DoLS: What The AGNI Judgment Means For Care Providers

A recent Supreme Court judgment has changed the way deprivation of liberty is understood across the UK.

For care providers, registered managers and senior teams, the judgment in A Reference by the Attorney General for Northern Ireland, often referred to as the AGNI judgment, is important because it affects how providers, local authorities and professionals think about whether a person is deprived of their liberty.

The judgment does not remove the need for careful decision-making. It does not mean providers can stop thinking about consent, restrictions, mental capacity or safeguarding. However, it does change the legal landscape and reinforces the need for providers to take a careful, individualised and well-evidenced approach.

What Was the Position Before AGNI?

For many years, health and social care teams have worked with the “acid test” from the Supreme Court’s 2014 decision in Cheshire West.

Broadly, this meant that a person was likely to be considered deprived of their liberty if they:

were under continuous supervision and control
were not free to leave
lacked capacity to consent to the arrangements

This created a wide definition of deprivation of liberty and resulted in many people in care homes, hospitals and community settings being treated as requiring authorisation through DoLS or the Court of Protection.

What Has Changed?

On 2 June 2026, the Supreme Court published the AGNI judgment. The Department of Health and Social Care has since confirmed that the changes apply immediately and extend across the UK.

The judgment moves away from the previous “acid test” being treated as sufficient on its own. Instead, whether someone is deprived of their liberty now requires a broader, contextual and multi-factorial assessment.

This means decision-makers need to look at the person’s circumstances as a whole, rather than simply applying a narrow checklist.

Factors may include the type of care arrangements, their duration, how they are implemented, the person’s situation, the nature of the restrictions, and the practical impact on the person.

Does This Mean Fewer DoLS Applications?

Potentially, yes.

Several legal commentators have noted that the judgment is likely to narrow the scope of what amounts to a deprivation of liberty, meaning some arrangements that previously required DoLS authorisation may no longer do so.

However, this does not mean providers should simply assume that DoLS is no longer relevant.

Each person’s situation must still be considered on its own facts. Some residents will still be deprived of their liberty and will still require the appropriate authorisation. Others may fall outside the new threshold, but may still need robust mental capacity assessments, best interests decisions, care planning, risk assessment and safeguarding oversight.

What Does This Mean in Practice for Care Providers?

For care providers, the key message is not “DoLS no longer matters”. The key message is that decision-making needs to be more carefully evidenced.

Providers should be able to show how they have considered the person’s arrangements, restrictions, wishes, feelings, capacity and day-to-day experience.

This is particularly important where a person is living with dementia, learning disability, autism, brain injury, mental health needs or complex support needs, and where their care involves supervision, locked doors, restricted movement, restraint, one-to-one support, controlled access to the community or other restrictive measures.

The Importance of Capacity, Consent, and Wishes

The AGNI judgment has also placed greater attention on the role of the person’s own wishes and feelings.

This does not mean that a person who lacks capacity can automatically give full legal consent to every aspect of their care arrangements. It also does not mean that silence, compliance or lack of objection should be treated carelessly.

The practical point for providers is that people’s views must be explored, recorded and reviewed. This includes looking at how the person communicates, whether they show signs of objection or distress, whether they appear settled, and whether their care arrangements follow the Mental Capacity Act principle of using the least restrictive option available.

Providers should be cautious about assuming that a person is content simply because they are not actively objecting.

What Should Providers Review Now?

Care providers should consider a focused review of residents who are currently subject to DoLS, awaiting DoLS authorisation, or living under arrangements that involve significant restriction.

This does not need to be a panic exercise, but it should be structured and well documented.

Providers may wish to review:

current DoLS applications and authorisations
residents awaiting assessment
care plans involving supervision, control or restricted movement
locked door arrangements
use of restraint, including physical, environmental or chemical restraint
one-to-one observations
restrictions on contact, access or community activity
mental capacity assessments and best interests decisions
how the person’s wishes and feelings are recorded
whether restrictions remain necessary, proportionate and least restrictive

Why Documentation Matters More Than Ever

The judgment may reduce the number of arrangements that legally amount to a deprivation of liberty, but it is likely to increase the importance of good professional reasoning.

For providers, records should clearly explain:

what restrictions are in place
why they are needed
how risks have been assessed
whether less restrictive options have been considered
how the person’s views have been explored
who has been consulted
what the current legal position is thought to be
when the decision will be reviewed

This is not just about legal compliance. It is also about demonstrating safe, person-centred and proportionate care.

Do Providers Need to Change Existing Care Arrangements?

Not automatically.

The judgment does not mean that care providers should remove restrictions without proper assessment, especially where those restrictions are in place to manage serious risk.

Providers should check current DoLS applications and authorisations, as well as restrictive care arrangements, in light of the updated position.

They should also ensure that any restrictions remain necessary, proportionate and clearly recorded. Where there is uncertainty, providers should seek advice from the local authority, DoLS team, legal advisers or safeguarding professionals as appropriate.

The main risk is uncertainty.

What Are the Risks for Providers?

The AGNI judgment is significant, but practice will take time to settle. Further guidance, local authority processes and future case law are likely to shape how the judgment is applied in day-to-day care.

Providers may face uncertainty around whether to submit new DoLS applications, how to review existing authorisations, and how local authorities will triage or reassess cases.

There is also a safeguarding risk if the judgment is misunderstood as a reason to reduce oversight. Charities and campaigners have raised concerns that some vulnerable people may lose independent safeguards following the ruling.

For providers, the safest approach is to remain cautious, evidence-based and person-centred.

Key Actions for Registered Managers and Senior Teams

Care providers should consider the following steps:

Share a clear summary of the AGNI judgment with relevant managers and senior staff.
Review current DoLS cases and pending applications with the local authority where needed.
Audit residents whose care involves significant restrictions.
Check that capacity assessments and best interests decisions are up to date.
Record the person’s wishes, feelings, presentation and communication clearly.
Review whether restrictions are necessary, proportionate and least restrictive.
Ensure staff understand that the ruling does not remove the need for safeguarding, consent or good governance.
Keep a record of advice received from local authorities or legal professionals.
Monitor further guidance as practice develops.

Fulcrum Care’s View

The AGNI judgment is a major development for adult social care, but it should not lead to rushed assumptions.

For providers, the priority is to understand the ruling, review affected residents carefully and ensure that decisions are clearly evidenced.

Strong governance, good records, proportionate restrictions and person-centred care remain essential.

Where there is uncertainty, providers should seek advice and avoid making blanket decisions. The legal test has changed, but the responsibility to protect people’s rights, dignity and safety remains firmly in place.

Need Support Reviewing DoLS, Restrictions or Governance?

Fulcrum Care supports care providers with governance reviews, mock inspections, quality assurance, compliance support and improvement planning.

If your service needs support reviewing restrictive practices, DoLS arrangements, mental capacity records or wider governance following the AGNI judgment, contact our team today.