By Amanda Hill, 22nd July 2025
I went to a friend’s 60th birthday party last weekend. Jane has a lot of friends from different walks of life and encouraged us to meet new people. When guests arrived, not only did we have badges with our names on, we were also given a list of two people who Jane had carefully selected, because she thought we would have something in common. It was fun searching for Sally and Helen and I’m glad I got to talk to them. Naturally both Sally and Helen asked me what I was currently doing. I explained about the Open Justice Court of Protection Project and about my PhD on family experiences of the Court of Protection, media representations and social media activism. I felt so relieved to be able to talk openly about why I’m interested in this subject: that I have experience of the Court of Protection myself, because my mum was a protected party, ‘P’.
Up until four months ago, just for saying that, I risked the Court finding me in contempt and fining me or seizing my assets or even committing me to prison. That’s because I am subject to a Transparency Order (TO), an injunction restricting what I can say about the case. One aspect of the TO has now been varied (changed) so that I can now openly say these simple words publicly: I am a family member of a P in a Court of Protection case.
I have already blogged about our Court of Protection story twice before: Our ordinary story ….and how it became an unbelievable family experience of the Court of Protection and Deprived of her liberty’: My experience of the court procedure for my mum (a blog which originally I wrote under a pseudonym, ‘Anna’, and which has been viewed nearly 9,000 times). This blog tells the story of my application to change the TO.
I must admit that I am slightly nervous about writing it, because the TO is still in place. I’m still not allowed to say anything that would reveal my mum’s identity, where she lives or who any of her carers are. My siblings still aren’t allowed to say anything at all about the case and I can’t name them. The injunction is in force “until further order of the court”. His Honour Judge Murch decided not to vary it to “until the death of P” as I wanted. So, when Mum dies, I will have to apply to the court to ask that the TO is discharged completely. I hope that writing this blog doesn’t have a negative impact on that process.
Making the application
Mum moved into full time care in July 2021. That sparked a Court of Protection process that finished with an agreed final order in December 2022. But my involvement in the case ignited a passion for open justice, which resulted in me becoming a core team member of the Open Justice Court of Protection Project in June 2023, regularly observing and blogging about hearings, and now my PhD research. I quickly felt constrained by having to keep my identity a secret. In July 2023 I wrote a blog about that: Gagged – in whose best interests? I had to write that as ‘Anna’. I was fed up of hiding behind ‘Anna’ and not being able to say who I really was. I asked Celia Kitzinger if she would help me apply to change the TO.
We decided that writing a letter would be the best approach, hoping that the judge who had heard the case, HHJ Hildyard, would agree to change the TO without the need for a formal application. Celia and I drafted the letter, with some informal lawyer input. The four page letter, dated and sent 13th September 2023, set out in detail why I wanted the TO changed and in summary asked for the following:
I was full of hope that the letter would do the trick. But my hopes were very quickly dashed. The next day, 14th September 2023, I received the following reply from the court:
My heart sank. I’m not a lawyer and although I have been a Litigant in Person, and have learned a lot about the CoP over the past four years, it was still a daunting prospect. I barely understood the paragraph from the judge. At least I knew I had Celia to support me. I wondered whether I would have to represent myself as I had done for the original hearing, but after Celia asked around, I was incredibly lucky to get pro-bono legal representation from Irwin Mitchell, first from Kirsty Stuart and then from Mathieu Culverhouse, as well as their paralegals. And amazingly there was some input from Alex Ruck Keene too. But the wheels of justice move slowly and I could never have foreseen that it would take 17 months before my legal team submitted the formal application.
Why did it take so long? That’s a good question. But there were a lot of factors. Changes of personnel in my legal team naturally led to delays, with new people needing to get up to speed. There seemed to be some uncertainty on behalf of Mum’s Litigation Friend, the Official Solicitor (OS), as to whether she still represented her, as the substantive hearing had finished. Eventually they decided that she didn’t. This came as a relief to me, not only because it meant one less party to negotiate with, but for financial reasons. Mum automatically received legal aid for the S21A appeal that was the subject of the original case but that had stopped now that case had finished. Although this application related to the original case, and it had the same case number, the legal aid agency confirmed to Mum’s representatives that legal aid would not be available to Mum in relation to my application. She has savings above the threshold so she would have to pay for her representation herself. I have heard that a minimum fee to be represented at an attended hearing by the OS is £20,000 (I remember Senior Judge Hilder saying that in a hearing I observed). As mum’s savings are being used to pay for her care (she is a self-funder), of course I feel morally obliged to pay Mum back for any costs, as I am responsible for the application. But that’s a lot of money for me, and for most people.
