Sir Ranulph Fiennes’ care experience highlights valuable lessons about choice, liberty and lasting powers of attorney - Hanna Whitehead

Recent headlines about Sir Ranulph Fiennes have raised serious concerns. The latest developments suggest Sir Ranulph is home, but prior to this, reports varied widely. Relatives and friends alleged that the 82-year-old explorer, who has Parkinson’s disease, had been moved between care homes under false names and denied some visitors.

Meanwhile, a regulator reportedly found that one placement lacked authorisation to restrict his liberty. At the same time, police say he received appropriate care, with no safeguarding concerns. As these are not Court of Protection (CoP) findings, it’s difficult to know what’s accurate.

Many people will have questions about Sir Ranulph’s experiences, especially families discussing care requirements.

It was reported that decisions about his accommodation and contact were made by his wife under a health and welfare lasting power of attorney (LPA). Made while a person has capacity, an LPA permits chosen attorneys to make specified decisions if that person later cannot, including about care, contact and residence. An LPA would not give an attorney unrestricted authority over Sir Ranulph. Under the Mental Capacity Act 2005, capacity is decided on a case-by-case basis. Simply having Parkinson’s does not prove that he cannot decide where to live or whom to see. His decisions must be supported wherever possible. If he cannot decide, the attorney must consider his wishes, feelings, beliefs and values and choose the least restrictive option which is also in his best interest.

Under these arrangements, attorneys remain accountable. The Office of the Public Guardian can investigate and ask the CoP to intervene. The court could decide Sir Ranulph’s capacity, residence or contact, direct the attorney and, in serious cases, suspend or remove them. Its focus would be his welfare, not family disagreements.

It’s not uncommon, or automatically unlawful, to move residents or restrict visits.

Reasons can include a placement no longer meeting needs when specialist care is required. Equally, repeatedly moving a settled, vulnerable person may cause distress, disorientation and impact relationships. Convenience cannot be an excuse.

Contact restrictions may protect residents from harm, but they require evidence and reviews to ensure privacy doesn’t mean isolation.

The reported lack of a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) authorisation needs context. DoLS applies where care home or hospital arrangements take away a person’s liberty. Previously, the usual test was whether someone was under continuous supervision and control and not free to leave. If Sir Ranulph could not consent and that test was met, authorisation was generally required.

On June 2, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled the test too rigid. Now, we consider the restrictions’ nature, duration, effect, setting, and what the person says and does. Agreement may be relevant even if they lack capacity. If Sir Ranulph was content and his arrangements did not, overall, deprive him of liberty, DoLS may not have been required. Its absence alone does not prove unlawfulness.

Sir Ranulph’s situation offers a practical lesson: discuss future care early, choose attorneys carefully and record wishes about settings, treatments and relationships.

Hanna Whitehead is an associate in the Court of Protection team at Ramsdens Solicitors.