By Celia Kitzinger (Intervenor) and “Anna” (Observer), 27 February 2024 (updated 2nd March when I was notified that the judgment was now available on the National Archives).
Back in 2014, Mr Justice Munby, then President of the Court of Protection, expressed concern that the court was “saddled … with the charge that we are a system of secret and unaccountable justice”. It is a charge that has proved difficult to shift.
Munby J recognised that existing terms designed to “protect the anonymity of the person who is subject of the proceedings and members of their family” (§9) may not always be appropriate, “for example, where family members wish to discuss their experiences in public, identifying themselves and making use of the judgment” (§11).
This blog is about how it became possible for Carolyn Stephens, the daughter of a protected party, to tell her family’s story publicly, under her own name, first to the BBC and subsequently to the Daily Mail – and why it’s so important that she had the right to do so.
I begin by setting out the background to the case (“I. The background”), and then consider what’s at issue in seeking to discharge a transparency order (“2. Discharging a reporting restrictions order – what’s at issue”). In the third section, “Anna” describes the hearing which she attended as an observer (“3. The hearing”), relating it to her own experience of seeking to get the transparency order varied so that she can write and speak publicly about the COP hearing for which her mother was a protected party, and which she participated in as a litigant in person. Finally, there are two appendices: the first appendix is my initial letter to HHJ Hilder in support of Carolyn Stephens’ application for discharge of the transparency order: the second appendix is the judgment, which is public but not published on any official judicial or HMCTS website.
1. The background (Celia)
Carolyn Stephens is a Professor at University College London. Her father, Vincent Stephens, was a protected party at the centre of a Court of Protection case when he died on 18th June 2023. He had end-stage dementia.
Neither Anna nor I observed any of the hearings concerning Vincent Stephens. The first I knew of the case was when Carolyn contacted me on 26th October 2023, some four months after his death. She used the contact form on the Open Justice Court of Protection Project website to ask if I could help her figure out what she was and wasn’t able to say about her family experience so long as a ‘transparency order’ remained in place. She had already submitted an application to discharge the transparency order (on 7th September 2023) but so far there had been no substantive response, and she was anxious about possible contempt of court in relation to interviews she was doing with the BBC.
So, for the background to the case more broadly, I draw on the only written judgment (which relates to the subsequent hearing I did attend) and on the media accounts.
The judgment is available by clicking on the link here: In the Matter of VS (deceased) [2024] EWCOP 6. It supplies only the following background facts.
9. By way of context, it is sufficient for present purposes to note the following matters:
- Professor [Carolyn] Stephens is the only child of Vincent Stephens;
- after her mother/his wife died, Mr. Stephens formed another companionship;
- Dr [Penny] Sorensen is the daughter of that companion, who has herself now died;
- Mr. Stephens appointed both of them (Dr Sorensen and her mother) as his attorneys for both property and affairs and for welfare.
10. I have not, at any stage, made any findings of fact at all about the companionship or what may or may not have happened since the death of Mr Stephens’ wife.
11. Professor Stephens wishes to air concerns that individuals and/or public bodies either actively prevented her from maintaining contact with her father or at least failed to facilitate ongoing relationships with a vulnerable person. Dr Sorensen maintains that Mr Stephens himself wanted to be left alone to pursue his chosen path in later years.
12. The substantive proceedings in this court focused on contact between Mr Stephens and his daughter and wider family and friends. Arrangements for such contact were achieved at the first hearing, and subsequently contact took place at the care home where Mr Stephens was then resident.
In the Matter of VS (deceased) [2024] EWCOP 6
The story that Carolyn Stephens tells in the Daily Mail (27th January 2024), following HHJ Hilder’s decision to discharge the transparency order, is a desperately sad one. She says her father was lost to her for four years, during which she didn’t even know if he was still alive. She only found him because she embarked on an epic trawl through the electoral records at the British Library to try to find where he was living. She believes that her father was deliberately estranged from his family, ‘dumped’ in a care home, and duped into believing he had been abandoned. According to the Daily Mail, Carolyn traces the beginning of the problems to the arrival in her father’s life of a widow he’d met on a Saga holiday in 2021, the woman the judge refers to as his “companion”, Iris Keyes.
“She cites three events over the space of a week in 2018.