There was also a lot of to and fro with the Local Authority. I believe it was lucky that at least there was some continuity on the LA legal team. However, I was no longer a Litigant in Person as I had legal representation so that meant I couldn’t communicate with the LA legal team directly. There were a lot of emails between me and my legal representatives and the LA about what the LA would agree to. For example, I wanted all of my siblings to be able to say they were a family member of a protected party in a CoP case. But the LA were concerned because one member of my family shares a surname with my mum (my brother), and others live in the same town (my sister who is LPA and my brother). I’m not sure what they thought the problem was with my other sister, who like me lives overseas. In any case, the practical problems were far greater for me than for my siblings, due to my involvement with Open Justice Court of Protection Project and my PhD about the COP. In the end, the LA agreed only for me to be named as the family member of a protected party. The LA wanted an additional clause added that prevents me naming any staff caring for Mum and I agreed to that. I wondered if they were worried that I will be critical of Mum’s carers, but I think they are heroes for all the work they do at Mum’s home.
As time went on, I realised that there was a chance Mum would die before the case got to court (she’s now 91). In order to avoid another application after that, I asked that the duration in the TO be changed from ‘until further order of the court’ (which is what it read initially) to ‘until the death of P’. That way all restrictions would fall away when Mum dies. The LA agreed to my request. My siblings are, and always have been, fully behind me and supported this application.
Finally, after all the negotiations and multiple drafts of documents, the application was sent to the court on 23rd February 2025:
The court considers the application
My legal team and I hoped that due to all the hard work that had gone into the application, the court would approve the application ‘on the papers’, that is without a hearing. That would be less nerve-wracking for me and my siblings, use less of my legal team’s time and be much less costly for the taxpayer, who are paying for the LA’s legal representation as well as the judge and court’s time.
That wasn’t to be the case though. I was away on a week’s holiday when I received a very unwelcome email from my legal team:
To put it in a nutshell, I live in France, and the judge was concerned that I am outside the court’s jurisdiction and therefore wouldn’t comply with the TO – in particular the recital added to it which required me to give an “undertaking” “not to refer to BB or other family members by name, the town in which BB lives, or the name of staff supporting BB or the name of the care home and its location in any public discussion of the case”. The court would only vary the TO to permit me to identify myself as a family member of BB if I gave this undertaking.
On one level, I can understand the judge’s concern. On another level, I found it bewildering, as I have lived in France for over 20 years, had been joined as a party to the case by HHJ Hildyard, and have always respected the original TO dated 29th March 2022. Why would I breach a varied TO when I had always respected the first TO? Where I live had never been raised as an issue before. I wondered (and still wonder) why it had become an issue now that I was asking the court to vary the TO. The issue also applies to my eldest sister, who also lives outside the jurisdiction, but that didn’t come up.
I also didn’t understand the point about not hearing evidence from me if I was outside the jurisdiction at the time of the hearing[1], even though it was to be a fully remote hearing. There was some confusion about that – would I have to go to somewhere in the UK on 20th March to access a remote hearing? In the end, I stayed in France. And the judge didn’t hear any evidence from me.
I was very nervous in the run up to the hearing, there was so much riding on it for me. I was glad that Celia said she was available to observe. I also observed a hearing before HHJ Murch (a judge I’d never seen before) so that I could see what he was like and prepare myself for the day. I did as much preparation as I could. But there was one last curveball that I hadn’t expected.
The evening before the hearing, the OS solicitor sent an email to the court saying that although they no longer represented Mum, the court might think that it was appropriate that Mum be represented in respect of the application, based on the documents they had been copied in on, that is the suggested change to the TO. I was stunned and furious when my legal team passed the information on to me. What possible harm is there to mum from all this? She didn’t even understand about the case going to court in the first place. And we know, from knowing her and from what she said to various people including her then RPR, that she didn’t want to go to court. And yet the court case was still having consequences. Would the application be adjourned, and the uncertainty drag on? And would I end up paying thousands of pounds? I honestly wondered whether it was all worth it. It was so stressful I couldn’t sleep. I woke up in the night and wrote this, which I sent to my lawyer early the next morning and asked to be read to the court if necessary:
Statement from Amanda Hill 20th March 2025 BB 13899903
I woke up in the middle of the night last night and I couldn’t get back to sleep. Thoughts were going around in my head about today’s hearing. How would I be able to get across how I feel about not being able to say who I really am?
