The court is now in the unenviable position of trying to help the MDT extricate itself from the entirely untenable situation it’s in following the directions of HHJ Moir. I am left wondering how everyone thought this would be brought to a satisfactory conclusion. What ‘exit plan’ was envisaged at the point the judge set the wheels in motion for covert medication? Nobody can have imagined that A could be detained and covertly medicated for the next 30 years – but nobody seems to have planned for any alternative.
Tag Archives: HHJ Moir
Closed Hearings: Submission to the Rules Committee
It would be helpful for the Guidance to consider ways in which the taint of deception could be removed, as far as possible, from cases involving closed hearings and to recognise and seek to minimise the moral injury they can cause.
No ‘exit plan’: Re A (Covert medication: Closed Proceedings) [2022] EWCOP 44
At any point in the last two years of treatment, A might have discovered the medication in her food, or been alerted to the medication by a carer. At any point her grandparents (who visited her in person) could have commented on her pubertal development and raised suspicions. Or she herself could have questioned her breast development, her hair growth or changing body shape. Was there really no contingency plan in place to deal with this?
Reflections on open justice and transparency in the light of Re A (Covert Medication: Closed Proceedings) [2022] EWCOP 44
What happened in this case strikes at the very heart of the work of the Open Justice Court of Protection Project. It’s very unfortunate that the manner in which this case became public knowledge was via a blog post based on a misapprehension of the facts – necessitating a Statement correcting those facts.
“I have to tell you something which may well come as a shock”, says Court of Protection judge
By Daniel Cloake, 12 October 2022 Editorial Note: The Open Justice Court of Protection Project has issued a formal Statement about the case described here. This is an observer’s account of the first day of that hearing. The judgment is publicly available: Re A [2022] EWCOP 44. We subsequently raised concerns about the court’s decision toContinue reading ““I have to tell you something which may well come as a shock”, says Court of Protection judge”
Statement from the Open Justice Court of Protection Project concerning an inaccurate and misleading blog post
We will now investigate how it came about that an observer was admitted to a public hearing in which a salient (‘magnetic’) fact of the case was meticulously concealed (by order of the court), leading – surely inevitably – to inaccurate reporting.
Medical treatment, undue influence and delayed puberty: A baffling case
By Celia Kitzinger and Claire Martin, 2nd May 2022 IMPORTANT NOTE: We accept, with regret that this blog post is inaccurate and misleading. Please see our updating “Statement” of 11th October 2022 The protected party at the centre of the case is a woman in her early twenties who has not experienced puberty, because sheContinue reading “Medical treatment, undue influence and delayed puberty: A baffling case”
Promoting Open Justice in the Court of Protection 