Physically restraining someone against their will to have general anaesthesia for a serious operation is something that most of us instinctively recoil from, and for good reason – namely, that it is the repression of an individual liberty and it is disrespectful to individual autonomy.
Tag Archives: Hayden J
“A lively personality” in a complex medical case
It would be easy for the protected party at the centre of this case to ‘go missing’ amongst a sea of expert opinion. I was struck how diligently the judge (Hayden J) worked to ensure this did not happen. Indeed, this hearing was the first time I’ve seen a protected party ‘come alive’ in a hearing despite their absence in court.
The most complex of best interests: Organ donation, learning disability, and the options on the table
Ruby Reed-Berendt and Bonnie Venter, 12 May 2023 To our knowledge, the Court of Protection has only once before grappled with the issue of capacity and organ donation in the context of learning disability: when it considered the case of William Verden last year. You can read the judgment in that earlier judgment here: Manchester UniversityContinue reading “The most complex of best interests: Organ donation, learning disability, and the options on the table”
Emergency placement order in a closed hearing
By Celia Kitzinger, 20th March 2023 At a closed hearing by telephone, out-of-hours on Saturday 25th February 2023, Mr Justice Hayden granted an order that it was in P’s best interests to be removed from the home where she lives with her sister (Q) and taken to an emergency placement. Mr Justice Hayden also approved anContinue reading “Emergency placement order in a closed hearing”
New Guidance on Closed Hearings from the Vice President of the Court of Protection
By Celia Kitzinger, 8th February 2023 My first experience of a case involving closed hearings was as an observer of Re A (Covert medication: Closed Proceedings)  EWCOP 44. It shook my faith in the justice system. The protected party (A) was in residential care, against her own wishes and those of her mother. While A’sContinue reading “New Guidance on Closed Hearings from the Vice President of the Court of Protection”
‘Vindicated!’ The experience of P in the Court of Protection
By JH and NB (with an introduction from Celia Kitzinger), 29th January 2023 Editorial Note: The judgment has now been published: NHS Surrey Heartlands Integrated Care Board v JH  EWCOP 2 Introduction (by Celia) There was an urgent Court of Protection hearing at the end of last year before Mr Justice Hayden. In this blogContinue reading “‘Vindicated!’ The experience of P in the Court of Protection”
An “unacceptable” care placement – and why public observers help to hold the state to account
By Jordan Briggs, 22nd July 2022 This hearing, listed before His Honour Judge Berkley at Manchester County Court (via MS Teams) on Wednesday 20th July 2022, concerned a woman in her early twenties with complex emotional needs (‘P’) who had absconded from her placement on 18th March 2022. There’s a previous blog post on the Open Justice CourtContinue reading “An “unacceptable” care placement – and why public observers help to hold the state to account”
“She is religious and she is a fighter”: Three perspectives on best interests decision-making in the Court of Protection from ‘Compassion in Dying’
By Jemma Woodley, Zach Moss and Upeka de Silva, 23rd June 2022 Editorial Note: The judgment has now been published: Imperial Healthcare NHS Trust v C & Ors  EWCOP 28 We are three people who work for Compassion in Dying, a national charity that supports people to make their own decisions about end-of-life care inContinue reading ““She is religious and she is a fighter”: Three perspectives on best interests decision-making in the Court of Protection from ‘Compassion in Dying’”
Two years on: A postscript to “Remote justice”
What families mean by “gravitas” (dignity, seriousness, solemnity) does not in fact reside in court architecture, coats of arms, wigs and robes, or rituals of address and behaviour. In my experience, these external manifestations of “justice” can sometimes seem rather ridiculous, and the “performance” element of the courtroom can alienate lay people and distract everyone from the serious business at hand. Rather, the “gravitas” families appreciate is a quality of attention, a focus, a willingness to engage, in depth, with the medico-legal and ethical issues before the court.
Four commentaries on Re PH before Hayden J
especially psychiatric/psychological diagnosis. He ensures that the relational interplay between the health and social care organisations and each P is noted. This means that ‘behaviour’ is not located in P (or conversely only in the clinicians/teams/organisations) but in the relationship between them. Given the location of power in a patient-to-system dyad, I think this is vital in CoP cases. It conveys to each person at the centre of a case that they matter as a person in the CoP.