We are deeply concerned by the recent Supreme Court ruling that abolishes the ‘acid test’ in determining deprivation of liberty and introduces the concept of incapacitated valid consent.
It leaves huge implications for the rights of people receiving care and support who may be currently considered to be deprived of their liberty.
Easy Read: The Supreme Court Judgement, 2 June 2026
NDTi Executive Director, Bill Love says:
“For more than a decade, the Cheshire West judgment has provided an imperfect but vital safeguard, offering a clear legal framework to ensure that restrictions on people’s liberty are recognised and challenged. This new judgement rips apart that safeguard and reflects a massive set back to the rights of disabled people.”
Our first thoughts
Our first thoughts are with people and their families who will be impacted. Thousands of people in residential care and nursing homes, hospitals and supported living environments will see their current rights to independent support, and to challenge their circumstances, altered.
For many, this ruling will bring real and immediate concern, adding to what are already extremely stressful and difficult situations. The removal or weakening of safeguards, and the potential loss of oversight and challenge, will be deeply worrying for those who rely on them most.
Why this matters now
This ruling comes at a time when the wider context for people who draw on support is already under severe strain.
- From Winterbourne View 15 years ago, to the many scandals that have followed, we continue to see what happens when accountability is weakened.
- People and families frequently face long, exhausting battles to challenge decisions and secure the right support.
- Systems are under pressure, and decisions are too often shaped by cost rather than rights, relationships and lived experience.
- Independent advocacy is already chronically underfunded and people’s access to independent representation is routinely rationed and confined to extremely narrow circumstances. For example, people who on Monday had access to advocacy in the form of a Relevant Person’s Representative (RPR) may not now be eligible for support. Reducing access to independent representation and oversight removes a vital safeguard and increases risk.
Our strategy is clear: Inclusion, voice and system change must be strengthened, not diluted.
We are particularly concerned that:
- Inclusion is already being pushed backwards.
- People are too often not listened to.
- Systems continue to exclude rather than enable.
Weakening rights, safeguards, accountability and oversight in this context risks compounding existing inequalities.
Serious concerns about the process and impact
We fully endorse the concerns raised by Oliver Lewis (Doughty Street Chambers) and others in the disability rights community:
These widespread changes have been described as one of the most significant rollbacks of disability rights in a generation. They have emerged:
- Without a clear factual case before the court.
- Without a prior Court of Appeal judgment.
- Without legislative scrutiny or impact assessment.
- Without public debate or meaningful consultation with disabled people, their families and advocates.
This raises profound concerns not only about the substance of the decision, but also about how such far-reaching change has been made.
The state of advocacy
Statutory advocacy is a critical part of the current system of protections, but it is at breaking point.
Across the UK, advocacy services are experiencing:
- Chronic underfunding.
- Inconsistent commissioning, provision and access.
- A lack of formalised regulation.
- Significant reductions in ongoing, independent support.
This means many people do not have access to a trusted, independent voice to help them understand and exercise their rights, precisely at the time when those rights may be most at risk.
Reducing legal safeguards without strengthening advocacy risks leaving people with fewer routes to challenge decisions and fewer ways to be heard.
Voices that must be heard
Mary Busk provides a parent carer view of the ruling. Until recently Mary was also the NHS England parent carer lead in the Learning Disability and Autism team:
“For some time I’ve been reflecting on how the current system isn’t supporting my son. I feel my son is already an innocent victim of institutional abuse. This new judgement without safeguards now escalates existing risks and presents new risks. It is frightening as to what terrifying consequences we will all face next.”
Charlie McMillan, Director of Human Rights Consortium Scotland, is a long-time partner of NDTi and said:
“I am hugely disappointed and concerned, but not surprised, by the Supreme Court’s decision. It’s hard not to be cynical (surely this wasn’t motivated by financial reasons) or deeply concerned about the impacts on people when it seems the doors of institutionalisation are more locked than ever. This ruling is leading the way on the roll back on rights, and it’s on our watch!”
We know that when people’s voices shape decisions, services are more effective, fairer and more likely to lead to lasting change.
What must happen next
There must be urgent guidance as to how this ruling should be implemented. This is the moment to strengthen, not weaken, rights and independent support.
We believe the priority now is to:
- Strengthen legal safeguards, not reduce them.
- Invest in independent advocacy so everyone has access to representation and a strong voice.
- Recommit to human rights-based approaches in law, commissioning and practice.
- Ensure people with lived experience are central to decision-making at every level.
Our commitment
We are not neutral in this.
As an organisation, we will continue to:
- Stand alongside people and families whose rights are at risk.
- Challenge decisions and systems that undermine dignity, inclusion and human rights.
- Work with partners to push for practical, rights-based solutions.
At a time when rights are under pressure, this ruling must not become part of a wider retreat from accountability. Instead, it should strengthen our collective resolve to ensure that everyone can live the life they choose, with the safeguards and support they need.
