By Celia Kitzinger, 4th February 2022 Editorial note: The judgment is published here: A CCG v. DC & MC & AC [2022] EWCOP 2. The parents subsequently appealed the decision, and the appeal was heard by Hayden J MC & Anor v A CCG & Anor [2022] EWCOP 20. (See postscript to this blog forContinue reading “Cross-examining a GP in a COVID-vaccination hearing”
Author Archives: openjusticecourtofprotection
Not quite there yet: My first three attempts to observe a Court of Protection hearing
The Judge then went on to say that as I had only requested access at 10.50pm the evening before, she had not had time to go through formalities. She then referred to Claire Martin, another public observer (and core member of the Open Justice Court of Protection Project) who was also observing the proceedings and requested that we ‘kindly leave’. So that was that. Abrupt as it was, I duly obliged, and felt slightly down beaten at this point.
Capacity and elective caesarean
By Samantha Halliday, 26 January 2022 I have written extensively about court-authorised obstetric intervention[i] but I’ve always relied upon reported decisions. I am acutely aware that as Rosie Harding has commented: “When only the judgment is available for academic scrutiny, we cannot be clear as to the ways that the various submissions were framed”. That being the case,Continue reading “Capacity and elective caesarean”
“Non-mainstream” treatments and CPR for a COVID-19 patient in intensive care
Counsel asked whether, if the court were of the view that CPR was in AB’s best interests, the treating team would then be willing to administer CPR. This question was presumably designed to address a lack of clarity (quite common, in my experience, in Court of Protection cases) as to whether a proposed treatment is actually an available option for the court to consider. The court cannot order doctors to give futile treatments – and CPR had been so described by Dr G.
On not allowing the strong views of family members to prevail: A COVID-19 hearing
“Strongly held views by well-meaning and concerned family members should be taken into account but never permitted to prevail nor allowed to create avoidable delay. To do so would be to expose the vulnerable to the levels of risk I have identified, in the face of what remains an insidious and highly dangerous pandemic virus“ (Hayden J §26, SD v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea [2021] EWCOP 14)
Untenable and unsafe: A trial of living in the community breaks down
So, Mr G will return to the safety of residential care, where he will no doubt continue to rage against his incarceration, but there will be a suitable infrastructure to help him manage his precarious health condition. The question one is left with, of course, is, as Munby J famously said: “What good is making someone safer if it merely makes them miserable?”
Abuse and coercive control? A fact-finding hearing and exoneration
allegations against Miss F. They included allegations of physical and financial abuse and coercive control, and an allegation that she’d deliberately administered an insulin overdose when she visited him in hospital. There were also reports of her being obstructive and hostile to healthcare professionals trying to support Mr G.
The politics of the pandemic in the Court of Protection
Fears about government infringement of fundamental freedoms via compulsory vaccinations and vaccine passports has also fuelled public unrest internationally.Critics point to the weaponizing of fear to coerce population-wide vaccination and to the use of coercive psychological power to pit those who comply with mask-wearing against those who do not, and the vaccinated against the unvaccinated.
Continuing search for a placement – 5 months on
The local authority had, he said, “… invited the Court to escalate the matter to the Department of Education and the Children’s Commissioner. This case is reflective of a national crisis. Support from central government is needed. As far as I’m aware, neither were informed or provided with information. It seems to me that now that should happen”.
A mother abroad and a family dispute: Part 3
By Kristy Regan, 6th January 2022 This long-running case (COP 13677853) concerns Mrs P, an 80+ year old widow who’s been living in a European country at an unknown address with one of her daughters, “Kim” (all names are pseudonyms), a litigant in person. The applicant is Mrs P’s other daughter, “Louise” (represented by Sarah Haren of 5 StoneContinue reading “A mother abroad and a family dispute: Part 3”
Promoting Open Justice in the Court of Protection 