The following decisions are legal victories in materially related fields. None determines the case-study adult’s facts. They are included to identify proven routes by which courts have recognised coerced domestic or care work, failures to protect against serious exploitation, and unlawful control of disabled people by health or social-care systems.
| A necessary classification point The phrase “false imprisonment by the system” may describe the lived experience, but counsel must identify the correct cause of action. False imprisonment at common law concerns total restraint without lawful justification. Care cases more commonly turn on Article 5 deprivation of liberty, the Mental Capacity Act 2005, habeas corpus or Court of Protection jurisdiction. The labels overlap in purpose but are not interchangeable. |
|---|
9A.1 Coerced domestic and personal-care work
C.N. v United Kingdom, App no 4239/08 (ECtHR, 13 November 2012) — The applicant said she had been compelled to work as a live-in carer for an elderly couple. The Court found a violation of Article 4 because the law and investigation then available did not provide practical and effective protection against domestic servitude. This is the closest reported authority to forced provision of personal care. The victory was against the state’s protective failure, not a domestic finding that every disputed care arrangement is servitude. Official source
Siliadin v France, App no 73316/01 (ECtHR, 26 July 2005) — A young migrant performed extensive unpaid domestic work under vulnerability and control. The Court unanimously found that France had failed to provide effective protection against servitude contrary to Article 4. It establishes the positive obligation to criminalise and enforce protection, while distinguishing slavery, servitude and forced labour. Official source
C.N. and V. v France, App no 67724/09 (ECtHR, 11 October 2012) — The first applicant, a minor, was compelled through fear and dependency to perform domestic chores and care for a disabled family member. The Court found an Article 4 violation concerning the failure of effective protection and awarded compensation. It is especially relevant where personal care is extracted through family authority, vulnerability and a credible inability to refuse. Official source
Chowdury and Others v Greece, App no 21884/15 (ECtHR, 30 March 2017) — Migrant workers subjected to coercive conditions won under Article 4. The Court confirmed that prior consent does not prevent later classification as forced labour and that trafficking does not require confinement in the narrow physical sense. The analogy assists on coercion and vulnerability, although the work was agricultural rather than care work. Official source
9A.2 Disabled people confined by care systems
H.L. v United Kingdom, App no 45508/99 (ECtHR, 5 October 2004) — An autistic adult who lacked capacity was informally admitted to hospital and prevented in practice from leaving. The Court found violations of Article 5(1) and 5(4): the legal framework lacked sufficient procedural safeguards and a suitable route for speedy review. The judgment exposed the “Bournewood gap” and led to statutory safeguards. Official source
P v Cheshire West and Chester Council; P and Q v Surrey County Council [2014] UKSC 19 — The 2014 majority used an “acid test” of continuous supervision and control plus lack of freedom to leave. The Supreme Court revisited and departed from that approach in Attorney General for Northern Ireland Reference [2025] UKSC 42. Current analysis requires the Convention’s objective confinement, absence of valid consent and State-responsibility elements; domestic incapacity is not automatically absence of valid consent for Article 5. Official source
London Borough of Hillingdon v Neary [2011] EWHC 1377 (COP) — A local authority accepted Steven Neary, an autistic man, for short respite and kept him away from home for about a year. The Court of Protection declared breaches of Articles 5(1), 5(4) and 8, including failures of prompt court review, effective scrutiny and advocacy. The case shows that a welfare motive does not authorise public control without lawful safeguards. Official source
Stanev v Bulgaria, App no 36760/06 (ECtHR Grand Chamber, 17 January 2012) — A man placed in a social-care institution under guardianship was subject to controlled leave, retained identity papers and indefinite placement. The Grand Chamber found violations including Article 5 and, because of prolonged degrading conditions, Article 3. The case connects disability, institutional control, access to court and material conditions. Official source
9A.3 Ratio, analogy and limits
| Authority | Winning principle | Possible analogy | Do not overclaim |
|---|---|---|---|
| C.N. v UK | Effective protection and investigation of alleged care servitude | Care dependency used to extract labour | The Court did not decide the case-study adult’s allegation or create automatic victim status. |
| C.N. and V. v France | Protection where domestic and disability-care work was compelled | Personal care within a coercive family setting | Family care is not inherently forced labour. |
| Cheshire West, as revised in [2025] UKSC 42 | Disability does not reduce the content of liberty | Confinement, valid consent and State responsibility require fact-specific analysis | Care need and kind motive do not alone prove unlawful confinement. |
| Neary | Public body cannot use welfare machinery to avoid scrutiny | A system keeps a disabled person away from chosen home life | It concerned lack of capacity and specific state control. |
| Stanev | Institutional placement, control and degrading conditions can violate Articles 3 and 5 | Systemic restriction plus poor conditions and weak review | Foreign facts and law require caution in domestic application. |
9A.4 Application questions for the case-study adult’s case
A winning analogy requires evidence matching the operative facts and legal test of the precedent. Similar suffering is morally important; legally, the decisive work is to connect conduct, state responsibility, coercion or confinement, safeguards and remedy.
9A.5 Further successful care-law case studies
R (Raja and Hussain) v London Borough of Redbridge [2020] EWHC 1456 (Admin) — Two disabled brothers required night support after their mother and primary carer became unable to continue at night. The High Court held that the council had power under Care Act 2014 s 19(3) to provide urgent interim support, found its refusal unlawful, and made a mandatory order for ten hours of care each night. This is a particularly close authority for the proposition that a parent’s deteriorating ability cannot simply be treated as an inexhaustible substitute for public provision. Official source
R (P) v London Borough of Croydon [2022] EWHC 2886 (Admin) — An autistic adult living at home succeeded in challenging a care package and plan. The court held that the authority had failed lawfully to meet assessed needs and had not provided adequate reasoning when departing from an analysis identifying extensive support. The decision and plan were quashed. The case shows the importance of separating assessed need from assumptions about care supplied by parents. Official source
R (JF) v London Borough of Merton [2017] EWHC 1519 (Admin) — The High Court quashed an unlawful Care Act assessment and related accommodation decision for an autistic man with severe learning disabilities. The authority had not carried out the required person-centred and lawful assessment before proposing a major change. The case supports rigorous assessment, wellbeing analysis and evidence before altering provision. Official source
These cases are legal victories, but none holds that every unsupported family carer is a victim of modern slavery or false imprisonment. Raja and Hussain is the closest domestic authority on a public body unlawfully refusing urgent replacement care when a mother could no longer continue at night. P v Croydon and JF show how Care Act decisions can be quashed for failure to meet assessed needs, deficient reasoning and defective assessment. The Article 4 authorities remain necessary where the allegation is compelled labour rather than merely unlawful care planning.
| Case-study method For each authority identify: the claimant; the statutory duty or Convention right; the proven facts; the precise error; the remedy ordered; and the factual difference from the case-study adult’s case. A case is useful because of its ratio and remedy, not because its facts feel generally similar. |
|---|