McDonald v UK (Application no. 4241/12, 20 May 2014) (European Court of Human Rights)

A brief mention of the decision by the ECtHR to dismiss the appeal by Ms McDonald arising from her failed attempts to persuade the domestic courts that making her wear incontinence pads at night when she was not incontinent but required assistance to access the toilet was a violation of her rights under Article 8 ECHR. Sadly for Ms McDonald, although the ECtHR found that the decision by the local authority to reduce her care package and remove the provision of a night-waking carer did engage Article 8(1), it was justified as proportionate under Article 8(2) having regard to the scarcity of resources. This decision hammers home the comments made by Mrs Justice Eleanor King in ACCG & Anor v MN & Ors [2013] EWHC 3859 (COP) that arguable Article 8 claims within CoP proceedings are likely to be extremely rare.