My experience at Weymouth Combined Court: listing, access, and transparency

By Peter C Bell, 30th May 2024

It was one of those days where I had not really intended to do any Court watching. I was back in Weymouth to help the family to support my elderly father after the recent loss of both his wife (my mother) and then his elder sister and casually glancing through the Courtel/CourtServe listings for my local Court.

Weymouth is a combined court centre, with both magistrates and family and county courts located in the same building situated by the inner harbour in Weymouth. This is a short bus ride and then a 5-minute walk away from my parent’s house in Weymouth. My father used to appear regularly in these courts when he was a probation officer in Dorset, but that was some 50 years ago!

I’d never seen a Court of Protection hearing listed for Weymouth (you sometimes see them listed at Poole), but on Thursday 25 April 2024, buried amongst the Possession hearings to be heard that day in Courtroom 3 by District Judge Lacey was a Court of Protection (COP) hearing:

Start Time	Duration	Case Detail	Hearing Type	Hearing Channel
3:00 PM	1 hour	13784330 Restricted	COP (Court of Protection) Hearing	Video – Teams
Party Name
Parties Suppressed

I was intrigued to know what sort of COP hearing was happening in my local Court.

Access

Transparency was impeded by the failure to include the Weymouth COP hearing in the COP section on CourtServe.  I double-checked, just in case I’d missed it, but no – it was only in the Daily County/Family Court list – and so, unsurprisingly, it had not been picked up by the Open Justice Court of Protection Project team.  If I’d not been looking specifically at the Weymouth list, it would have been private by default.  I notice also that the list does not say that it’s a public hearing (it uses the word “Restricted”) and it does not provide any descriptors indicating what issues are before the court.  It also doesn’t provide the correct email address for would-be observers.

Knowing that COP is organised into regional “hubs” in England and Wales, I was aware that  requests to observe in Weymouth Court, which falls within the South-West region, must be sent to  Bristol. So, I submitted my usually-worded request to observe the hearing (and ask for the Transparency Order) by email to the COP regional hub in Bristol. My email was sent at 10:05 for a hearing scheduled for 15:00 the same day and I immediately followed it up with a phone call to the Hub to alert staff to the email.

At 11:26 I received from the South-West Regional Hub a Teams link to the hearing together with a copy of the Transparency Order made by DJ Lacey on 28 June 2023 and issued on 17 July 2023.

Transparency Order

As a law student I’ve received training on how to read legal documents and how to check them. So here are my thoughts on the Transparency Order I had been given:

1. The intention of the Transparency Order is to protect the identity of the person who is the subject of the Court of Protection proceedings, so anything that might identify them should not be in or attached to a Transparency Order. The name of the person is usually replaced by initials, which may, or may not, be their own initials or some other initials chosen to represent them. In this case the initials JJ have been used in place of their name. However, the Transparency Order has a filename, and the filename used for this Transparency Order has, as part of that filename, the surname of a person beginning with J – so, it is most likely that the filename of the Transparency Order has revealed to me (and anyone else who is sent the Transparency Order) the name of the protected person.  I’m told this is not unusual.
2. At clause 6(i)(c) of the Order the name of the local authority who are the respondent in the case is also protected. It is prohibited to publish information that identifies or is likely to identify that XYZ Council is a party to the proceedings. The wording in this sub-clause uses the initials of the Council – ie XYZ Council is a party to these proceedings and it is fairly obvious that the identity of the Council can readily be identified by these initials.  Moreover,  on the face of the Order the name of the local authority is spelled out in full.  The Transparency Order is a public document that ought to be available to every member of the public – but I cannot show you a copy as to do so would be a breach of the terms of the Order itself, owing to the way in which it has been drafted.
3. At clause 9(i)(e) of the Order, permission is given for “disclosing information for the purposes of caring for DOB” but it is not clear what connection DOB has with the case; most probably this is an error and “DOB” ought to read “JJ”.

So much for the drafting of the Transparency Order but what about the prohibition on naming the local authority involved in this case? Why is it that it is thought necessary to withhold from public view the name of the local authority?

