Tying neatly to the article immediately above, and with thanks to Steve Benson for bringing this to our attention, we note that the new Practice Direction issued in respect of statements and reports required for proceedings before the Mental Health Tribunal requires that the reports prepared by Responsible Clinicians for in-patients specifically identify “in the case of an eligible compliant patient who lacks capacity to agree or object to their detention or treatment, whether or not deprivation of liberty under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (as amended) would be appropriate and less restrictive” (para 12(m)). The same information is required in Social Circumstances Reports (para 14(t)). It would appear that this change has been brought in to respond to the AM case, albeit that it is unlikely save in the case of automatic referrals that anypatient would be before the Tribunal who would not be considered to be  objecting in some fashion to their treatment (and hence ineligible to have any deprivation of liberty authorised by way of a DOLS authorisation under the MCA 2005).