Code of Practice – GOV.UK

Hampshire supervisory body

Hampshire County Council is the Supervisory Body for people who are or may be deprived of their liberty in a hospital or care home, who lack capacity to consent to arrangements and who are 'ordinarily resident' in Hampshire.

All DoLS referrals and enquiries should be made to:

The DoLS Administrator Team
Email: [email protected]

DoLS forms

DoLS forms can be accessed on the Government website.

Following the Supreme Court judgment of 2 June 2026, the forms are currently being reviewed by the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services (ADASS) and the Department of Health and Social Care to ensure they reflect the current legal position.

Deprivation of liberty safeguards: resources - GOV.UK

Useful resources

Further guidance and support

If you are unable to find the relevant support, get in touch with Adult's Health and Care:

Getting help and support