I remembered how it felt that day, last October, when I observed a hearing before Senior Judge Hilder. There were only six people in the courtroom, including the judge, one advocate, two parents, and me sitting at the back of the courtroom. P was not represented.
The advocate had explained to the parents before the hearing that I would be observing and I was from ‘Open Justice’.
As we were leaving the courtroom after the hearing, the mum stopped, turned to me and said “You’re Anna, aren’t you?”. I could feel myself going red and getting hot in the face. I spontaneously blurted out “Well, if I was, I wouldn’t be able to tell you.” But we looked each other in the eye and I could tell she knew. Then she said “I’ve read your blog”.
So, I could argue based on ‘Article 8’ and ‘Article 10’ rights but what it boils down to is that I just want to be able to say publicly: “Yes, I’m ‘Anna’ and I am a family member of a P in the Court of Protection”.
In any case, the time for the hearing had finally come and there was nothing else I could do. I was so nervous.
The hearing on 20th March 2025
The hearing lasted about 45 minutes. At this remote hearing I was represented by Mathieu Culverhouse of Irwin Mitchell and his paralegal, who had done a lot of the work in pulling the application together. Unfortunately, there wasn’t a barrister available to represent me pro-bono so I appreciate Mathieu Culverhouse representing me, as it’s not normal for a solicitor to take that on. The LA was represented by Francis Hoar of Field Court Chambers. The court had agreed that my siblings (and my sister’s husband who is joint LPA) could attend the hearing even though they weren’t parties. My two sisters and my brother-in-law attended. My brother couldn’t as he was working. Celia Kitzinger observed, as did Kim Dodd, a regular CoP observer. I didn’t make any notes as I was so involved in the hearing. To be honest, it passed in a bit of a blur for me as I was so anxious.
The judge didn’t address me and my siblings directly at all, only speaking to the legal representatives. The two parties, my legal representatives, and the LA were in agreement and Mathieu Culverhouse didn’t get to read out my statement. He didn’t need to. The judge seemed satisfied that I would comply with the (legally binding) ‘undertaking’ not to breach the varied TO, even though I live outside the court’s jurisdiction of England and Wales.
For this I have to acknowledge the considerable contribution of Francis Hoar, Counsel for the LA, who was incredibly helpful in addressing the judge’s anxieties about me living in France and therefore outside of the court’s jurisdiction. The position statement he prepared dealt with the jurisdiction issue comprehensively. The points he raised were also “gratefully adopted” by my legal team. I’m not sure the judge would have varied the TO were it not for the arguments put forward by Counsel for the LA and I am very grateful to him. The TO was amended further due to his intervention. I have included the relevant paragraph as an appendix, as well as the case law that was cited in the position statement, as maybe it will be useful to other families who live outside the jurisdiction.
The matter of Mum not being represented at the hearing was also addressed by Counsel for the Local Authority, in his position statement. Paragraph 8 states “CBC wishes to ensure that it provides its opinion to the Court as the independent public body responsible for BB’s care and for authorising her deprivations of liberty under the standard procedure under the MCA. This is important in circumstances where the Official Solicitor (the ‘OS’) has been discharged from representing BB as her litigation friend, albeit she has informed the parties that she does not object to the Application.”
The judge accepted that Mum did not have to be represented by a litigation friend at this hearing to vary the TO. But he did decide it would be best not to change the duration to ‘until the death of P’ in case the OS want to make representations about discharging the TO completely after she dies. The following was inserted into the order:
Paragraph (8) of the Transparency Order is removed and replaced with the following
wording: ‘This Injunction shall have effect until further order save that any party or
interested person may apply to vary it upon the death of BB; and that any such
application shall be considered in the first instance on paper by HH Judge Murch or
his nominee if available, or by any other judge’
That means that when Mum dies, on top of the usual grieving process and planning her funeral, I know that I will be thinking about applying to the court to discharge the TO. It’s an extra burden I could do without, especially with the uncertainty about what the court will do. I can only hope the application is straightforward and can be considered ‘on the papers’ without a hearing.
The key change made to the TO – the change that means I’m free to say I’m the family member of a P was this one. The standard sentence in the TO saying that it’s forbidden to publish “any material or information that identifies or is likely to identify that: any person is a member of the family of the subject of these proceedings” was revised to read instead “… any person, save for Amanda Hill is a member of the family of the subject of these proceedings”.
