In the end, despite having watched the hearing and heard the oral judgment, I don’t know why this judge made the decision she did about deprivation of liberty in this case – which pretty much defeats the purpose of observing a hearing in the first place.
Author Archives: openjusticecourtofprotection
AGNI: A common-sense judgment or agony?
For people who consider their loved ones well cared for, safe, and happy, the pre‑AGNI deprivation of liberty (DoL) processes were nonsensical and often intrusive. For that reason, the current judgment brings a sense of relief to many. But for other individuals, whose daily lives are dictated and constrained by institutional or quasi‑institutional regimes, with simple choices removed from their decisional space, and an array of human‑rights abuses hidden behind closed cultures, this judgment may have a more detrimental impact.
Declaration of death or serious medical treatment withdrawal?
The key question in this case, which will be back in court on 2nd July 2026, is whether or not a man in his 40s, who had an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest about a month ago) is now “brain stem dead”.
Overturning Cheshire West and my Grandma’s experience of ‘the death house’ care home
Born in 1930, my Grandma was funny, cheeky, loving and firmly opinionated. She had been diagnosed with end-stage heart failure and vascular dementia, with fluctuating capacity and had been living happily in a small nursing home…
“Steadying the ship”: Vice President’s judgment will list factors to consider before making applications for declaratory relief in life-sustaining treatment cases relating to the Mental Health Act
By Sydney White, 24th June 2026 The grave facts of this case (COP 20033278, before Mrs Justice Theis on 23rd June 2026) are discussed in a previous blog (Anorexia, declaratory protection and the Mental Health Act: Ventilating a jurisdictional question following Townsend). In summary it concerns a woman (“P”) who suffers from anorexia nervosa and isContinue reading ““Steadying the ship”: Vice President’s judgment will list factors to consider before making applications for declaratory relief in life-sustaining treatment cases relating to the Mental Health Act”
A personal reflection on decision-making processes
By Vicky Farrell, 22nd June 2026 As an experienced clinical lead within NHS community services for older adults, I recently attended a virtual hearing with the aim of gaining insight into how the Court of Protection facilitates complex decision-making outcomes. The case I observed was COP 20019749 before Mrs Justice Theis sitting at the RoyalContinue reading “A personal reflection on decision-making processes”
Fit for discharge for the last 8 months and still in hospital: Yet more delay (and Lieven J offers to mediate)
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. But we have to do our best.” Mrs Justice Lieven, 5th June 2026 The protected party (P) is a woman with diagnoses of mild learning disability, “emotionally unstableContinue reading “Fit for discharge for the last 8 months and still in hospital: Yet more delay (and Lieven J offers to mediate)”
Removal of P from the family home: Permission to appeal refused
Counsel for the local authority said they would look to carry out the move on Thursday (two days later). The judge explored with everyone how this would work in practice. As always, Senior Judge Hilder’s questions showed exemplary attention to detail in planning ahead as well as displaying her grasp of the material in the bundle.
Court approves sedative PRN medication
By Maria Maier, 17th June 2026 As an Independent Advocate for individuals who lack mental capacity, I have seen at first-hand the vital role the Court of Protection plays in safeguarding some of the most vulnerable members of society. Despite its importance, the Court’s work is often overlooked and underreported. By observing and reporting onContinue reading “Court approves sedative PRN medication”
Iatrogenic harm and the Court of Protection
Court proceedings can cause unintended harm to the person at the centre of the case (“P”) as well as to P’s family, and to P’s wider support network….