There are, occasionally, good reasons for withholding the names of public bodies, but this is rarely the case.  I can see no good reason why publishing the name of the local authority is likely to lead to the identification of the person who is the subject of these Court of Protection proceedings. And any local authority ought to be accountable for their actions – they are a public body after all.  Of course, in the Family Courts it is usual that local authorities are not named, but the Court of Protection is a separate jurisdiction with its own rules and procedures and case law. Is it too much to expect the legal professionals working in the Court of Protection to know those rules and the norms of the Court of Protection and to ensure that the correct templates are offered to the Court for consideration?

My immediate response, on reading the Transparency Order, was to submit a written request to the Court to vary the Transparency Order and to omit the local authority from the list of those parties protected by the Transparency Order. At the same time, I suggested that the Court might consider amending the duration of the Order, so that the Order was only in place during the lifetime of the person protected by the Order.

My email to the Court requesting that the Court consider my request to vary the Transparency Order was sent at 11:44. 

At 12:55 the Regional Hub sent me an email saying that the hearing at 3pm had been vacated (i.e. was not going to go ahead), but by this time I was on a bus on my way to the Court.

Why? You might ask. was I on a bus to the Court when the hearing I was interested in was one held on Teams? Well, just below the listing for the Court of Protection hearing on the Daily Cause list for Weymouth County Court was another hearing listed before the same Judge at the same time. This was a committal hearing with a Housing Association applying to commit a tenant to jail (or a fine) for contempt of Court. I will not give the name of the Housing Association or the name of the tenant for reasons which will become clear later on.

Listing problems are not unique to the Court of Protection

But apart from this case which I was interested to observe in person, there was yet another reason that I was on the bus. This was to do with the listing of cases in the Magistrates Court, which is in the same building – Weymouth is a combined court centre. The Magistrates were sitting in Court 1 and on Courtserve was a list of cases before the magistrates. However, again from previous experience, I noticed that it was only a very short list and all of the cases on the list were Libra cases.

Now the Courts are going through a transition to new technology for listing cases (at least in the Magistrates Courts). The old system Libra is being phased out and new cases are listed on something known as Common Platform or CP. Cases listed on Common Platform have a particular format for the case reference – which is usually 99AA9999999 whereas Libra case references are in the format which is wholly numeric.

Weymouth had loaded one file on to Courtserve which was clearly the Libra list. There was no sign of any Common Platform cases, which made me suspicious. You see, Libra listings are loaded automatically on to Courtserve – the Libra system sends them to Courtel who process them on to their system. But Common Platform lists have to be emailed by each individual court across to Courtel before they are loaded on to Courtserve. So my suspicion was that there WAS another list of cases – but this had not been emailed by staff at Weymouth Magistrates Court. The only way to find out, as the telephone lines at Weymouth Magistrates Court were not being answered, was to hack up, get through security and have a look at the physical notice board outside each Court. That is modern technology for you!

Arriving at Weymouth Combined Court Centre

Hence my arrival at Weymouth Combined Court centre at 13:55 (according to my trusty notebook). There was a new security officer on duty at the entrance, with the two security officers that I recognised and who recognise me and say, “Hello Mr Bell”, sitting and/or standing in the background. The new man was being very, very, very thorough!

I take with me a back pack with various things in it to sustain me throughout the many minutes (sometime hours) of waiting in Courts. And also some items for taking photographs of my journeys to and from Court (taking photographs without permission inside a Court or near the entrance to a Court can land you in a lot of trouble). I had to empty almost everything out of the back pack for examination. Battery packs, selfie stick, lots and lots and computer and phone leads, chargers, laptop, multiple notebooks, ID, you name it, if I might need it, it is usually with me …

The usual arms wide legs apart stance, show the wristwatch, turn around, show the belt buckle, hold still until wand has finished bleeping (never understand how they work out whether the bleeps are real or false?) AND relax. Then pack everything back in to back pack, take out trusty notebook and pen, and do the rounds of the three noticeboards. 

Sure enough, on the noticeboard outside Court 1 – the active Magistrates Court – are TWO lists. The Libra list published on Courtserve and a much longer, two page list of Common Platform cases.

I have the Libra list on my laptop and on my mobile phone, but obviously do not have the much longer CP list.

I walk around the other noticeboards – nothing posted outside Court 2, and quite a long list posted outside Court 3 – but this is another list that I have downloaded from Courtserve. There, at the bottom of the Court 3 list, are the two hearings at 3pm that I am interested in.

I return back to security and ask how I can get a copy of the 2^nd list for the Magistrates Court, and am directed through a door to the office. 

