The Open Justice Court of Protection Project is independent of any public body or university. The Project is run on a voluntary basis by five members of the public, none of whom are lawyers or journalists. Please note we are unable to give legal advice about your case. We can (and often do) offer lay advice regarding variation and discharge of Transparency Orders – do contact us if this is something you want more information about.
The Open Justice Court of Protection Project was founded in June 2020 (shortly after the first lockdown resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic) to support the judicial aspiration for transparency in the Court of Protection. The decisions made by the court on behalf of some of the most vulnerable members of society can be life-changing, and the case law it produces impacts on the human rights of disabled people far beyond the walls of the court rooms. We believe that justice needs to be seen to be done.
Our main activity is to help members of the public to observe hearings in the Court of Protection (usually remotely, but in person when it’s practical to do so). We support a shifting group of around 80 or so “public observers” at any one time: these are people who complete our training webinar and join our WhatsApp Observers’ Group in order to observe hearings with an experienced “buddy”. Over the last five and a half years we’ve supported thousands of people to observe hearings, including family members of protected parties, professionals working in health and social care, academics and students (across law, social work and other disciplines), social justice activists, and disabled people concerned about the role of the court.
In addition to observing hearings and supporting others to do so, our key activities are:
- Publicising upcoming court hearings: Each day, we select and publish information about cases people might be interested in observing, on our “Featured Hearings” page and via social media including X, BlueSky, Facebook and LinkedIn. This amplifies and enhances the largely impenetrable ‘public’ court lists produced by the Court.
- Blogging: We’ve published more than 600 blog posts (around 100 each year), mostly describing hearings, but including ‘explainer’ blogs from legal experts Our most widely-read blog posts have more than 10k reads. Our blogs serve two purposes: (i) they describe and comment on the substantive business of court hearings, e.g. decisions about capacity and best interests in relation to deprivation of liberty, contact with family members, serious medical treatment; (ii) they expose secret proceedings – both those inadvertently hidden from the public due to listing errors or failure of court staff to send out links, and also the “private” and “closed” hearings deliberately protected from public scrutiny by order of the judge. (We have been successful in gaining access to, and – eventually – getting permission to report on, both private and closed hearings.)
- Making court applications to improve transparency: We regularly make formal written submissions and oral applications to the court in connection with reporting restrictions orders and disclosure of court documents (and we’re usually successful). We make and support others to make applications to vary or discharge ‘transparency orders’ (usually as litigants in person).[vi] We act as interveners in key cases (again, usually as litigants in person) and are named on published judgments[vii].
- Liaison with senior staff at HMCTS (His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunal Service) to improve practices and procedures relating to listings, enquiries from the public, and access to hearings. (Listings, in particular, have improved massively as a result, e.g. they now routinely list applicant/respondent public bodies.)
- Contributing to public consultation exercises e.g. The Ministry of Justice Law Commission Consultation on Contempt of Court
- Maintaining public visibility for the Court – via our website and social media, e.g. we publish links to (and commentary about) judgments, links to relevant reports and academic articles and other related topics. We attend (and present at) in-person events where possible.
The Open Justice Court of Protection Project has the following charitable purposes:
- The advancement of education about the role of the Court of Protection: Through the publication of blog posts, we promote, sustain and increase public knowledge and understanding about the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (including its interaction with the Human Rights Act and the Mental Health Act) as it is applied in practice by the Court. We also cover the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court when appeals or issues directly relevant to the Mental Capacity Act or Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards are before these higher courts[i].
- The advancement of citizenship: By supporting members of the public to observe court hearings so that justice is not simply done, but seen to be done, we support a fundamental aspect of what it means to be a citizen in a democracy. Through observation of the court proceedings, we keep the judge, while trying, under trial. We develop public knowledge of and trust in the legal processes of England and Wales and also publish informed criticism of and concern about aspects of legal proceedings and about the social and healthcare landscape underpinning the decisions available to the judiciary.
- The advancement of human rights: Transparency is key to the right to a fair trial – we are told that judges and lawyers conduct themselves better when they know we are watching them[ii]. Other key human rights often weighed in the balance in Court of Protection hearings, include the right to life (in serious medical treatment cases); the right to family and private life (the court can prevent or limit family contact with the protected party, and can find someone to lack capacity to engage in sexual relations, or to marry); and the right to freedom of information (e.g. via reporting restriction orders and disclosure of position statements. Public observation enhances the likelihood that these rights will be properly upheld because as Jeremy Bentham famously remarked, “publicity is the very soul of justice” and, in the oft-quoted words of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, “sunlight is the best disinfectant”. In addition, we raise concerns about hearings where we believe human rights are at risk and we actively petition the court for Article 10 ‘freedom of information’ rights, e.g. difficulties with access to the court and excessive reporting restrictions.
The Project has been welcomed by the judiciary (e.g, it plays “an important role in supporting public understanding of the Court of Protection which was, and arguably still is, a little-known court” [Arbuthnot J] and is “an important project that makes a significant contribution to transparency and public understanding of the workings of the Court of Protection” [Poole J])
Funding: We were unfunded for our first five plus years. We recently formed a Finance Committee (Celia Kitzinger and Claire Martin (Treasurer)) with the intention of applying for some funding to support travel and accommodation to observe hearings in person and to attend conferences, as well as to fund the day-to-day running of the Project. At the end of January 2026, we were awarded £12,000 by the Ourtree Charitable Trust.
(Please contact us via the Contact Page if you require our policy or guidance for bloggers in a format other than pdf and we will do our best to help)
Promoting Open Justice in the Court of Protection 