My first experience of being an in-person observer at First Avenue House (London): HHJ Beckley decides on where P should live and receive care

By Sandra Preston, 18 August 2025

On 13 August 2025 I went to First Avenue House (the London headquarters of the Court of Protection)  for the first time as an observer – rather than as the relative of a Protected Party (as described my blog post here).  I had chosen to do so to gain a greater insight into Court of Protection proceedings and in order to support the Open Justice  COP Project.

I navigated my way through security without incident, having learned on a previous occasion that my mirrored lipstick case was considered a hazardous item – I’d had to hand it in and remember to collect it (having been given a numbered receipt() on my way out – so I’d left it at home this time round. 

The building houses both the Family Court and the Court of Protection.  The Court of Protection  is on the fifth floor.  I went up in the lift,  and on exiting, you have to let the counter clerk know you are there and the purpose of your visit, and fill in an attendance form..  Armed with a list of the hearings I was most interested in observing, we identified one that the clerk assured me would be going ahead at midday.  I had to sign in with my name and address (home or work address or email address is fine) and in return was given a copy of the Transparency Order (TO) to read in the waiting area. 

Some confusion on the part of the clerk meant I was given the TO for a different  hearing, which it transpired was happening remotely, so I sat in the waiting area long after midday.  It’s not a bad place to sit though as you pick up on lots of interesting discussions between the various legal teams.  Unfortunately, by the time the mistake was realised and I was given the right document the hearing had started so it was too late to join.  I agreed to return at 2pm to observe a hearing before HHJ Beckley (COP 14219478) – and then everything went really smoothly as the counter clerk seemed keen to make amends for the earlier confusion.

After signing in (again),  reading the Transparency Order and waiting a short while in the waiting area, someone came over to me I was asked to go into Court 23 and to take a seat at the back of the court.  The clerk told me the judge wanted to know why I was there, so I said I was observing on behalf of the OJCOP project.  I got a few wary looks from the parties as they filed into court, but the judge explained that I was observing on behalf of a well-known group of bloggers  – which prompted the applicant to enquire whether this meant I was from the media; I reassured him I was not.  Judge Beckley asked if I wanted to see the Position Statements or whether an Introductory Statement would suffice.  I opted for the latter as it would have been difficult and time-consuming to read the Position Statements on my mobile phone.

His Honour Judge Beckley said the case was to decide whether to discharge an 86 year old woman from hospital to a nursing home or to her son’s home as per his wishes. She was suffering from vascular dementia, stage 3 kidney disease, stage 2 diabetes, hyperthyroidism and required a hoist to move between armchair and bed.  Nobody disputed the finding that she lacked capacity to decide for herself where to live and receive care. 

The applicant was her only child and next-of-kin.  He was accompanied by a representative who was invited to join him at the front of the court so that she could speak on his behalf. The protected party was not in court. She was first respondent, and was represented by the Official Solicitor as Litigation Friend.  The Local Authority was the second respondent.  The applicant and respondents disagreed over where P should live so this was a contested hearing. 

The applicant was seeking an order that it was in his mother’s best interests  either stay in hospital or be discharged to live at his home rather than to a nursing home.  He wanted her to stay in hospital until he had a clearer idea of what could be done to facilitate a move to his home.  She had been in hospital since January 2025 and was familiar with her environment, which he felt was important for someone with vascular dementia. 

The Local Authority disagreed, saying it was not in her best interests to stay in hospital given she was not receiving therapeutic or rehabilitative treatment.  The work needed to adapt his property, for which permission had yet to be sought from the council, made it too far removed an option to keep her in hospital.  Nor did they think it a workable option for him to provide the level of care needed, which was significantly greater than before her hospital admission.  They argued that living in a more congenial, residential environment with the company of others and where she might be allowed to keep her cat, could add to her well-being. 

The OS invited the court to rule out a return home.  It would compromise P’s privacy and dignity, and the size and layout of the property would not support live-in carers. They stressed that it did not need to be a once-and-for-all decision.  If P’s condition improved and her care needs reduced, the court could look at a future return home.  If the Local Authority was not willing to make funds available, a judicial review would be needed; it would not be in her best interests to remain in hospital until then.

The judge decided that P should be discharged from hospital as soon as possible to a nursing home as her care needs were greater than a care home could provide.  He set the next hearing for 3 October 2025.  The applicant’s representative would be on holiday on that date, but the Judge refused the applicant’s attempts to delay on that basis.  He said the matter could be dealt with in one hour rather than two, given today’s contested hearing had lasted only an hour.

The applicant opposed the Local Authority’s recommended nursing home and asked if he could recommend one himself.  The Judge asked him to work with the Local Authority to agree upon a suitable nursing home and that if a consensual option were identified ahead of 3 October (there was to be a Round Table Meeting in the week beginning 15 September) the hearing could be vacated.  If the applicant wanted to vary the date of the 3 October hearing he would need to do so via a COP9. 

The applicant did not hold a Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) for P, and his application for deputyship had previously been turned down by another judge (DJ Clarke).  HHJ Beckley said that P had chosen not to make an LPA and that this was a capacitous decision.  It was not clear to me whether this meant that because she had actively chosen not to make an LPA when she had the capacity to do so, it prevented him from applying for deputyship, or whether there was more to her decision not to make an LPA which had resulted in the previous judge’s rejection of his application for deputyship.   

The applicant expressed concerns that the Local Authority had cut him out of decision-making and consultations and discussions had taken place without asking him for his views.  He had asked for copies of documents but they were held in individual departmental files rather than one central file.  The lack of disclosure led him to feel he’d not been able to put his concerns across and he described the flow of information as poor.  I had some sympathy for him given our own experience (with a different Local Authority). 

Reflections

Imposter syndrome almost stopped me from going to observe, but I’m glad I didn’t let it get the better of me.   My main concerns – bumping into one of the lawyers involved in our own case, or being exposed as a fraud for having previously been at First Avenue House as the relative of a protected party – were unfounded.  The court staff were really helpful, despite the initial confusion over which case I was there to observe, and it helped that Judge Beckley was clearly familiar with the OJCOP. 

The waiting area gets busy and you hear lots of tannoy announcements asking individuals to report to particular courtrooms.  Given the confusion at the start of the day, I wondered how I would know when and where to go or whether I would miss another opportunity.  More unfounded concerns – when it is time for you to enter the courtroom, the court clerk will collect you from the waiting area and escort you to the courtroom. 

I would recommend taking a list of the day’s hearings with you if you visit First Avenue House (the daily cause list is available online here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/court-of-protection-daily-hearing-list ).  This helped me to work out with the counter staff which cases were going ahead and which had been vacated or were happening remotely.  It was definitely good to have a back-up plan.  I would also suggest you take a book to read (and water, and a snack) as you can spend quite a lot of time sitting in the waiting area feeling a bit spare, surrounded by fraught relatives and harassed legal teams.

Sandra Preston is the daughter-in-law of a P who was involved in Court of Protection proceedings, as she describes in her earlier blog post, written jointly with her husband, P’s son, Joe Preston. You can read it here: A court hearing and 23 visits from 16 officials: Family doubt that ‘Deprivation of liberty’ is working in the public interest. Sandra can be contacted through the project email on openjustice@yahoo.com.