‘First, this woman [Iris Keyes] took my father to a register office and tried to marry him, but the registrar refused saying that he did not have the capacity. He couldn’t answer basic questions, like his own address.
But just a week later, a solicitor signed a piece of paper that gave [Iris Keyes] Lasting Power of Attorney, over not only finances and property but health and welfare. It gave her the power to remove me from his life’.
The third event? Carolyn was reported to the police, accused of abuse and harassment of her father. No charges were ever brought, and she has since had an apology from the Chief Constable of Norfolk Police.”
Daily Mail, 27 January 2024
The Mail reports that Carolyn and the wider family backed off for a while, and then Carolyn learnt (from public records) in May 2022 that Iris Keyes had died: “There was no mention of my father in her obituary. He had disappeared from the narrative.” With Iris dead, the Lasting Power of Attorney was in the hands of her daughter, Penny Sorensen – who is also an academic at the University of East Anglia with a special interest in elderly care. She declined to tell Carolyn where her father was now living.
When Carolyn eventually found her father, in a care home in Norfolk, “the visiting log showed that Dad was left alone for 346 days, without any visitors, in 2022 alone. He had no visits at all from January 1 to June 16. No one visited him on his birthday”. What’s more, Penny Sorensen, in her role as his attorney, then instructed the care home not to allow further visits from his family.
That’s when the Court of Protection became involved. Carolyn made an emergency application to the court which, two days later, led to immediate permission to Carolyn and her husband to visit Vincent in the care home. Permission for other family members to visit was granted shortly afterwards and then, all the family were able to spent time with Vincent for the last six months of his life.
The BBC published part of Carolyn’s story back in 2021, before she’d found her father: at that point, she told her story under a pseudonym. In December 2023, she went on record under her own name in a podcast, “Finding my father”, available on BBC Sounds Radio 4 but without mentioning the Court of Protection hearing. Since the handing down of HHJ Hilder’s written judgment lifting the reporting restrictions, she has been able to speak out about the court case too.
It’s been important for Carolyn to tell her story – and to tell it under her own name – because she wants to warn people about the potential for “dangerous abuse” of Lasting Power of Attorney legislation. She believes there should be more safeguards to protect vulnerable people.
She’s pleased with the way journalists have handled her story. As she said on X/Twitter “Just wanted to thank Daily Mail for highlighting Lasting Power of Attorney risks. And thanks to brilliant Judge in Court of Protection who let us see Dad.” (Carolyn)
There was a deluge of response to the Daily Mail story from people who said they had similar experience, referring to “coercive control”, “grooming” and “predatory marriage” as well as abuse of Lasting Power of Attorney: others emphasised the value of LPA in protecting their loved ones.
This is clearly an important conversation. Elder abuse – whether through marriage in later life or through LPAs – raises legitimate issues of public concern. As another journalist wrote:
“This troubling saga highlights a broader societal issue: the potential for elder abuse and the exploitation of individuals suffering from cognitive decline. The ordeal faced by Carolyn and her family raises serious questions about the safeguards in place to protect the vulnerable elderly population. It underscores the need for vigilance and stricter regulations to prevent such scenarios from occurring.”
The Silent Suffering: A Family Estranged Amidst Elderly Exploitation Concerns, BNN breaking News https://bnnbreaking.com/bnn-newsroom/the-silent-suffering-a-family-estranged-amidst-elderly-exploitation-concerns/
Carolyn is especially concerned that new proposals to modernise the process of applying for LPAs could lead to further abuse, with less checking of the vulnerable person’s capacity to make the LPA. She’s tweeted: “Agree with Law Society “The consequence of an attorney making a poor decision could result in the donor losing all their assets, being admitted into a care home against their wishes or even premature death“.
You can read Carolyn’s earlier academic article in the British Medical Journal here: “Elder abuse in the UK: out of the shadows and on to the agenda”. She’s subsequently co-authored another article here: “Changing policy landscape around elder abuse in England and Wales“, in which she and her colleagues call for health professionals to “work with the legal profession to advocate that the strongest possible safeguards be incorporated into the Ministry of Justice regulations protecting older people from LPA abuse, and to support Law Commission proposals that may help protect older people from predatory marriage“.
2. Discharging a reporting restrictions order – what’s at issue? (Celia)
The Court of Protection frequently deals with fundamental issues of human rights, which are of legitimate public interest: deprivation of liberty, physical and chemical restraint, restrictions on contact with family members, surgery contrary to a person’s wishes, withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment, and the validity and proper use of Lasting Powers of Attorney.
