{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.017587939698492462, 'fraction_numerical': 0.013819095477386936, 'mean_word_length': 5.42741935483871, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Consent versus scrutiny: restricting liberties in post-Bournewood Victoria.

The article considers the problem of people with impaired capacity who face restrictions on their liberty but who are compliant with such practices. The issue has bedevilled courts and law reform commissions throughout the common law world since HL v United Kingdom [2004] ECHR 471 exposed the legal "gap" in which such people were languishing. Proposals to address it have either been excessively complex, or largely concerned with the mechanism for lawful consent to restrictive practices rather than scrutinising the practices themselves. The article critically discusses these proposals and argues that a suitable, if not ideal, regime for regulating the problem already exists in the Victorian Disability Act 2006.