Sir Ranulph Fiennes and the legal safeguards for people receiving care 

Sir Ranulph Fiennes has spent a lifetime in the public eye, so it is perhaps unsurprising that questions about his welfare and care in later life have attracted national attention. The Telegraph has reported that some of his relatives and friends are worried about restrictions on contact with him and a series of moves between care homes. It has also reported an email from Care Inspectorate Wales which stated that, at one placement in January 2026, there was no authorisation in place for arrangements it considered at the time to amount to a deprivation of liberty. 

Cheshire Police said on 28^th September 2026 that it and partner agencies were satisfied Sir Ranulph was living in an appropriate setting with suitable care and professional oversight, with no immediate safeguarding concerns identified, and asked that his privacy be respected. Whilst that statement speaks to his current welfare and care, rather than to the legal status of the earlier arrangements, the wider reporting of his circumstances has understandably prompted strong reactions. 

Much of the criticism to date has been aimed at Sir Ranulph’s wife, yet it is important to be clear that only part of the picture is in the public domain. It is quite possible that she has acted out of genuine concern for his safety and privacy, believing these arrangements were the best way to protect him. We also do not know what Sir Ranulph himself has said about who he would and wouldn’t like to see. 

What the story does is shine a light on questions that could arise for any family caring for an older relative, or for someone who may not be able to make certain decisions for themselves. Families often face very difficult choices and act out of love, worry and the best of intentions. Even so, amid the assessments, appointments and difficult conversations, the person receiving care can lose their voice. In Court of Protection proceedings, and in much of the professional guidance, that person is referred to as “P”. Much of the law in this area exists to make sure P’s voice is still heard, and that is the best place for any family facing these questions to start. 

Capacity is decided one decision at a time 

A move into a care home often comes at a time of real upheaval, but it does not take away a person’s right to make their own decisions. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 starts from the presumption that P has capacity unless it is established that they lack capacity to make the particular decision in question. Before anyone reaches that conclusion, however, all practicable steps must be taken to help the person decide. That might mean using simpler language, choosing a time of day when they are at their best, allowing more time, or involving someone who understands how they communicate. 

Capacity is also time specific and decision specific, which reflects how people actually live. Someone may struggle with a complex choice about where to live or what overall care they need, yet be perfectly able to decide who they would like to see, how to spend the afternoon, what to eat and what to wear. These everyday choices are often the ones that matter most to a person’s sense of who they are, and wherever they can make a decision, that decision belongs to them. 

The Act also makes clear that a person must not be treated as lacking capacity simply because they make a decision others consider unwise. That principle can feel especially hard to live with when it touches on relationships. If a person has capacity to decide whether to receive particular visitors, that choice is theirs, even if family or friends find it painful to understand or accept. Where P lacks capacity to make that decision, their wishes, feelings, values and preferences must still sit at the heart of any decision made on their behalf. 

None of this is easy for families. They may have watched a parent or partner gradually change, taken on more and more of the practical and emotional load, and worried constantly about getting things wrong. Their experience deserves real respect. In all such instances, professionals should work alongside them, explain the safeguards clearly and make sure that understandable concerns about safety do not unnecessarily limit the person’s independence, relationships and enjoyment of everyday life. 

What an attorney can and cannot do 

For many people, an ‘attorney’ is the person they have chosen to step in if, one day, they can no longer make particular decisions for themselves. Reports have described Sir Ranulph’s wife as his “legal guardian” and state that she holds a lasting power of attorney in relation to his care. Under the law of England and Wales, an attorney acting under a health and welfare Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) can make decisions covered by the LPA where the person who made it lacks capacity to make the particular decision themselves. 

Appointing an attorney is an act of trust, made while a person still has capacity and often with an eye to a future they hope will never come. An attorney may know the person’s history, values and usual wishes far better than any professional and can be a strong and caring voice for them. If the LPA allows it, they may help decide where the person lives and how they are cared for. Those powers come with limits, which exist to protect P rather than to second guess the attorney. The attorney must stay within the authority the LPA gives, follow the Mental Capacity Act and act in P’s best interests, which means deciding what is right for P after weighing all the relevant information, not what is easiest for anyone else. An attorney cannot authorise a deprivation of liberty. 