Almost all Court of Protection hearings are open to the public (including journalists) – but it’s rare for anyone actually to attend. That’s why we started the Open Justice Court of Protection Project – to shine a spotlight onto the way these decisions are made and the power of the law to intervene into people’s lives.
Although we can almost always publicly report on hearings in the Court of Protection, there is generally a “transparency order” in place. This is a (somewhat Orwellian) name for an injunction imposing reporting restrictions. In its ‘standard form’ it prevents the publication of anything which could lead to the identification of the protected party and their family. Sometimes it goes further than this, preventing identification of experts, clinicians and even local authorities or Trusts and other public bodies involved in a case.
The key issue in discharging reporting restrictions in cases like these is the balance between two different rights in the European Convention on Human Rights: Article 8, the right to privacy of the vulnerable person at the centre of the case, and Article 10, the right to freedom of expression and freedom of information.
These rights are protected in the ‘standard’ transparency order by:
- prohibiting publication in any form of information that identifies or is likely to identify the protected party as the subject of the proceedings, or that any person is a member of the family of the subject of the proceedings, or any information that identifies or is likely to identify where any of those persons lives, or is being cared for, or their contact details – thereby protecting Article 8 rights;
- permitting publication of reports about and commentary on the proceedings, especially insofar as they relate to matters of public interest, including naming judges, lawyers, expert witnesses, public bodies (ICB, Trust, LA etc) – thereby protecting Article 10 rights.
This is, in essence, the effect of the transparency order of 30th January 2023 that applied to Vincent Stephens’ case.
The Article 8/Article 10 balance shifts significantly when family members assert their Article 10 rights to speak openly about the proceedings in which they are, or have been, involved. That is so in this case, as in an increasing number of other cases I’m aware of (see, for example, “Gagged – in whose best interests?”). Family members’ right to speak with other family members (not directly involved in the case) also engages their Article 8 rights to family life.
That is why, after Carolyn Stephens contacted me, I wrote to HHJ Hilder (see Appendix A) to support her application to discharge the transparency order.
In other cases where I’ve written to judges for discharge or variation of a transparency order, nobody has opposed my application and the matter has been dealt with – often quite swiftly – on the papers. In this case, however, Dr Penny Sorensen opposed discharge of the transparency order and so the matter moved to a contested hearing, and I was invited by the judge to become an Intervenor and to submit a full position statement.
My position statement (17 November 2023) addressed two additional issues.
First, Penny Sorensen argued that she was “family” and that the wording of the transparency order therefore also covered her (i.e. protected her identity from being publicly revealed): this was disputed by Carolyn Stephens for whom Penny Sorensen could not be considered a “family” member to Vincent Stephens. My submission was that the transparency order was poorly drafted in not listing the specific members of the “family” whose identity it was intended to protect. This should be remedied in future orders, especially in situations in which unmarried partners, step-families and “blended families” are involved.
Second, Penny Sorensen considered that the matter with which the proceedings were concerned should remain private because there was a risk that Carolyn Stephens would repeat unsubstantiated allegations against her as if they were fact, or even the outcome of judicial enquiry. My submission was that, given the importance of Article 10 as a fundamental right, it was neither necessary nor proportionate pre-emptively to limit Carolyn Stephens’ freedom of expression on the basis of unevidenced fears that it might be abused.
Additionally, I was concerned about the fact that the transparency order applying to this case was of indefinite duration (“until further order of the court“). Following Abbasi and Haastrup [2023] EWCA Civ 331, the granting of indefinite anonymity orders like this has been seen as representing a serious inroad into the principle of open justice – a matter that is currently under consideration by the COP Rules Committee, and will shortly be before the Supreme Court. HHJ Hilder referred to this matter in her judgment (see Appendix B).
The hearing, COP 14044755, was held remotely at 10.30am on 19th December 2023, before HHJ Hilder, the Senior Judge of the Court of Protection.
3. The hearing (Anna)
This hearing was about a subject close to my heart – a transparency order restricting reporting of a Court of Protection case.
My mum was a protected party in a Court of Protection case due to a s.21A Deprivation of Liberty appeal, which I have written about here.
