Objection, purpose and normality: Three ways in which the courts have inhibited safeguarding

David Hewitt

doi:10.1108/14668201211286057

Objection, purpose and normality: Three ways in which the courts have inhibited safeguarding

David Hewitt

Northumbria University

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

1 Citation (Scopus)

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	280-286
Journal	The Journal of Adult Protection
Volume	14
Issue number	6
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1108/14668201211286057
Publication status	Published - 2012

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Access to Document

10.1108/14668201211286057

Cite this

@article{7ed4373ad2224504952b7a1a6dd317da,

title = "Objection, purpose and normality: Three ways in which the courts have inhibited safeguarding",

keywords = "Court of Appeal, Deprivation of liberty, law courts, mental illness, normality, objection, purpose, United Kingdom",

author = "David Hewitt",

year = "2012",

doi = "10.1108/14668201211286057",

language = "English",

volume = "14",

pages = "280--286",

journal = "The Journal of Adult Protection",

issn = "1466-8203",

publisher = "Pavilion",

number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Objection, purpose and normality: Three ways in which the courts have inhibited safeguarding

AU - Hewitt, David

PY - 2012

Y1 - 2012

KW - Court of Appeal

KW - Deprivation of liberty

KW - law courts

KW - mental illness

KW - normality

KW - objection

KW - purpose

KW - United Kingdom

U2 - 10.1108/14668201211286057

DO - 10.1108/14668201211286057

M3 - Article

VL - 14

SP - 280

EP - 286

JO - The Journal of Adult Protection

JF - The Journal of Adult Protection

SN - 1466-8203

IS - 6

ER -