The Joint Committee on Human Rights has written again to the Government following its response to concerns about the Supreme Court’s AGNI decision. It has put three further questions to Alison McGovern, Minister of State for Social Care, requesting a response by 30 October.
The JCHR first wrote to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care on 8 July 2026 concerning the implications of the ruling.
The original response
In its September response, the Government confirmed that:
The Department of Health and Social Care plans to publish further guidance this autumn to support consistent implementation, supplementing its initial June 2026 guidance. Read our analysis of the guidance.
No legislative reform plans are planned in response to AGNI.
Statutory protections remain in force under the:
Care Act 2014
Mental Capacity Act 2005
Human Rights Act 1998
Equality legislation
Healthcare practitioners should seek advice on concerns or uncertainty about deprivation of liberty safeguards or valid consent and apply to the Court of Protection where appropriate.
Practitioners should avoid “superficial or rushed assessments”.
Local authorities, NHS bodies and providers remain responsible for appropriate assessments that meet their legal obligations.
Organisations and practitioners should centre decisions on individuals, involve families and those close to them where appropriate, and ensure restrictions are lawful, proportionate and necessary.
Ongoing concerns
However, the JCHR remains concerned about the judgment’s practical implications and seeks an update on three specific questions:
“1. Please provide the Committee with more detail on the work that you are doing with stakeholders to consider the implications of the ruling. What form does this work take, who is involved and what is the intended output?
2. Please update us on the progress of the additional guidance and its intended content. How will it address concerns about consistency of decision making when applying the multi factorial assessment established by the Supreme Court? Will it address, in particular, non capacitous consent?
3. What steps will be taken to monitor the consequences of the Supreme Court judgment moving forward? How will you assess whether existing legislation is providing adequate protection for those no longer considered to be deprived of their liberty?”
We will keep readers updated.
If you’d like to discuss any of the issues raised in this blog, please contact Neil Ward, James Wood or Sophie Ball. You can also visit our mental capacity webpage for more information.
Our content explained
Every piece of content we create is correct on the date it’s published but please don’t rely on it as legal advice. If you’d like to speak to us about your own legal requirements, please contact one of our expert lawyers.