My family and I are prevented from talking about the case under our own names because this could lead people to identify my mother. In theory, anyone who knows my name might go to the trouble of trying to work out who my mother is, and might be able to do so. That’s why I am using a pseudonym – Anna is not my real name.
A transparency order is helpful for family members who don’t want to be identified, but in my family we all now want to be able to discuss our case both with wider family and with friends. And because I am now a member of the Open Justice Court of Protection Project core team, and planning research on the Court of Protection, I want to be able to write and speak about my mother’s case publicly. I have written about what it feels like to be unable to do that here. I have made an application for the transparency order in my mum’s case to be varied to permit us to do that. I’ve told my mum what I am doing and she said she was proud of me but I don’t think she really understood and she certainly won’t remember. But it was important for me to tell her and it meant a lot to me that she said she was proud!
I’d become aware of this case through Celia Kitzinger, co-director of the OJCOPP, as she had become an intervenor, i.e. someone who is joined to a case, as they can be materially impacted by it.
This application to discharge a transparency order has three key differences from my situation.
- First, the protected party in this case had died. Therefore, according to the law, he has no best interests to protect. Because my mum (unlike Carolyn’s Dad) is still alive, she still has best interests and a right to privacy in the eyes of the law, according to Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). This means that the Official Solicitor, who represents Mum’s best interests, may be asked for her opinion about whether varying the Order is in Mum’s best interests (although the decision is not a best interests one – it’s about weighing up Mum’s Article 8 rights to privacy against our Article 10 rights to freedom of expression). This in turn has cost implications. My mum was covered by legal aid for the original hearing (as is normal practice for s.21A hearings), but her solicitor has told me that in the view of the legal aid agency, Mum would not get legal aid if the judge were to require a new hearing (as opposed to an on-the-papers decision) to deal with my application. It doesn’t feel right to me to expect my Mum to pay for this.
- Second, this was a disputed application. The protected party’s daughter, was the applicant, and she wanted the transparency order to be discharged. The daughter of the person the judge described as P’s “companion” opposed that: she had also, crucially, held Lasting Power of Attorney for Carolyn’s dad. By contrast, my three siblings and I are in complete agreement. We would like the transparency order to be varied (changed) so that we can discuss the case, but without naming Mum. We do not yet know whether the Official Solicitor or the Local Authority will oppose my application.
- Third, this was an application to completely discharge the transparency order, so that there would be no reporting restrictions at all (as far as the Court of Protection is concerned). My own application is more limited. I’ve applied not to discharge the Order but to vary it. My siblings and I want to be able to identify ourselves as the relatives (daughters and son) of a protected party, but not to name the protected party herself.
Our experience as a family is that it’s not been easy to apply to vary the Transparency Order. It feels as though once an Order is in place and a case is closed it’s a very challenging thing to do. I’m extremely fortunate in having recently been offered a pro bono (i.e. free) solicitor and barrister to help me with this, since (even with Celia’s help) I wasn’t making much progress without a lawyer.
Given this background experience, I was very interested to see how this hearing would go and what the judge would decide.
None of the people in this case was represented legally. I’m told by Celia that she never considered legal representation, since she has some experience of making submissions in court about open justice and felt reasonably confident to do so. In many cases (like my own) family members don’t have lawyers because of the cost involved. Unless family members are eligible for legal aid, we have to pay legal fees if we are acting as parties and want lawyers to represent us.
So, the only legal person at the hearing was the judge. I felt she made every effort to make sure that the parties were not disadvantaged by appearing as litigants in person – especially by the way in which she outlined the issues she was reminding herself of (in place of hearing legal submissions on those) and then asked for the parties’ comments. The way in which she did this is apparent from the judgment – see below.
Two issues struck me during the course of the hearing.
First, when Penny Sorensen was setting out orally why she opposed the application to discharge the TO, she stated that she had been given LPA by Vincent Stephens when he had capacity and that this had been “overturned” by the court. The judge questioned this and said that the LPA had not been overturned by the court. She replied that although the LPA was still in place (while he was still alive), his wishes were not upheld. The judge replied that the court is the final arbiter – “always”. My family shared the same misconception. My sister has LPA for my mum and we all assumed, simplistically, that this meant that when mum lost capacity my sister as her LPA could make decisions in her best interests, including where she lived. As I have blogged about before, we had no idea about the role that the COP has in representing somebody who has been deemed to have lost capacity, over and above any legal powers an LPA has. I agree with the judge that it is in the public interest to learn and understand more about this and the role that the COP has in an individual and their family’s lives.
