The Mental Capacity Act is a law that protects and supports people who may not be able to make certain decisions for themselves. This might be because of a condition such as dementia, a learning disability, a brain injury or mental illness.

It starts from an important principle: everyone is assumed to be able to make their own decisions unless it is shown otherwise, and people should be supported to make their own choices wherever possible. When someone genuinely cannot make a particular decision, any decision made on their behalf must be in their best interests, and should be the option that limits their rights and freedom as little as possible.

Sometimes a person needs a level of care and supervision that means they are not free to leave where they live, and are under continuous supervision and control. In law, this can amount to a “deprivation of liberty”.

This is not about blame, and it doesn’t mean anyone is doing anything wrong. It often happens for good and caring reasons – to keep someone safe. But because it limits a person’s freedom, the law says it must be properly authorised and reviewed. Those safeguards exist to protect the person: to check the restrictions are genuinely needed, are no more than necessary, and are looked at again over time.

AGNI is the name of a recent court judgment that affects how deprivation of liberty is understood and handled. Court judgments like this can change how the law is applied in everyday practice.

The full picture is still developing, and organisations are working through what it means. That is exactly why this page exists: to keep track of the guidance, commentary and resources as they appear, and to explain them in plain English. If you are unsure how this affects someone you care about, it is always reasonable to ask the people supporting them.

For most people and families, day-to-day care will carry on as normal. The safeguards around deprivation of liberty are there to protect the person, not to make life harder for them or their family.

What matters is that any restrictions on someone’s freedom are lawful, genuinely needed, no greater than necessary, and reviewed regularly – and that the person’s own wishes, feelings and views are taken seriously throughout. Families and carers have an important part to play, because you often know the person best. You are entitled to ask questions and to understand what is happening and why.

How are professionals adapting to AGNI?
Professionals are moving from a two-part acid test to a recorded, multifactorial Article 5 assessment. This should include the restrictions in practice, their intensity and duration, the setting and purpose, the person’s own limitations, their awareness and communication, any acceptance or objection, and the safeguards available.

Why might professionals be using different language since AGNI?
AGNI has shifted attention away from a simple checklist approach and towards a more detailed discussion about restrictions, consent, objections, wishes and lived experience. Families may notice professionals asking different questions or gathering different information than they would have done previously.

Could two professionals reach different conclusions under AGNI?
Yes. AGNI requires a contextual legal evaluation rather than a single checklist. That makes transparent reasoning, evidence, supervision, consistency checks and timely legal advice especially important. A difference of professional view should not be resolved by assuming that compliance equals consent.

Will AGNI reduce paperwork?
It is too early to know. Fewer cases may ultimately require authorisation, but the new approach is likely to require fuller evidence and clearer recording of the person’s actual circumstances, awareness, communication, wishes, objections and the practical effect of restrictions.

Are social workers still carrying out Mental Capacity Act assessments?
Absolutely. AGNI did not change the core principles of the Mental Capacity Act. Professionals must still assess capacity when required, support people to make their own decisions wherever possible, make best interests decisions when necessary and use the least restrictive option available.

Are professionals focusing more on the person’s wishes and feelings?
Yes, but wishes and feelings are not the only factors. The person’s lived experience, awareness, genuine acceptance or objection, and the objective features of the restrictions must all be considered. A lack of objection must not be treated as automatic consent.

What information might professionals ask families for after AGNI?
Families may be asked about whether the person appears content or distressed, whether they express wishes about where they live, any objections to care arrangements, changes in behaviour or mood, how the person communicates preferences and what quality of life looks like for that individual.

Does AGNI mean existing authorisations and care plans are being reviewed?
In many areas, yes. Organisations are reviewing policies, procedures and current cases to understand whether AGNI affects how restrictions are described, assessed and authorised. However, care and support arrangements do not automatically change simply because the legal test has changed.

Does AGNI mean restrictions no longer need to be reviewed?
No. Restrictions should still be reviewed regularly. Professionals must continue to consider whether arrangements remain necessary, proportionate and the least restrictive option available.

Should existing restrictions be removed because of AGNI?
Not automatically. AGNI changes the legal assessment, but it does not mean restrictions should simply disappear overnight. Any changes should be considered carefully, with attention to safety, rights, dignity, wishes and the least restrictive option.

Will AGNI affect Court of Protection cases?
Yes. Courts and practitioners must apply the post-AGNI Article 5 approach in relevant cases. Existing orders, authorisations and proceedings may need review where they relied only on the former acid test, although no care arrangement or order should be treated as automatically invalid without proper consideration.

Does every deprivation of liberty issue now need to go to court?
No. Many concerns can still be resolved through assessment, review, advocacy, care planning and local legal processes. Court involvement may still be needed where there are significant disputes, objections, complex restrictions or uncertainty about the correct legal route.

What if a person objects?
Objection remains highly relevant and may show that genuine Article 5 consent is absent. Objection may be spoken or communicated through distress, resistance, withdrawal, repeated attempts to leave, changes in behaviour or other means. It should prompt careful exploration, review and consideration of advocacy, legal safeguards and court involvement where required.

What safeguards still matter after AGNI?
All the usual rights-focused safeguards remain important: involving the person as fully as possible; supporting communication and decision-making; consulting appropriate family members, attorneys, deputies and advocates; using the least restrictive option; reviewing restrictions; keeping clear records; securing lawful authorisation where Article 5 is engaged; and ensuring an effective route to challenge.