Peter Connelly (also known as "Baby P", "Child A"[2] and "Baby Peter") was a 17-month old British boy who died in London after suffering more than 50 injuries over an eight-month period, during which he was repeatedly seen by Haringey Children's services and NHS health professionals. Baby P's real first name was revealed as "Peter" on the conclusion of a subsequent trial of Peter's mother's boyfriend on a charge of raping a two-year-old.[3][4] His full identity was revealed when his killers were named after the expiry of a court anonymity order on 10 August 2009.[5]
The case caused shock and concern among the public and in Parliament, partly because of the magnitude of Peter's injuries, and partly because Peter had lived in the London Borough of Haringey, North London, under the same child care authorities that had already failed ten years earlier in the case of Victoria Climbié.[6] This had led to a public enquiry which resulted in measures being put in place in an effort to prevent similar cases happening.
Peter's mother, Tracey Connelly, her boyfriend, Steven Barker, and Jason Owen (later revealed to be the brother of Barker)[5] were all convicted of causing or allowing the death of a child, the mother having pleaded guilty to the charge.[7] A court order issued by the High Court in England had prevented the publication of the identity of Baby P; this was lifted on 1 May 2009 by Mr Justice Coleridge. An order sought by Haringey Council to stop publication of the identities of his mother and her boyfriend, was granted,[8] but expired on 10 August 2009.[5][9]
The child protection services of Haringey and other agencies were widely criticised. Following the conviction, three inquiries and a nationwide review of social service care were launched, and the Head of Children's Services at Haringey removed by direction of the Government minister. Another nationwide review was conducted by Lord Laming into his own recommendations concerning Victoria Climbié's killing in 2000.[10] The death was also the subject of debate in the House of Commons of the United Kingdom.[6]

The European Court of Human Rights (‘ECtHR’) recently gave judgment in HL v United Kingdom – the “Bournewood” case.
The case concerned Mr L, a 49- year-old man with autism, who, it was agreed, lacked capacity. For about three months in 1997, Mr L was an in-patient at Bournewood Hospital. He was not detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 (‘MHA 1983’); rather, he was accommodated in his own ‘best interests’ under the common law doctrine of ‘necessity’. Mr L brought legal proceedings against the managers of the hospital, claiming that he had been unlawfully detained.
The High Court rejected the claim. It held that he had not, in fact, been detained, and that any detention would have been in his best interests and so lawful under the common law doctrine of necessity. However, the Court of Appeal disagreed. It took the view that Mr L had been detained, and that such detention would only have been lawful under MHA 1983. The House of Lords reversed this decision - it agreed with the High Court.
In essence, the ECtHR has agreed with the Court of Appeal. It found that Mr L was detained, so that the ‘right to liberty’ in Article 5 of the ECHR would be engaged. Further, it held that detention under the common law was incompatible with Article 5 because it was too arbitrary and lacked sufficient safeguards (such as those available to patients detained under MHA 1983). Finally, the ECtHR held that judicial review – which was the only way Mr L had been able to challenge his common law detention – did not provide the kind of rigorous challenge that was required by ECHR, Article 5(4). This is a significant judgment, largely because of the numbers of patients admitted to hospital in their best interests under the common law. The ECtHR has said that in the case of those patients, the common law is not enough. As yet, the government has not issued guidance