By Caroline Hanman[1] – 17th November 2020 The person at the centre of this hearing (pseudonymised as “Michael” in this post) is a young man under the age of 18. He’s autistic and he has learning difficulties and ADHD (“attention deficit hyperactivity disorder”). He sometimes exhibits challenging behaviour which on occasion has resulted in physical injury toContinue reading “Deprivation of Liberty at an Urgent Hearing”
Author Archives: openjusticecourtofprotection
Privacy, Capacity, and the Judge’s Communication Skills
“Hayden J has been at the forefront of ensuring that the voice of P is heard in the Court of Protection and that P is included in the hearing about them as much as is feasible… This hearing embodied that, with Hayden J taking the lead in ensuring that Ms P’s voice was not only heard but that she fully understood the proceedings. “
Advance decisions on intimacy
“the proposal gives rise to strong feelings [and] poses challenges to conceptions of what we are willing to empower people to decide about in advance, and about how expressions of sexual preference could be ‘housed’ within such decisions where they may clash with the views of others around the person about what they consider to be acceptable.”
Should life-sustaining treatment be continued?
“Nine public observers attended (via MS Teams) an all-day hearing in the Court of Protection before Mr Justice Poole (COP 1353507, 30 October 2020) concerning whether or not life-sustaining treatment should be continued…”
Psychiatric Survivors’ Views on Advance Consent and ‘Forced’ Treatment
“… I remain hopeful that by highlighting cases such as Paul’s and learning from lived experiences of psychiatric survivors, we can make small steps that will lead to better experiences of treatment for those in mental health crisis.”
When Expert Evidence Fails
A hearing before Mr Justice Poole (COP 13551368) listed for three days (26-28 October 2020) was adjourned, only part-heard, because of inadequate reports from the expert witness. The expert witness, Dr Q, a consultant psychiatrist, gave evidence that the person at the centre of the case (let’s call her Barbara) lacked mental capacity to make any of the decisions before the court. His evidence simply collapsed under cross-examination.
From black letter law to real-life decision making
Editor’s note: This is a report of a later hearing in the same case as the one covered in a previous blog here. By Lucy Williams, 29 October 2020 I am studying a module on Health Care Law at the University of York. We explore how decision-making capacity is determined on the basis of the Mental Capacity ActContinue reading “From black letter law to real-life decision making”
A COVID-Secure Attended Hearing
By Adam Tanner, 28th October 2020 Over the past seven years I have worked within the justice system and have been an observer as a law student and PhD researcher in several hundred in-person court hearings. Since the lockdown restrictions commencing in March 2020, there has been a new feel to the justice system inContinue reading “A COVID-Secure Attended Hearing”
Where P should live
“One of the most relevant and pleasing aspects of the hearings has been the evident attention paid to the involvement of P in proceedings. Although P did not attend any of these hearings, what did come across and was clearly conveyed was a real sense of P as an individual and what their views, wishes and feelings were/are in relation to the life-matters affecting them.”
Ethical issues in restraining patients for dialysis
“…Two aspects of Paul’s treatment particularly interest me. First, that the restraint required is rather extreme. Second, that the patient had expressed a clear desire to be restrained as he wants to be dialyzed…”
Promoting Open Justice in the Court of Protection 