This area is empty with a partition (wiggly, not straight!) along its length dividing the area in to two. At the end of the public side, there is a telephone handset with a notice saying, if you want to contact the County Court, lift the handset.

In the middle of the partition is a glass window through which you can see an empty office with desks for around 8 people. By the window is a buzzer, which I press.

Shortly thereafter two women enter from the far end and go to a computer screen where they sit and stand together discussing some procedure on the computer. After some minutes one of the women comes over to the window to ask what I want. I reply that there are two lists posted for the Magistrates Court but only the Libra list is available on Courtserve, could I have a copy of the other Common Platform list?

The response is – we have sent that to Courtserve – it should be there. I get out my mobile phone and navigate to the Weymouth Magistrates Court entry on Courtserve and show them that it is only the Libra list that is there. I advise them that Courtel have told me that Libra lists are sent automatically but CP lists have to be sent manually. I am told that they have been told that the CP lists are sent automatically, but there is obviously some confusion.

Could I have a copy of the CP list, please? Could it be emailed or could I have a printed copy? A printed copy of the double sided A4 page with the list of CP cases is provided to me.

At 14:09 I step in to the public gallery entrance to Court 1 where a case is in progress. In the public area on the back row there is a young woman in a black suit with a laptop typing away furiously (but silently).

In the Court are two female Magistrates on the bench, with a large male legal advisor (much taller and heavier than me!)  sat in front of them looking at me. To the left in a box of his own sits someone I recognise as the Probation Officer, also with his laptop open in front of him.

At the front of the Court on the left is a woman from the Crown Prosecution Service with laptop up on a stand in front of her, and to the right is the solicitor for the Defendant.

On the right of the Court behind a glass screen (in the area known as “the dock”) can be seen the head only of the person who is the defendant.

Just in front of the public area and on the right rear of the Court is a cordoned off area where the Court Usher usually sits, but she is not in Court at the moment.

I take a seat on the public seats at the rear of the Court, open trusty notebook (a real, paper notebook not a digital one) and try to follow what is going on.

The Magistrates Court

I gather that the Defendant is a Miss Davies and the offence appears to be one of some disorder outside a property when drink had been consumed. Police were called. The Defendant’s solicitor offers some mitigation and advises the Court that his client is pregnant and expecting a baby within the next two weeks and asks for the offence to be dealt with by way of a financial penalty.

I am looking on my mobile phone to find the listing to try and locate the name of the Defendant and the case reference when the Legal Advisor barks across the well of the Court at me – is that a mobile phone? I hold it up and say, I am trying to look at the hearing list …

I am told that I must switch off any mobile phone when I come in to Court (see later for my comments on this). I do as I am told – he is much bigger than me! – and switch off my phone.

The Chair of the Magistrates asks Miss Davies to stand and then tells her that she has a conditional discharge for 12 months. There is a quick discussion with the defence solicitor about his client’s financial circumstances and the Magistrates order a surcharge of £26 and £40 costs totalling £66 which they agree can be deducted from benefit.

The Chairs closing remark to the Defendant was to thank her for her attitude in Court and to wish her good luck.

It is now 14:19 and the Court moves on to the case of Mr Jake Batty who is listed for a 10:00 hearing. It appears that Mr Batty is not at Court.

The Probation Officer explains to the Court that Mr Batty is not present because they (probation) had advised him to attend at Bournemouth Crown Court as he was due there today for sentencing in another matter. It seems that he did not, however, attend at Bournemouth and the Crown Court has issued a warrant for his arrest. 

In the circumstances, the Probation Officer invites the Court to adjourn the current proceedings to a later date, as it would be inappropriate to ask the Court to issue a warrant, given that it was the Probation service who had advised him not to attend this Court but to go to Bournemouth Crown Court instead.

A date is found by the Legal Advisor and Mr Batty is ordered to attend at Weymouth Magistrates Court on 20 June 2024 @ 10:00 a.m.

At this point I took the opportunity to pop out from Court 1 in order to copy down in my notebook the Libra hearing list of 5 cases that were not on the CP list I had been given.

I was able to flick back through my notes and correct the names and add the case numbers to the two cases I had just observed.

