Gagged – in whose best interests?

By Amanda Hill, formerly ‘Anna‘, 7 July 2023

“How did the court case with your mum go?”

“OK but I’m not allowed to tell you about it or I could be held in contempt of court and have my assets seized”

This was a conversation I had with a cousin during a family reunion last weekend. 

When we first heard that Mum’s case was going to a hearing at the Court of Protection (COP), we were shocked and concerned. We told lots of family and friends who knew that mum had moved into full-time care and who asked us regularly how things were going. Naturally we told them about the upcoming court case, how worried we were about it and how little we knew about the process. The reaction of most people was either “That’s unbelievable, I thought Mary (my sister, a pseudonym) had LPA for your mum” (she does) or “Don’t worry, it’s just a process”.  

This was all before the Transparency Order became part of our lives and prevented further conversation.  At that early stage, it didn’t occur to me that I wouldn’t be able to update people or talk about the outcome, or what Mary and I had learned from the experience. 

I have written a blog post about how I became a party (a Litigant in Person) in the case and how Mary was a witness (‘Deprived of her liberty’: My experience of the court procedure for my mum).

As part of the case, we had to confirm that we would comply with the Transparency Order (TO) issued as part of the process. This was a standard TO, typical of the one used in most COP cases (as explained here: Transparency Orders: Reflections of a Public Observer ).  I didn’t hesitate to agree. As far as I was concerned, I could see the purpose of it, protecting mum’s privacy. 

I didn’t foresee how much of a burden it would become, as I have wanted to share our story in order to raise awareness of the process, and so that other families can benefit from our experience. Now I find myself living in a parallel universe. In order to write and talk about the case, I had to create a pseudonym “Anna Jones Brown”. But, with my real identity, I’m not allowed to talk about it, or refer my friends and family to Anna’s activities, such as the blogs I have written or the Podcasts that Mary and I recorded with Clare Fuller (https://speakforme.co.uk/podcast  N° 55, 56 and 57). 

If you have read my blog or listened to the Podcasts, you know more about our experience than my family and friends do.

Transparency Order Wording

So, what does the TO, an injunction, say? The standard template is here, and that’s basically what the actual TO used in our case was modelled on.

What immediately stands out is the following right at the start: 

IMPORTANT

If any person disobeys the order made by paragraphs (5) to (9) (the Injunction) they may be found guilty of contempt of court and may be sent to prison, fined or have their assets seized. They have the right to ask the court to vary or discharge the order. 

The bold is as per the template. Naturally, I focused on the fact that I could have my assets seized or be sent to prison. What I didn’t focus on was that we could have asked the court to vary the order – more of that below. 

Paragraphs 5 to 9 cover who is bound by the TO (basically everyone who is involved with the case in some way) and what they can communicate about the case. Effectively nothing that would enable mum (or the rest of the family) to be identified or where any of us lives. 

It is effective until the court orders that it isn’t, including after mum dies. 

Precisely it states: 

‘(7) Subject to further order of the Court and save as provided by paragraph (9) the Persons Bound by this Injunction shall not by any means (and so orally or in writing or electronically by way of social media or in any other way) directly or indirectly: 

(i) publish or communicate the Information or any part or parts of it, or 

(ii) cause, enable, assist in or encourage the publication or communication of the Information or any part or parts of it. ‘

I have highlighted “orally” in bold as this is what prevents me from talking about the case to friends and family (as well as anyone else). This even includes mum’s two other children: during the hearing, we had to obtain express permission from the court to talk about the case and share documents with our two siblings. 

Having this hanging over me is now becoming increasingly difficult. We want to talk and write about our experiences more openly. 

There are also practical difficulties. I have created a Gmail address for Anna. But Google automatically wants to link this to my real Gmail address, which has come up on a Zoom call even when I have signed in from the Anna account. Occasionally I have accidently signed my real name on an email rather than Anna (Celia says I would make a terrible spy!). And I have had to create a separate Twitter account. I want to publish articles and do more research on family experiences of DOLS but I have to be “vague” about my own experience and what qualifies me to do that. 

Applying to vary the TO

But what about mum? The TO is designed to protect her privacy after all. I have thought long and hard about this and ethically I am aware of the dilemma. I know that as a person who has always valued her privacy, she wouldn’t want any family information published and it would upset her. This is why at the start of the hearing I didn’t think to ask to vary the order. 

But as time has gone on my feelings about this have changed and I feel it is now our story as much as hers and I very much want others to learn from our experience. And I really want to be open with family and friends. If I had written of the circumstances leading to the hearing before the day itself and the TO being issued, it would all be out in the open anyway. And many family members write books, articles, podcasts on subjects that others in their family would rather they didn’t and they aren’t prohibited from doing so. 

I could wait until she dies but that could be many years away. And she is highly unlikely to be aware of any information becoming public. Although she has been told many times, she hasn’t retained the knowledge that there has even been a court case. I don’t see that she needs to be told more – another therapeutic lie (by omission). I have concluded that mum won’t be harmed if I reveal who I am. And she has always encouraged and supported me and in one way I think she would be proud that some wider benefit might come out of sharing our story. 

It has reached the point where, with Celia’s help, I am going to apply to have the TO varied (changed) to allow me (and Mary) to talk and write openly about the case, using our real identities. 

I understand that now the case has been closed this is likely to be difficult and time consuming. Nevertheless, I hope that we are successful!

Anna was the pseudonym of a woman whose mother was a P in a Court of Protection s.21A application.  Since March 2025, Amanda Hill is allowed to reveal that she is Anna, because the Transparency Order covering her Mum’s case has been varied (changed). Amanda Hill is a PhD student at the School of Journalism, Media and Culture at Cardiff University. Her research focuses on the Court of Protection, exploring family experiences, media representations and social media activism. She is a core team member of OJCOP. She has been a Litigant in Person. She is on LinkedIn (here), and also on X as (@AmandaAPHill) and on Bluesky (@AmandaAPHill.bsky.social).