I was finally free to be open about my Court of Protection experience. I received the sealed court order on 8th April 2025.
A weight lifted from my shoulders
I really hadn’t appreciated how much the TO was weighing on me and how much being free of it would feel like a weight has lifted from me. I became emotional saying publicly for the first time that I was the relative of a P in the Court of Protection when I presented my PhD research to my fellow PhD students at the annual conference of the School of Journalism, Media and Culture, Cardiff University, in May. That completely surprised me.
I’m already seeing the benefit more widely of being able to talk more publicly. For example, I’ve been asked to speak at a Regional conference for DoLS assessors in September 2025. I was contacted after one of the organisers read my second blog about our story. The objective is for mutual learning. It’s exactly the sort of outcome I wanted when making the application. It is also really important for me to be open with future research participants about the fact that I have been involved as a family member of a ‘P’ too.
I don’t think the court has any idea about the impact on family members of feeling gagged. And what harm is it really causing Mum that I am now free to speak about the CoP case? None in my opinion. Mum doesn’t remember the case or my application to vary the TO, although I have told her. And she’s said she’s proud of me. She’s not rich or in the public eye. She’s an ordinary member of the public and we are an ordinary family, like most others involved in Court of Protection cases. Is the veil of secrecy imposed by a TO on P’s family really necessary as a default position?
And is a duration of the TO ‘until further order of the court’ really needed as a default, as research I carried out for Cardiff University showed is the norm? In a sample of 32 TOs from 1st October to 31st December 2024, the duration was ‘until further order of the court’ for 29 of them. That means that if a family member wants to talk openly about their Court of Protection experience, even after their family member has died, they have to apply to the court to discharge the TO. Is that really a sensible use of court time? And taxpayer’s money?
I hope that this blog post has shed light on how hard it can be to challenge reporting restrictions, even with the support of a legal team. I’d like to think that this blog can help other family members understand what it can take to ask the court to vary a TO. I also want professionals involved in the CoP to understand more about what it can be like for a family member covered by a Transparency Order and why the term ‘gagged’ is used by families so often.
The process of varying a TO has been much swifter for some families than for me – as I observed in the case of Heather Walton (see: A mother now free to tell her Court of Protection story). I remember feeling very emotional when I observed that hearing as I was so happy for Heather. Heather’s daughter is still alive, as my mum is, which makes it more difficult to challenge a TO. It can be easier when P is dead (see: When families want to tell their story: Discharging a transparency order and “‘The horse has already bolted’: Transparency in a case of “brain-stem death”’). However, as one recent blog shows (Silence from HHJ Rowland: A transparency fail), even after P dies it can still be difficult to discharge a TO so that a family member can tell the story of their Court of Protection experience.
All in all, I wonder whether it really does have to be this hard and take so long for TOs to be varied. Are prolonged reporting restrictions always in P’s best interests – or is the Court of Protection being over-cautious? I ask myself that a lot.
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 is also a daughter of a P in a Court of Protection case and has been a Litigant in Person. She is on LinkedIn (here), and also on X as (@AmandaAPHill) and on Bluesky (@AmandaAPHill.bsky.social)
Appendix
A new paragraph was inserted into the TO to deal with the jurisdiction issue. This is from the approved order, dated 8 April 2025, paragraph 2:
Following paragraph (5), a new paragraph (5A) is added to the Transparency Order as
follows:
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2) below, the terms of this order do not
affect or concern anyone outside the jurisdictions of England and Wales,
Scotland or Northern Ireland
(2) The terms of this order will affect the following persons in a country or state
outside the jurisdiction of this court—
(a) the respondents or their employees or agents;
(b) any person who—
(i)is subject to the jurisdiction of this court;
(ii) has been given written notice of this order at his residence or place of
business within the jurisdiction of this court; and
(iii) is able to prevent acts or omissions outside the jurisdiction of this court
which constitute or assist in a breach of the terms of this order; and
(c) any other person, only to the extent that this order is declared enforceable
by or is enforced by a court in that country or state.
This wording came from Paragraph 12 of the LA position statement (see below).
In order to assist other families outside of the Court’s jurisdiction, I think it might be helpful to quote extensively from the position statement, and again I thank Francis Hoar for the time he took to consider this matter:
The jurisdictional issues arising out of AH living in France and the implications upon the proposed undertaking of AH.