Second, one important issue that was raised, and not resolved, was what constitutes a family member. Carolyn Stephens argued that Penny Sorensen was not covered by the transparency order as she was not “family”. Penny Sorensen argued that she was: ‘I lived with him ….we ate together, we celebrated together, he treated me like a daughter …… I think I am family and I don’t know who is going to decide whether I am or not.” Celia had raised this in both in her formal position statement and in her oral submission, stating that the order should have been more specific and stated who the family members were who were covered by it. From my limited experience it is easy and common for legal teams to use a standard transparency order without thinking whether they are appropriate. As the judge says, what constitutes family today is not always straightforward. And how wide is family? I notice that the transparency order in my Mum’s case just says ” family” with no initials (except my Mum’s) so could be widely interpreted.
This case gave me hope that our wish to have the transparency order in our case changed will be successful, even though there are crucial differences with our case, not least that Mum is still alive. Nobody wishes for a family member to have to die before they can talk about their case, even just with their wider family and friends.
I was pleased to see Judge Hilder being such a supporter of open justice in many ways during this hearing and for ensuring that the litigants in person in this case could participate in a fair way. The role of Celia as intervenor was also an interesting aspect of this case and helped to ensure that public interest and transparency were at the forefront of the hearing.
The judgment is available here: In the Matter of VS (deceased) [2024] EWCOP 6
Celia Kitzinger is co-director of the Open Justice Court of Protection Project. She has observed more than 500 hearings since May 2020 and written more than 100 blog posts. She is on LinkedIn (here), and tweets @KitzingerCelia
Anna is the pseudonym of a woman whose mother was a protected party in a Court of Protection s.21A (challenge to a Deprivation of Liberty) application. She is a core team member of the Open Justice Court of Protection Project. She is particularly interested in family experiences of the Court of Protection and increasing understanding of the Court of Protection for families. Anna is not using her real name because she is subject to a transparency order from her mother’s case. She is hoping to change this.
****
Appendix A: Celia Kitzinger’s initial letter to HHJ Hilder
Dear HHJ Hilder
Re: COP 14044755 Re VS: Discharge of Transparency Order
I am writing, in my role as co-director of the Open Justice Court of Protection Project, in support of Carolyn Stephens’ application to discharge the Transparency Order (made by HHJ Owens, dated 30 January 2023) which she sent to me – in confidence – for advice on its terms. I also want, via this email, to make my own application for discharge of this Order, for the reasons given below.
I understand that a key reason why Carolyn Stephens wants to discharge the Transparency Order is so that she can speak publicly about her experience in relation to Lasting Power of Attorney and the Court of Protection – following an invitation from BBC Radio 4 to contribute to a series of programmes commissioned by the BBC on what protection exists for older people (scheduled for transmission in November/December 2023).
The role of Lasting Powers of Attorney, the ‘modernising changes’ made to them, their risks and benefits, and the vital function of the Court of Protection when things go wrong are all areas of legitimate public interest. This is an area to which Carolyn Stephens has already made an important and very widely cited contribution in her professional capacity as an academic researcher in global health, in a piece which highlights the risks of “vulnerable individuals, particularly older people with failing capacity, being coerced into either marriage or powers of attorney” (Elder abuse in the UK BMJ 2021;375:n2828).
In terms of the Article 8/Article 10 balance to be struck here, I understand that VS has sadly died, such that he can no longer benefit from the Article 8 right to privacy explicitly afforded to him by the Transparency Order.
The only other people whose right to privacy is protected by the Order are VS’s family members (§6(1)(a)) – all of whom, Carolyn Stephens assures me, are willing to waive their right to privacy in order to ensure that their story can be told effectively and in a manner that engages public interest.
The effect of the Transparency Order currently in place is to curtail Carolyn Stephens’ Article 10 right to freedom of expression to speak and write about her experience of the Court of Protection, under her own name. This also, of course, engages the public’s Article 10 right to receive that information from her (as an identified person) and thereby to benefit from her experience.
I can’t see any Article 8 argument to balance against the Article 10 right of freedom of expression and freedom of information.
