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.
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”
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”
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?”
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”
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”
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.
By Jenny Kitzinger, 16th December 2020 The hearing I attended on Wednesday 9th December 2020 (Case: 13382192 before District Judge Tindal), was about Mr G, an individual in his early 60s with frontal lobe disorder, diabetes and other medical issues. He wants to leave the acquired brain injury [ABI] care centre that he originally entered almost aContinue reading “Unseemly turf wars and uncoordinated care”
Z would not be able to make arrangements to visit a sex worker, or pay her, without the support of his team. The Local Authority and CCG have agreed that implementation of a carefully thought through sexual contact care plan to help Z access a sex worker would be in his best interests and they were prepared to commission a care plan. However, they would do this only if the Court would make a declaration that the care plan would be lawful and that no offense would be committed by the care workers in light of s. 39 Sexual Offences Act 2003, which criminalises actions that intentionally ‘cause or incite’ sexual activity involving a person who has a mental disorder, by a person involved in that person’s care.
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.