§10: Counsel settling this position statements has searched for judgments in the Court of Protection concerning undertakings given by a person outside the jurisdiction without success. However, in both Re P and Re J, transparency orders were made in the Court of Protection and the Family Division of the High Court that applied to persons outside the jurisdiction of England and Wales (or, indeed, the United Kingdom). Thus, CBC is satisfied that the Court has jurisdiction to make such orders and would be able to enforce them in the same way as it would be able to enforce any order against a person outside the jurisdiction; and that it is appropriate for the Court to exercise its discretion to do so in circumstances where AH is willing to comply with that jurisdiction.
The agreed draft order to vary the Transparency Order.
§11: While CBC had agreed the draft order, it considers on reflection that it should be amended as indicated above..
§12: On reflection and having considered authority, CBC asks the Court to add a provision to the draft order that reflects the position in freezing orders that apply outside the jurisdiction and that was approved by Mumby P in Re J (at para 65). Adapted to this case, the Court is asked to add the following paragraph to the Transparency Order :
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2) below, the terms of this order do not affect or concern anyone outside the jurisdiction of this court.
(2) The terms of this order will affect the following persons in a country or state outside the jurisdiction of this court—
- the respondents or their employees or agents;
- any person who—
(i)is subject to the jurisdiction of this court;
(ii) has been given written notice of this order at his residence or place of business within the jurisdiction of this court; and
(iii) is able to prevent acts or omissions outside the jurisdiction of this court which constitute or assist in a breach of the terms of this order; and
- any other person, only to the extent that this order is declared enforceable by or is enforced by a court in that country or state.
[…]
§14: CBC have considered whether the Court should make an order that AH may be served with the order outside the jurisdiction. However, given that she has solicitors in England who are permitted to accept service and no enactment, rule, Practice Direction or order directs personal service (including Practice Direction 4C applying to transparency orders), it considers that such an order is unnecessary and that r. 6.3(3) of the Court of Protection Rules 2017 would require the varied Transparency Order to be served on her solicitors.
ORDERS APPLYING OUTSIDE THE JURISDICTION
§16: As has been said, Mumby P made orders restricting the reporting of proceedings against persons outside the jurisdiction in Re J and Re P.
§17: In Re. J at paras 44-65 he set out in detail the background to the Court’s jurisdiction to make orders against persons outside the England and Wales. At para 52 he observed that:
As can be seen, there are two separate principles in play. First, that the person who is to be injuncted must be amenable to the court’s jurisdiction. That goes to jurisdiction. Second, and because equity does not act in vain, that the court will not grant an injunction which is idle and ineffectual. That goes to discretion….
§18: It will be noted that AH – who is already bound by the Transparency Order – is clearly amenable to the Court’s jurisdiction given her application to vary it.
§19: Munby P went on to note (at para 55) the following part of the judgment of Re Liddell’s Settlement Trusts [1936] Ch 365
‘It is plain that this Court has jurisdiction to order a person in this country to perform an act abroad; but it is said that this Court has no jurisdiction to make an order requiring a person resident abroad to do an act there. Notwithstanding the strenuous argument of Mr. Archer it appears to me that his proposition is wholly untenable. The moment a person is properly served under the provisions of Order XI that person, so far as the jurisdiction of this Court is concerned, is precisely in the same position as a person who is in this country.’
§20: AH has been served with the Order and has solicitors in this jurisdiction who will be served with the Order as it is varied. Should the Court consider it appropriate, it could also make an order that the varied Transparency Order may be served on AH outside the jurisdiction.
§21: Munby P then noted with approval Butler-Sloss LJ’s finding in Wookey v Wookey; S (A Minor), Re [1991] Fam 121 said that ‘there must be a real possibility that the order, if made, will be enforceable’ (see para 62 of Re. J).
§22: Applying these principles, CBC submits that that there is no reason why the Court should not impose this injunction on AH outside the jurisdiction.
***
Footnote
[1] A recent judgment from Poole J about hearing evidence from people outside of the jurisdiction says “Day after day parties participate and give evidence in cases before the Family Division of the High Courtand the Family Court by remote video link from abroad.” (§112, Newcastle CC v JK and Ors (Care Proceedings: International Abduction: evidence from abroad) [2025] EWHC 1767 (Fam). In paragraph 123 he concluded: “Accordingly, I ruled at the hearing that I would receive evidence by video link from Austria from the Father and the Paternal Uncles notwithstanding the correspondence from the FCDO. [Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office]”
Promoting Open Justice in the Court of Protection 