By Kim Dodd and Amanda Hill, 21 June 2026
“I apologise to [P’s siblings], who must think that the justice system is a bit of a joke.
Mrs Justice Lieven, 5th June 2026
But we have to do our best.”
The protected party (P) is a woman with diagnoses of mild learning disability, “emotionally unstable personality disorder”, functional neurological disorder, dissociative disorder and elective mutism (she communicates using Makaton). She’s been in hospital since April 2025. In September 2025 she had surgery and was soon afterwards declared medically fit for discharge. She’s now been in hospital for 14 months and it’s about eight months since she’s been fit for discharge.
We’ve previously blogged about two earlier hearings in the case (most recently “Fit for discharge and still in hospital five months later…” and before that “Should surgery be delayed….”). The latest hearing in this case (COP 13630253) was on 5th June 2026, before Mrs Justice Lieven.
The delay – now of 8 months duration – is caused by the absence of an eating and drinking plan. She is currently receiving nutrition by an NG tube. According to the approved order of 20th November 2025, “all parties agree that a coherent plan is required for [P’s] nutritional needs prior to discharge from hospital” – subsequently referred to as an “eating and drinking plan”. But it’s now seven months since she’s been fit for discharge and there is still no eating and drinking plan, despite the best efforts of two senior judges to move the situation along.
We’ve both observed previous hearings in this case (Kim one, Amanda five, six in total) all before Senior Judge Hilder, the Senior Judge in the Court of Protection and a Tier 2 judge at First Avenue House. (Judicial continuity has not been matched by continuity of counsel – only Anna Bicarregui, acting pro-bono for P’s siblings has been constant across the hearings we’ve observed). There have been more recent hearings (which we’ve not observed) and the case has been escalated to Mrs Justice Lieven, a more senior (Tier 3) judge. Another observer (Tim Sugden) reported on the first hearing before Lieven J (on 12th May 2026) – see the update at the beginning of the ‘Fit to Discharge’ blog. Not much had changed. The hearing we’re reporting on here is the second hearing before Lieven J and it took place around a month after the update in the last blog post.
Once again, this was a remote hearing, and again there were 21 people on the link. Lieven J raised with Emma Sutton KC, new Counsel for the ICB and NHS Suffolk Trust, the potential need to prepare a schedule of how much this case has cost the public purse. Counsel for the ICB and Trust later confirmed that, in relation to the issue of the time and costs of the proceedings, “we had a useful prehearing discussion, and we all want her out of hospital as soon as possible“.
Key points from the hearing are as follows:
- Most of the discussion was about developing a plan to get P out of hospital to her home.
- At the hearing in April 2026, it was disclosed that P’s care providers had given notice. A new care agency is already in place, but they won’t be the ones to be used once she goes home. The carers want to wear body cameras. Lieven J states that this is an interference with P’s Article 8 rights, and not her Article 5 rights: “A camera is Article 8. There’s too much law in this case – we don’t need it! The obvious answer would be to put CCTV in?” and that the issue of filming P against her wishes was not an issue for the court. But Victoria Butler-Cole KC representing P via her Litigation Friend the Official Solicitor, says that P is not happy to be recorded: the plan is to get psychological input to determine whether imposing filming on P against her expressed wishes is likely to cause more problems than it solves.
- There is still no eating and drinking plan. It is now expected to be provided by the independent experts on 15th June 2006. What has changed, though, is that the hospital is now saying she can go home with the NG tube in place having previously said that was not allowed. That makes things more straightforward.
- Carers would need to be trained in Makaton as that is how P communicates. P’s sister confirmed to the court that she hasn’t spoken verbally in 20 years. The judge asked P’s sister if she could identify someone who formed a positive relationship with P. P’s sister identified ‘BA’ who “….entered into her world rather than trying to fit her into a mainstream box“.
- P’s sister went on to say: “We asked for mediation with the ICB. Our life has been completely changed by this. Regarding therapy, we agree it doesn’t need to be structured, just someone to go. She’s been in hospital for 14 months and nobody has been near.”
- P’s sister also said, “We’re actively excluded from the meetings“. When Lieven J asked why, P’s sister replied, “We challenged them so they kicked us out”. This was not accepted by Counsel for the ICB and Trust, who stated that “lots of the meetings are professional-only meetings”.
- Lieven J replied: “OK, I think what’s important…. I know there’s a difficult balance, it’s common in cases. People get cross. But the reality is that [P’s siblings] have a knowledge of P that no one else has. There are two psychologists involved….. Sit down and talk to (P’s sibling), do it at 4.30pm one day and I’ll mediate it. I don’t know if I’d be good at it but let’s put it on the table, Ms Sutton”.
- P’s sister stated in respect of that: “I’m sick of reading in reports that she’s not willing to engage, no one will go near her. We’re grateful for help with mediation.” P’s sister said she liked the suggestion of the judge being involved.
- Lieven J said “I apologise to (P’s siblings), who must think that the justice system is a bit of a joke. But we have to do our best”.
- The judge also stated “We need a project manager in this case”, suggesting the care provider or an external person for the role. “There’s no point having a care team who meet physical but not emotional needs…… ” And to P’s siblings, “Ms Sutton is brilliant. If someone can find a way through to care planning, it’s Ms Sutton“.
- There was a discussion about how often MDT meetings, facilitated by Suffolk County Council, were happening. The judge asked for a three-page summary of the issues, with a reply from P’s siblings, so she could try and understand what the differences in view are.
- Lieven J asked Henry Slack (representing the hospital), how P had been in the past week and Henry Slack replied that he didn’t have knowledge. The judge then asked “Apart from [P’s siblings], is there anyone who has daily or weekly contact with her?” and Henry Slack replied “I don’t think so“. Lieven J stated that at the next hearing they should hear from someone who sees [P] at least three or four times a week: “At the next hearing I want a ward sister or manager, someone who sees her, apart from her siblings”.
- Lieven J stated that she hoped at the next hearing, on 29th June at 2pm, they would (finally) have a care and discharge plan. She added, “It would be a perfect case for me to say it’s just not a deprivation of liberty given the decision of the Supreme Court”. This comment is interesting, in the context of Lieven J’s position on the meaning of “deprivation of liberty”. In previous judgments, Lieven J has previously taken a different position to that set out in the Cheshire West Supreme Court decision in 2014 – and her judgments have been subject to appeal. The Court of Appeal ([2025] EWCA Civ 478) found that Lieven J’s approach to deprivation of liberty (in [2024] EWHC 1690 (Fam)) was not consistent with the Article 5 framework established in Cheshire West. Now that the Cheshire West decision has been recently overturned in AGNI, Lieven J’s approach has been vindicated!
Finally, we note that this may be one of the last cases in the COP before Lieven J. On 12th June 2026 it was announced that she’s been appointed as a Court of Appeal judge.
Amanda plans to observe the next hearing at 2pm on 29 June 2026 and hopes that Mrs Justice Lieven will preside over a hearing with a clear plan in place.
Kim Dodd has family experience as the daughter of a P in the Court of Protection and has previously blogged for the Open Justice Court of Protection Project. Having retired early from her own corporate career and studied for a Master’s of Law, Kim has developed her interest in law generally and particularly in the area of the law on coercive control. She is on LinkedIn (here).
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 mainly on LinkedIn (here), but also sometimes on X (@AmandaAPHill) and Bluesky (@AmandaAPHill.bsky.social).
Note: There was no opening summary and no documents were provided to observers. Thank you to Victoria Butler-Cole KC who checked this blog post for factual accuracy (e.g. the names of counsel)
Promoting Open Justice in the Court of Protection 