“The Official Solicitor observes that P is considered capacitous in all the areas in which she is willing to take that [medical] advice; it is only where she is not willing to follow medical advice that she is considered to lack capacity”.
Many victims of forced marriage are tricked in going back home because they have either told their parents that they will not marry there, or it’s what their parents suspect. In many cases victims end up in remote regions where they do not understand the local area and sometimes even struggle with the language. Victims get trapped abroad and have limited options of getting help.
If a best interests’ process had been followed and it had been decided that monitoring was not in David’s best interests, then no court hearing would have been needed and P would not have had his Article 8 right violated for a long time. If there had been disagreement (e.g. between parent and clinician) after a best interests process, then an application to the Court of Protection might have led to a case process similar to this, but without delay. The issue in this case is that there was no best interests’ process at all!
Admission to a restrictive hospital environment does not resolve the underlying reasons as to why young people self-harm and may paradoxically increase risk by encouraging young people to move to new and often more lethal ways of harming themselves once access to their usual means is removed.
This is an account of why and how journalists’ reports of hearings are typically so different from the pieces written by bloggers for projects like the Open Justice Court of Protection Project.
This was a case in which the judge and all the parties to the case (including the local authority) were doing their utmost to help a vulnerable young person against the backdrop of a nationwide shortage of appropriate provision.
By Jennifer O’Neill, 3rd August 2021 On 27th July 2021 I observed a remote hearing (via Microsoft Teams) brought before Mr Justice Hayden in the Court of Protection: COP 1354439T Re: PH. Having observed my first remote hearing in the Court of Protection a few weeks earlier (Re AH COP 13783897), I was aware that when observing such hearings,Continue reading “When an academic theory becomes reality: The applicability of section 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983 versus section 5 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005”
e of poor practice, and active resistance from some quarters, the court could also make clear that continued provision of medical treatment when it is not in someone’s best interests is an assault, and that clinicians will not be able to rely on the defence in s.5 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 – meaning that there is a risk to them and to their organisations of claims for damages.
By Gill Loomes-Quinn, 14th July 2021 During the afternoon of Tuesday 25th May 2021, I found myself back in the (virtual) Court of Protection for what was my first observation for several months. I was expecting to observe the latest hearing in Case Number COP 1275114 Re RD (Emma Heron and Olwen Cockell had written about an earlierContinue reading ““What is he saying to us?” The ‘voice’ of a hunger-striking man in a best interests decision about his medical treatment”
This hearing arose because a hospital trust has applied for welfare orders under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to permit them (i) to perform a full dental clearance on M in hospital under general anaesthetic, and (ii) to use a combination of chemical and physical restraint in order to manage M’s transfer to hospital.