By Daniel Clark, 4th April 2025
The person at the centre of this case, who I’ll refer to as J, is a man in his 30s with a diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder. On several occasions he has been detained in hospital pursuant to the Mental Health Act 1983, and he now resides in what sounded like a supported living type accommodation.
His counsel, Sophie Allan of King’s Chambers, explained in a very detailed opening summary that, his “presentation is quite complex but, in short, he does object to the circumstances of his residence, care, and support which constitutes a deprivation of liberty”. These proceedings (COP 20006720) are a challenge to that deprivation of liberty: “he wishes to reside more independently in the community”.
I observed this case on Thursday 3rd April 2025. It was heard before District Judge Weir who was sitting remotely (via Cloud Video Platform) at Sheffield Combined Court Centre. She stated at the start of the hearing that she was “content” for me to observe the hearing and, I hasten to add, that word was spoken warmly.
The judge also said that she was happy in principle for me to have position statements. I say “in principle” because there weren’t actually any position statements filed for this hearing. I was nevertheless grateful for her saying this. The judge could have ignored my request for them but acknowledging that I could have had them if there were any contributed to a welcoming atmosphere. In lieu of the position statements, she asked J’s counsel to give a more detailed than usual opening summary.
The respondent local authority, Sheffield City Council, was represented by Claire Farrell (unfortunately I’m not sure of her firm). The position of the local authority was that J should remain where he is for now while acknowledging that, with a combination of closer work with him and a change of medication, this position was open to change.
Counsel for the local authority didn’t actually have to say very much because J’s social worker, who was also on the link, made multiple contributions throughout the hearing. As the title of this blog states, the judge thanked her for her “enthusiasm and passion”.
In this short blog, that’s what I want to focus on. To my mind, this was very great praise indeed, and I think it deserves to be publicly known. The Transparency Order[i] prohibits me from identifying “care staff” and, while I don’t think that technically includes his social worker, there is a possibility it could. Even aside from this ambiguity, I have chosen not to identify this social worker because she may not want her name and place of work to be publicly available. Instead, I’ll refer to her as SW, which should be read as representing the words “Social Worker”, and which bears no resemblance to her actual initials.
The first time that SW spoke was during a discussion of how much debt (owed, I think, to the Department for Work and Pensions) J was currently paying off. Counsel for J wasn’t sure of the exact amount and, while she was looking for it, SW offered “an update on the financial situation”. I have to admit that I felt myself take a sharp intake of breath when this was offered. The last time I saw a social worker contribute to discussions unprompted was before District Judge Clarke, who sits at First Avenue House. On that occasion, it didn’t go well, and you can read about it here: A young man failed by NHS South West London ICB and the London Borough of Wandsworth
In the case that this blog concerns, SW was clearly knowledgeable – and was able to convey information that the court was happy to receive. She told the court that she had requested somebody, I think Citizens Advice Bureau, to have a close look at the amount of debt repayments being made because, “I think there’s something wrong”. Her passion was quite clear, and I got the strong impression that she had a wide knowledge of the benefits system.
SW also told the court that, “we want [J] to cook with staff…he really struggles to formally engage in any type of activity but he wants to cook”. It turned out that this had been on the judge’s mind, too.
The court heard that J has a good relationship with a support worker, with whom he enjoys cooking. He doesn’t like to use the ingredients provided by the place he lives, and shops for them himself. Ultimately, SW felt that more cooking would create a space to enable him to develop further skills for independent living. As she put it: “if [J] wants to do it, fantastic, let’s make it happen”.
The judge was very keen for this to happen, too. While J does not currently have a deputy for property and affairs (that issue will be before the court at the next hearing), the judge directed that he should be given £20 every fortnight in order to purchase ingredients for cooking. However, “if it goes well on a fortnightly basis [it’s possible J may stop wanting to cook], I’d like to see if it can happen more frequently”.
A little later in the hearing, the judge noted that J would like his own bathroom, which he currently does not have. SW told the court that, while she doesn’t know if there are any rooms with ensuite facilities, “I can check it out”. She then spoke about an element of J’s behaviour that she described as a way of “managing his mental health”, and which may complicate the search for another room. Not deterred, however, SW told the court she will talk to the placement about whether they have any suitable rooms “or if they have a room where [ensuite facilities] could be facilitated”.
The Open Justice Court of Protection Project has published multiple blogs about hearings in which the person at the centre of the case becomes lost amidst a sea of rules, procedures, and legal argument[ii]. It was therefore refreshing to see SW remain laser-focussed on J, using her wide-ranging knowledge, as well as some creative thinking, to identify how best to support him. It’s worth stressing that the judge also never lost sight of J.
Finally, as the discussion turned to timetabling another hearing, counsel for the local authority pointed out that SW is part-retired and is now only working a few days a week. In fact, the day of this hearing (a Thursday) was one of her non-working days, and she had given up some of that day off in order to attend court. Counsel was requesting that any future hearings are on a date where SW will be working. As the judge put it in response, this was, “another mark to your [SW’s] commitment”, and her clerk found a date and time (Monday 9th June at 11am) when SW would be working.
As the hearing came to a close, the thought at the forefront of my mind was that, in the event I need a social worker fighting my corner, I want it to be somebody like SW.
Daniel Clark is a member of the core team of the Open Justice Court of Protection Project. He is a PhD student in the Department of Politics & International Relations at the University of Sheffield. His research considers Iris Marion Young’s claim that older people are an oppressed social group. It is funded by WRoCAH. He is on LinkedIn, X @DanielClark132 and Bluesky @clarkdaniel.bsky.social.
[i] A Transparency Order will usually have effect ‘until further order’ or it will have effect ‘until the death of P’. It is not very common at all to see a Transparency Order that combines them both, as this one does. I think this approach to drafting Transparency Orders ought to be commended because it protects the privacy of J and his family while not creating open-ended, and difficult to challenge, reporting restrictions.
[ii] Most recently here: Public bodies argue about funding – Poole J feels like “a referee or go-between” by Amanda Hill, with contribution from Tim Sugden
Promoting Open Justice in the Court of Protection 