When relatives or friends are worried about how an attorney is acting, it can be hard to know where to turn. The Office of the Public Guardian (OPG) registers LPAs and can investigate concerns about how a registered attorney is acting. Its guidance invites people to report concerns where an attorney may not be acting in the person’s best interests, may be abusing their position or may not be following the rules of their role. The OPG can only investigate where a concern falls within its statutory remit, including where the person who made the LPA lacks capacity to deal with the issue themselves. Other concerns may need to be directed to local authority safeguarding teams, the police or the Court of Protection. That court is the specialist court that makes decisions for adults who cannot make particular decisions themselves. In appropriate cases it can remove an attorney or cancel an LPA, and the OPG can itself apply to the court where it has serious concerns. 

Deprivation of liberty and the safeguards around care 

The phrase “deprivation of liberty” has featured prominently in the reporting about Sir Ranulph. It can sound alarming, but it is a legal term and does not in itself imply poor care or wrongdoing. A care home may lock its external doors because a resident is at risk of becoming lost, or ask staff to accompany someone whenever they go outside, with entirely proper intentions. The law recognises, however, that even restrictions designed to keep somebody safe can become significant enough to engage their right to liberty. 

Two parts of the legal framework then come into play. The first is the test for deciding whether a deprivation of liberty exists at all, which the Supreme Court changed in June 2026. In A Reference by the Attorney General for Northern Ireland [2026] UKSC 16, a case often shortened by lawyers to AGNI, the court moved away from the long-standing single “acid test” and required a broader assessment of the person’s circumstances as a whole. The second is the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards, usually called DoLS, which provide independent assessment, authorisation and review where care arrangements in a care home or hospital do cross that line. Put simply, the AGNI ruling sets the test for deciding whether there is a deprivation of liberty, while DoLS provide the safeguards where there is. 

Responsibility for securing a DoLS authorisation does not fall on the family or an attorney, which may offer some reassurance to relatives who are already carrying a great deal. It is the care home that must make the application, and the local authority that must arrange the assessments and decide whether the legal requirements are met. 

The Care Inspectorate Wales email reported by The Telegraph predates the Supreme Court’s June ruling and reportedly applied the previous test. That change in the law does not in itself establish whether the arrangements reportedly in place in January were lawful or unlawful under the new approach, which would depend on the full facts. 

The rules around deprivation of liberty can be complex, particularly for families meeting terms like DoLS and AGNI for the first time. For that reason, our separate guide, [When does care become a deprivation of liberty? DoLS after the Supreme Court’s 2026 ruling], explains the change in more detail and what it means for people already living in care. 

Concerns about care should be taken seriously 

It is not always clear when care and living arrangements need a second look, particularly where everybody involved believes they are acting in the person’s interests. Repeated attempts to leave, distress about a placement, significant restrictions on contact, physical restraint, medication that may affect the person’s ability to object or repeated moves between placements may all justify a closer look at what is happening and whether the right legal framework is in place. Disagreement about where somebody should live, who they should see or what care they need can also be a sign that independent advice would help. 

Raising a concern is not an accusation. It can simply be a way of making sure the person’s circumstances have been properly considered, and that everyone involved understands what they can decide for themselves, what they want and what is genuinely necessary to keep them safe. 

When disputes do arise about such matters, they often do so at emotional and exhausting points in family life. Specialist advice can help where there is uncertainty about a person’s capacity, the powers of an attorney, safeguarding concerns, restrictions on contact, deprivation of liberty or whether the Court of Protection should become involved. Legal aid may be available in some circumstances, depending on the nature of the case and the criteria applied by the Legal Aid Agency. 

Whatever route is taken, the aim is one most families will recognise, which is to keep the person they love safe while making sure their own voice is still heard. 

Coodes’ Court of Protection and mental health team can advise on capacity, deprivation of liberty and Court of Protection matters, whilst the private client team can help with making, reviewing or challenging a Lasting Power of Attorney and with questions about an attorney’s duties. Should you require support in any of these areas, please do not hesitate to contact us for a confidential, impartial consultation. 

About the Author: Rebecca Moore is an Associate in the Mental Health team at Coodes Solicitors. Having started her career in the Family team, she now represents clients detained under the Mental Health Act 1983, both at Hospital Managers’ reviews and before the First-tier Mental Health Tribunal. Rebecca holds the Law Society’s Mental Health Accreditation. She also regularly supports clients with health and welfare matters in the Court of Protection, including challenges to authorisations granted under the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. 

 Get in touch:  01872 246 224  rebecca.moore@coodes.co.uk