Committal hearing

At 14:50 I moved to sit outside Court 3 waiting for the committal hearing to begin. By this time, I had been made aware by the Judge’s Clerk that the Court of Protection hearing listed for 3pm on Teams had been cancelled. I had enquired how the two cases were to be scheduled. My plan was to find a quiet room and set up my laptop for the Teams hearing using my mobile phone as a WiFi hotspot, and then to switch off the electronics and revert back to the trusty pen and paper notebook for the other hearing (or vice versa – depending on which hearing the Judge decided to deal with first).

The Judge’s Clerk told me that the committal hearing would be in Court 2 (because it was a committal) and I noticed in one of the meetings rooms a barrister in full wig and gown (as I now find is required for a committal hearing) with another woman who was either her instructing solicitor or a representative from the Housing Association that was bringing the proceedings.

At one stage a young woman accompanied by a young man were escorted by the Judge’s Clerk in to the meeting room where the barrister and the other woman were seated.

At 15:05 the Judge’s Clerk came up to me and informed me that I could not be admitted because “the Defendant says that she will not come in to Court if there is someone present”. I was told that she had suffered a recent trauma – and then the nature of that trauma was made plain to me.

I realise that the Court official was trying her best to convince me that I should not observe the hearing – but I do not think that she ought to have breached the Defendant’s right to confidentiality in the way that she had done.

I politely but firmly insisted that the decision as to whether I could observe should be made by the Judge. It was a public hearing and I had a right to be heard if there was consideration being given to holding the hearing in private.

The Judge’s Clerk repeated what she had said, but louder and more forcefully. And went to go back in to the Court room.

I repeated what I had said, and emphasised that this was a decision for the Judge and I asked explicitly to speak with the Judge before he made his decision.

I sat back down to wait with my heart thumping.

At 15:28 the Judge’s Clerk advised me that we would all go together in to the Court room (now Court 2) and the Judge would find out the Defendant’s reasons for not wanting the public present.

At 15:30 the Judge entered the Court room as we all stood, asked us to be seated and started by addressing the Defendant at some length.

The Judge first raised the point that the Defendant was not legally represented. He acknowledged how difficult it can be to obtain representation even though you are entitled to it.

He also said that there was the issue of members of the public being present today.

The Judge advised the Defendant that she was entitled to free criminal legal aid, and had various rights, including the right to answer any questions, the right not to self-incriminate (which he explained), right to remain silent and not to  give evidence.

He explained that the possible consequences of the alleged breaches included fines or imprisonment. 

This was the second time that this hearing had been listed but the Court was aware of the reason why the Defendant did not attend on the last occasion.

He explained that these were public proceedings and a fundamental part of our justice system was the principle of open justice. Anyone can sit at the back of the Court and listen, as Mr Bell was doing.

The Judge told the Defendant that Mr Bell attends various hearings, not just here but all over the country. There was nothing to suppose he had any particular interest in this case or the Defendant.

In exceptional circumstances and where it might otherwise be adverse to the administration of justice for a hearing to be in public, a hearing could be held in private.

The Judge told the Defendant that he would hear from Miss Patley (I think that was the name) on behalf of the claimants, then from you (the Defendant) and if necessary, from Mr Bell.

The Judge then again told the Defendant that she was entitled to legal representation today and that he was aware that she had contacted more than one firm without success. Technically this is the first time I have seen you to be able to tell you that. And that is my starting point, given this is the first time you have appeared before me.

The Judge then invited Miss Patley to address him.

At 15:38 Miss Patley advised the Judge that these proceedings were public and subject to Part 81. However, CPR rule 32.3(3)(g) allowed the proceedings to be in private in part or in whole. The Judge would be assisted by the White Book and the rules allowed him “for any other reason” to order that the hearing is not in public.

It was open to  this Court based on the vulnerability of any party to so order.

So that was the route for the Court to that result.

Counsel told the Judge that the Defendant had been able to make various disclosures to her, but did not elaborate on what those were.

With respect to the substantive application, the Defendant had contacted numerous firms. It was not unusual for parties to go unrepresented in these sorts of proceedings. The purpose of today’s hearing is to establish to what extent the Defendant accepts the 8 breaches of the Order which are alleged.

The Defendant is accompanied today by a companion who is sitting at the back of the Court.

The Court can proceed to sentence her but sentencing would require the Court to hear her vulnerabilities.

Counsel for the Claimant then made reference to case law – but I did not catch the reference.

Counsel said that the Claimant would accept that this is a case were an adjournment is the right thing to do. The Defendant has demonstrated that she can comply with the order.