Under the terms of the current Transparency Order, it would be possible for Carolyn Stephens to tell the story of her experience of adult protection anonymously. But an anonymous account does not, in my view, fulfil the requirements of open justice for the following reasons:
- As indicated above, there is no Article 8 argument to balance against this family’s (and the public’s) Article 10 rights – and therefore no justification for constraining Carolyn Stephens’ right to publish her story under her own name.
- It is widely accepted that stories about identified persons are much more effective in the media. As was famously said by Lord Rodger in Re Guardian News and Media Ltd and Ors [2010] UKSC 1 “What’s in a name? ‘A lot’, the press would answer. This is because stories about particular individuals are simply much more attractive to readers than stories about unidentified people. It is just human nature. […] A requirement to report it in some austere, abstract form, devoid of much of its human interest, could well mean that the report would not be read and the information would not be passed on”. An abstract story about an unidentified family’s experience of Lasting Power of Attorney and the Court of Protection will simply have less impact and be far less effective as a vehicle for developing legal literacy – so the requirement to remain anonymous impedes both Carolyn Stephens’ own goals in telling her story, and the benefits of public education derived from it.
- It perpetuates an uncomfortable and artificial separation between Carolyn-Stephens-as-health-researcher and Carolyn-Stephens-as-family-member in writing about the experience of elder abuse: her personal experience is alluded to in the footnote to her publication cited above, but obviously without elaboration.
Alternatively, under the terms of the current Transparency Order, Carolyn Stephens could speak in her own name about her experiences of elder abuse and adult protection, but without making any reference to the Court of Protection case. This would result in a partial and incomplete story, and miss out on an opportunity to develop public understanding of the role of the Court in dealing with these important issues of public concern. For some listeners, it would also beg the question of why the Court of Protection appears not to have been involved. Moreover, absent any competing Article 8 arguments, there is no legitimate reason to censor Carolyn Stephens in this way.
I would also draw your attention to the fact that this Transparency Order has been drawn up so as to have effect “until further order of the court” (§8). Following Abbasi and Haastrup [2023] EWCA Civ 331, the granting of indefinite anonymity orders like this has been seen as representing a serious inroad into the principle of open justice. In my experience, recent Transparency Orders (across a range of cases from s.21A through welfare and SMT cases) have specified endpoints (at least relating to the identification of clinicians) – sometimes tied to the death of P, sometimes to an apparently arbitrary date some months hence. This seems to me an appropriate acknowledgement of a family’s “desire to tell their story”, as noted by Lord Burnett, giving judgment in the Court of Appeal.
The difficulties experienced by Carolyn Stephens are very familiar to me from my work as co-director of the Open Justice Court of Protection Project. I am increasingly seeing families who want to be able to tell their stories, under their own names. I am currently supporting family members of four other protected parties (all from cases that are now closed). They want to speak out about their experience of the Court of Protection but are bound by Transparency Orders, the scope of which they did not fully appreciate at the time (e.g. for one such family member’s account see “Gagged – in whose best interests?”). When a case is ongoing, it is often possible to vary the Transparency Order quite quickly during the course of a hearing – but after a hearing is finished, and especially once a case is closed, it often becomes cumbersome, time-consuming and potentially quite expensive to do this. I am aware of the current review of Transparency Orders by the Rules Committee, and in addition to making a formal submission (see “Anxious scrutiny or boilerplate”), I have alerted them to my concern that family members (and indeed “P”) can find it difficult to understand, and frustrating to comply with, the anonymity requirements imposed on them by the Transparency Order – and also impossibly challenging to work out how to get the Transparency Order varied or discharged. I hope this is something that can be addressed at a policy and practice level for all families caught up in the Court of Protection.
Finally, I am also acutely aware that an ‘anonymised’ or ‘censored’ version of Carolyn Stephens’ story risks reputational damage to the Court of Protection – as yet another media account about the workings of a “secret” court imposing “gagging orders”.
So, for all these reasons, I am supporting Carolyn Stephens’ application and asking for a speedy decision to discharge the Transparency Order in this case – in time for Carolyn Stephens to speak publicly, and under her own name, to the BBC. Please join my application to discharge this Transparency Order to hers.
Thank you for considering this application and for your support of open justice.
Celia Kitzinger
Professor Celia Kitzinger, Co-director, Open Justice Court of Protection Project
.
Promoting Open Justice in the Court of Protection 
One thought on “When families want to tell their story: Discharging a transparency order”