Mental health – Court of Protection. Following the allowing of the first respondent's appeal by consent, the Court of Protection held that it appeared that the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, had taken a procedurally impermissible route. However, the allowing of the appeal was to be construed as setting aside its order that the first defendant had not been deprived of her liberty and saying that, if there was a situation of state detention, then it was authorised. The review ordered by the Court of Appeal was not of a determined situation of state detention, but a hearing de novo to determine if one existed.