In order to get there the Defendant would have to admit the allegations. If the Defendant does not accept the allegations, then it would be necessary to list for a trial, with the result that the proceedings would be hanging over everybody’s head. However there remains the Defendant’s fundamental right to challenge the allegations.

The Judge then addressed the Defendant again.

Miss X (the Judge used the Defendant name but I am not going to publish it) – to make that order I would have to hear those vulnerabilities. The question I need to ask you initially is, would you like a chance to find representation? In terms of a further opportunity to get legal representation would you like a further chance. You should not feel in any way coerced or bullied in to going ahead.

The Defendant referred to her mental health and that she wanted to understand the proceedings better.

The Judge then addressed me. Mr Bell I WILL come to you and you will have an opportunity to speak if it is necessary to do so.

Counsel for the Claimant, Miss Patley, then gave the Court her client’s view on the question of adjournment. She stated that, ordinarily, they would strongly oppose any adjournment as these were serious matters that needed to be addressed. The Claimant would accept that on the last occasion the Defendant’s non-attendance was for a good reason that the Court is aware of.

They did not want to be in a position where a party was put to detriment. Both parties should be on an equal footing. Ordinarily, in this case, it would be fair to give the Defendant the opportunity to find representation. The Court accepts that the Defendant has shown compliance with the injunction. That would work to her advantage. However, they would expect to see compliance with the injunction.

The Judge addressed the Defendant and advised her that it is unusual that consent is given by a Claimant for an adjournment. However I am conscious that this is the 2^nd hearing and you were not present at that hearing. On balance it simply would not be fair. You are aware that this injunction is in place. It falls upon me to remind  you that that order is in place. I have to warn you. It is in force. Please make sure that you do not breach it. You could try more national firms. Before you go make sure you get a copy of the order that was made last time. Please do try Yeovil.

The Judge then discussed with Counsel the length of time for the adjournment – it was suggested 21 or 28 days.

The Defendant advised that she was doing a mental health course and asked if Tuesday mornings could be avoided. The Judge agreed and said he was not available on Tuesdays anyway. He advised the Defendant, when they did find legal advice, that she tell them of her vulnerability and also about her concern about having a member of public present.

The Defendant asked if a doctor’s note would help and the Judge said, yes, any documentation would be helpful.

The Judge then adjourned the hearing to the first available date after 28 days, He told the Defendant that it would probably be the same Judge on the next occasion.

He then told the parties that they could leave but asked me to remain behind. He assured the Defendant that he would not be talking about her case with me but wanted to talk to me about another matter.

The Defendant thanked the Judge for the way he had helped her and in return the Judge thanked the Defendant for the way she had conducted herself in Court.

As the Defendant’s companion was leaving I handed him one of my business cards with my phone number and whispered that I might be able to help the Defendant to find legal representation if she wanted to give me a call.

All the other people in the Court then left leaving just the Judge and myself.

Judicial comments on the Transparency Order

The Judge explained that he just wanted to say a few words about my request to vary the Transparency Order in the Court of Protection case. He assured me that it was being dealt with but that he had thought it only fair that he should send a copy to the local authority for their comments.

I thanked him and agreed this was quite appropriate. The Judge then asked me a little bit more about myself, my law studies and what I wanted to do once I had my law degree. The Judge said that he was aware of my engagement with the Court from conversations with his colleagues. We chatter very pleasantly for a few more minutes before I stood, thanked him and left the Court.

Afterwards, outside the Court, the Defendant and her companion and the Judge’s Clerk were waiting. The Defendant approached me and we shook hands. She seemed relaxed and was smiling. I assured her that I would not be revealing her identity in my blog posts and she was very grateful for that. I think she said something along the lines of “too many people know too much about me already – and it affects my mental health”.

I asked her to give me a call if she was still having difficulty finding representation and I would see if any of my contacts could help.

And so ended an interesting day at Weymouth Combined Court!

Mobile phones and laptops in court

As a follow-up to the “put that mobile phone away” matter, I have located that letter to the Observers Network by the Lady Chief Justice of England and Wales and sent a copy to the Weymouth Court asking them to bring it to the attention of HMCTS staff there. Let us see what happens next time I am in the Weymouth Magistrates Court and want to use my laptop to look something up!

Peter C. Bell is a law student at the Open University. He tweets @dolphinpcb