The recent reports surrounding Sir Ranulph Fiennes have attracted widespread media coverage and prompted strong opinions, as well as considerable confusion.
According to the Telegraph, Care Inspectorate Wales found that the fabled explorer was being deprived of his liberty unlawfully because no authorisation was in place, either for his residence or for the restrictions said to have been imposed on him, preventing him from seeing family and friends.
His wife, who was granted a Lasting Power of Attorney in 2024, has faced extensive criticism for her role in these events. However, none of us commenting from the outside know Sir Ranulph’s past and present wishes and feelings, insofar as he is still able to express them, the medical evidence underpinning his care needs, or the reasons for the care arrangements which have been put in place.
Whilst the allegations remain untested, and the police have said that there are no immediate safeguarding concerns, the case raises important questions for anyone who has made a Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA), acts under one, or is concerned about decisions being made for a vulnerable or incapacitated relative, including where issues of deprivation of liberty arise.
What does the law say about Lasting Powers of Attorney and deprivation of liberty?
A Health and Welfare LPA allows you to choose, while you have mental capacity, who will make decisions about your care if you are no longer able to make those decisions yourself in the future. It is a clear expression of personal autonomy.
An attorney must act in the donor’s best interests, which involves taking account of the wishes, feelings and beliefs of the person for whom they act. They are also required to consider the views of anyone who is interested in the person’s welfare.
However, an attorney does not have the legal authority to authorise a deprivation of the person’s liberty. In Sir Ranulph’s circumstances, as we understand them, the responsibility would lie with the care home and the Local Authority to obtain the necessary authorisation.
The deprivation of liberty safeguards exist so that vulnerable people are not subjected to significant restrictions on their freedom without independent scrutiny. Accordingly, whilst the absence of an authorisation in Sir Ranulph’s reported circumstances would be a serious matter if his arrangements met the legal threshold for a deprivation of liberty, it does not automatically follow that the placement or care arrangements are contrary to his best interests. Unfortunately, gaps of this kind are not uncommon and, where an authorisation is required but has not been obtained, the remedy is generally to seek that authorisation, which in turn brings independent scrutiny of the arrangements.
What counts as a deprivation of liberty changed significantly this year. In June 2026, in A Reference by the Attorney General for Northern Ireland [2026] UKSC 16, the Supreme Court overruled Cheshire West [2014] UKSC 19 and abandoned its “acid test” of continuous supervision and control combined with not being free to leave. The question is now a broader, fact-sensitive one, in which coercion, and the person’s own acceptance of or objection to their arrangements, can be relevant.
The role of the Court of Protection
Every LPA, whether for Health and Welfare or Property and Financial Affairs, remains subject to the jurisdiction of the Court of Protection. It is the Court, not the press, the court of public opinion or any one family member, that ultimately resolves disputes about a person’s welfare, care, residence or their financial affairs.
The Court can investigate an attorney’s conduct and, where necessary, give directions, suspend or revoke an LPA where the attorney has failed to act in the person’s best interests. It can also make decisions on behalf of a person who lacks mental capacity where there is a disagreement as to what those best interests require, including on an urgent interim basis where necessary. Whilst the Office of the Public Guardian can investigate concerns, only the Court of Protection can revoke an LPA.
Being appointed as an attorney does not give the attorney the final say in disputed matters. Where there is a disagreement about what is in an incapacitated person’s best interests, it is the Court of Protection, not the attorney, that determines the issue. Indeed, according to media reports, this appears to be the course Sir Ranulph’s stepson is now pursuing.
