Deprivation of liberty: Review of Surrey Police v PC &Ors and using a police station as a place of safety

The recent case of Surrey Police v PC & Ors [2024] EWHC 1274 (Fam) 24 May 2024 highlighted issues with a police station being a place of safety and the importance of communication between parties. 

An urgent out of hours application was made by Surrey Police in relation to PC who had been arrested, for authority to deprive PC of his liberty whilst being held at the police station. There was concern for PC’s mental health and so an ambulance was called and consideration was had on whether he should be removed to a ‘place of safety’.

What does the law state?

Under section 136 Mental Health Act 1983 (MHA) the police can take a person to a place of safety when they are “in need of immediate care and control”. Before doing this, the police must consult with either a registered medical practitioner; registered nurse; approved mental health professional (AMHP), occupational therapist or paramedic. 

A person can be kept in a police station for 24 hours, extended by 12 hours if approved. A place of safety includes a hospital, care home, police station or the person's home or another home. 

A police station should only be used where “behaviour poses an immediate risk of serious injury or death to (yourself) or others” and must be authorised at inspector level. Welfare checks should be conducted every 30 minutes, a review every hour to see if it is still relevant for person to be kept there, a healthcare professional needs to be available and it cannot be used for someone under 18. 

Case background

PC was eventually taken to hospital and assessed by a psychiatric nurse. Although described as ‘agitated aggressive, shouting and swearing’ he was deemed medically fit to be discharged and returned to the police station where next steps were for PC to be assessed by the Criminal Justice Liaison and Diversion Service (CJLDS). The CJLDS nurse contacted the AMHP at the local authority. 

The AMHP didn’t carry out a mental health assessment initially due to the potential intoxication of PC and advised the police to keep PC at the station under section 136 MHA as a place of safety whilst waiting for the next available bed or a health-based place of safety to become available. 

During this time, PC’s behaviour became so difficult that the police had to ask for support in managing him and he was subsequently placed in a body cuff. 

Detention was also recommended under section 2 MHA, although still no beds were available. Concerns were raised by the police over the lawfulness of PC’s continued detention. The police could only hold PC for a certain time under Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) so he was being held under the provisions of section 136 MHA. 

The official solicitor who became involved in this case on behalf of PC was critical of the local authority for not carrying out an MHA assessment sooner or following their duties under the Care Act or the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) and the delay of all parties in bringing the matter before the court.  

The hearing ran through most of the evening, with the court authorising the deprivation of liberty under its inherent jurisdiction and the next day, PC was detained under section 2 MHA and admitted to a bed.

Although acknowledging it was a difficult set of circumstances, the Judge said “nevertheless, it is important that the focus remains on the relevant legal authority being exercised to detain PC. Article 5(1) ECHR guarantees that no one will be deprived of their liberty save in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law. The notion of lawfulness requires a fair and proper protection against arbitrary deprivation of their liberty”. 

Deprivation of liberty guidance for using a police station 

The Judge set out guidance for authorising a deprivation of liberty in a police station which included:

• Police station and out of hours applications only to be used in exceptional circumstances; 
• Being brought within the normal sitting hours and as soon as possible; 
• All parties involved must be joined to proceedings; 
• Evidential application with chronology, steps taken, details of care and support.

The Judge also made a costs order against the local authority on the basis that they “should have taken a more proactive role, bearing in mind their statutory responsibilities and growing uncertainty there was about the applicable legal framework. In the end, the police had little choice but to make the application….” 

Conclusion

This case highlights the issue with a police station being a place of safety. The Mental Health Act 1983 (Places of Safety) Regulations 2017 specifically addresses the use of a police station stating that it “remains the case that police stations are not the preferred environment for someone believed to be suffering from a mental disorder…”.

It also shows the importance of collaboration between all public bodies. Had there been better communication, the result may have meant that a more timely application could have been made, PC receiving full legal representation and a smoother process overall with the help.

Find out more about our expertise in supporting those affected by mental capacity decisions at our dedicated mental capacity section.

More on the judgment can be found online.