How legal interventions can create change

In November, the Supreme Court heard an appeal?in the case of Maguire v HM Senior Coroner for Blackpool & Fylde. We intervened to ensure that the rights of vulnerable people in care homes are upheld.

The case is about whether a vulnerable care home resident was owed a legal right to receive lifesaving medical treatment under Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Jackie Maguire was a vulnerable woman with Down’s syndrome, learning disabilities and behavioural difficulties, who lacked the capacity to decide where she should live. She sadly died whilst living in a residential care home following a series of alleged medical failings.

As the enforcers of the Equality Act 2010, and a national human rights institution, we have a range of legal powers at our disposal to tackle issues that advance our strategic priorities. This includes the power to intervene in court proceedings in human rights and equality cases brought by others.

Widest Impact

Our role as a strategic regulator means that we focus our resources on cases that have a wider impact in promoting human rights and building a fairer society. One of our strategic priorities is to protect and promote rights regarding the treatment of people in health and social care institutions. The Supreme Court’s decision in the Maguire case will affect a large number of vulnerable people in care settings.

When applying for permission to intervene, we must show that our intervention would add value and not just repeat what is already being said. This could be by providing expert analysis of the issues, detail of the international legal aspects or additional evidence. If the Court gives us permission, we then prepare a detailed submission?to make either in writing or at the hearing.

In Maguire, we have argued that people who (like Jackie) lack the capacity to decide where they should live and are detained under a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), should have the right to adequate lifesaving medical treatment under Article 2 ECHR. Certain vulnerable groups, like prisoners or people who are sectioned under the Mental Health Act, already have this right, but this is the first time that the Supreme Court is being asked to decide whether it should also apply to people detained under a DoLS. We are awaiting the judgment in Maguire over the coming months

Expert submissions to clarify the law

Intervening in cases allows us to make expert submissions to help the court and to highlight important equality and human rights considerations. Our intervention in Maguire follows an intervention in Maya Forstater’s appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal, where we argued that the Employment Tribunal had failed to distinguish between the question of whether Ms Forstater held a belief that is protected, and the question of whether the way she acted on that belief justified her employer’s actions. The Employment Appeal Tribunal agreed with us, and the case helped to clarify the law around the freedom to hold a belief, even one that is considered controversial or offensive.

We also intervened in 2021 in a Supreme Court case concerning a child, AB, who was held in solitary confinement in a youth offender’s institute for up to 23 hours a day. In our intervention we argued that when prolonged solitary confinement is applied to children, there is a strong presumption of a breach of Article 3 ECHR, which prohibits inhuman and degrading treatment. Whilst the appeal was unsuccessful, the Court made clear that solitary confinement of children should only be ordered exceptionally. The ruling should help those who manage places where children are detained to comply with the law, and to respect the human rights of children.

An important tool

Interventions are an important tool at our disposal, and allow us to use our expertise in important court cases to provide clarity and establish vital legal protections for people, often the most vulnerable in society.