How being watched changes how justice is done: ‘Insider’ Perspectives

It is a fundamental principle that justice should not only be done, but should be seen to be done. With nobody watching, ‘open justice’ is simply an abstract ideal. But how does being observed change how justice is done?

A mother abroad and a family dispute – Part 2

By Daniel Cloake, 19 January 2021 As a follower of the Open Justice Court of Protection Project on Twitter I took advantage of their daily publication of upcoming Court of Protection hearings and e-mailed in my request to observe this case. Before MR JUSTICE COHENSitting as a Judge of the Court of ProtectionMonday, 11 January, 2021At 02:00Continue reading “A mother abroad and a family dispute – Part 2”

Does being watched change how justice is done? A researcher’s reflections

Now seems like an ideal time to reflect on what we have learned about the relationships between open justice and social justice and to discuss with those working across other courts and tribunals how our experiences intersect with theirs – what we might learn, and how we might maximise our impact.

A hotel as an interim placement

By Celia Kitzinger, 15th January 2021 At a brisk 17-minute hearing on 30 December 2021 before Mr Justice Keehan (Case no. 12803319), the judge approved the applicant local authority’s order to place P in a hotel with a package of 24-hour care as a temporary measure, pending his move to a permanent placement.   Use ofContinue reading “A hotel as an interim placement”

A mother abroad and a family dispute

By Kristy Regan, 11th January 2021 At the third attempt, after a couple of false starts (a case made private at the last minute and an email request not replied to), I gained access to my first Court of Protection hearing: COP 13677853. This was a case at the Royal Courts of Justice before MrContinue reading “A mother abroad and a family dispute”

Excluding the public from Court of Protection hearings: A case before Mr Justice Keehan

By Celia Kitzinger, 7th Jan 2020 Open justice. The words express a principle at the heart of our system of justice and vital to the rule of law. …. Open justice lets in the light and allows the public to scrutinise the workings of the law, for better or for worse. (Lord Justice Toulson R (Guardian News andContinue reading “Excluding the public from Court of Protection hearings: A case before Mr Justice Keehan”

“RPR”, “IMCA” and “Paralegal” – what are these roles?

By Tory Smith, 6th January 2021 I am a paralegal working at MJC Law. One of MJC Law’s specialties is health and welfare cases in the Court of Protection and in the vast majority of our cases we represent “P” (the protected person).  By way of my own background, I have been involved within theContinue reading ““RPR”, “IMCA” and “Paralegal” – what are these roles?”

Unwanted amputation and its likely aftermath

By Monica Young, 23 December 2020 Editorial note: You can listen to Nageena Khalique QC, counsel for P talking about this case in a YouTube video. Her account of this case lasts for about four minutes starting at 18:50 minutes into the recording. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ML-PDLIkrSc&feature=emb_logo The hearing that I attended on Thursday 17th December 2020 (Case: 13693467 beforeContinue reading “Unwanted amputation and its likely aftermath”

An inappropriate placement and Article 8 rights

By Beverley Clough, 21 December 2020 After following the Open Justice Court of Protection Project with interest since it was launched in June 2020, I was really pleased to be able (finally!) to attend a hearing on Friday 18th December 2020. The hearing I observed  (COP 13462068 Re ‘LW’, before Mr Justice Hayden)  follows on from a judgmentContinue reading “An inappropriate placement and Article 8 rights”

Autoerotic asphyxiation: capacity and best interests

This case centred around whether an individual, let’s call him ‘James’, had capacity to decide whether or not to engage in a sexual activity known as autoerotic asphyxiation (AEA), the practice of strangling or suffocating oneself during masturbation to heighten sexual arousal. The question of capacity also concerned James’ engagement with other individuals on the internet.