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

Keywords

Court of Appeal
Deprivation of liberty
law courts
mental illness
normality
objection
purpose
United Kingdom

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 = "Emerald Publishing",

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

SN - 1466-8203

VL - 14

SP - 280

EP - 286

JO - The Journal of Adult Protection

JF - The Journal of Adult Protection

IS - 6

ER -