By Celia Kitzinger, 25th June 2022 The protected party at the centre of this case (P) has dementia and Parkinson’s Disease. He’s in a care home and he wants to return home. The difficulty is that his wife, who lives in the house of which he is sole owner, is (allegedly) abusive and subjects him to coerciveContinue reading “When P can’t go home to his “abusive” wife: Another ineffective hearing”
By Celia Kitzinger, 9th November 2021 She’s in her eighties, with significant cognitive decline, and delirium secondary to numerous infections and “in all likelihood in the last weeks of her life,” said the judge. She lacks capacity to make her own decisions about who she has contact with. One of her daughters, Ann, and Ann’s daughter (P’sContinue reading “Navigating a family feud on P’s death-bed”
EW’s wish to end her days in Inverness may not weigh heavily in the best interests decision that will need to be made if the court decides that she lacks capacity to make her own decision about where to live. I worry that the groundwork for that is already being prepared. There was a weariness whenever Scotland was mentioned.
By Evie Robson, 9th April 2021 Everyone is suffering as a result of the pandemic. Mr Justice Hayden described it as ‘a pandemic in which fundamental rights and liberties are at every corner curbed’. The ‘right to family life’ (Article 8 of the Human Rights Act) has been one of the most painful casualties of theContinue reading “Right to Family Life in a Care Home during a Pandemic: Michelle Davies part 2”
By Celia Kitzinger, 1st April 2021 Previous blogs – and the mainstream media – have reported that RS ( the person at the centre of a ‘right to die’ case) was Polish, that the members of his family who wanted life-sustaining treatment to continue are Polish, and that the Polish government was seeking his returnContinue reading “He’s Polish: Challenging reporting restrictions”
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”
The intention of the transparency order is to protect the person’s privacy and this is what many people who become “P”s in the Court of Protection want (or would have wanted). For others, though, their Article 8 right to privacy may be outweighed by the competing interest of their Article 10 to right to freedom of speech and open scrutiny of the circumstances in which they have been placed.
“Something has plainly gone wrong in this case. The public, particularly the taxpayers who fund the local authority with responsibility for KB’s welfare, have a right to know the name of the local authority. In the real world, people won’t try to work out KB’s identity, they’ll moan about the council: and they should be able to do that. If the local authority isn’t named, residents can’t tweet their concerns; people can’t tell newspapers that they’ve also had issues; the local MP can’t ask questions; even the councillors on the local authority may not know that the local authority involved is their local authority: they certainly can’t debate the issue at a public meeting”