Bringing Lucy home

Listening to this story of Lucy’s recent life, and her family’s efforts and persistence in caring for her, was quite shocking to hear – though not entirely surprising. There were so many things that were briefly mentioned, or alluded to in passing, that it was hard to take in all of the incidents and issues that have caused concern and rancour between the family and the Local Authority since Lucy left home. What was quite clear, though, was that things had become much worse over the past year or so, even before the pandemic. 

Delay in a Section 21A Challenge to the Capacity Requirement

One obviously concerning aspect of this case is that Mr B’s (possibly unlawful) deprivation of liberty has been going on for a long time. I’m not sure when he moved into the care home, or at what point he started objecting to living there, but proceedings challenging his detention began more than a year ago, in January 2020.

Visual Monitoring, Deprivation of Liberty and Human Rights

By Claire Martin, 6th March 2021 Inspired by the Open Justice Court of Protection Project, I have attended several Court of Protection hearings over the past 8 months (and blogged about some of them too).  As a psychologist working with older people in the NHS, I have found these observations valuable continuing professional development.  They are a great educationContinue reading “Visual Monitoring, Deprivation of Liberty and Human Rights”

Returning P to her family abroad during a global pandemic

By Ravina Bahra, 1st February 2021 Editorial Note: The judgment has just been published (5th February 2021) and is available here. I had the opportunity to observe this hearing (COP 13588956) before Mr Justice Hayden at the Royal Courts of Justice (via MS Teams) on 28th January 2021, having requested access at 9:35am and received aContinue reading “Returning P to her family abroad during a global pandemic”

Excluding the public from Court of Protection hearings: A case before Mr Justice Keehan

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”

Disability, Social (In)visibility, and the Importance of Open Justice

“…t is my view that society should be made aware of how it treats its disabled members – and that ‘social invisibility’ is a form of willful ignorance, and an unjust privilege. Oppression thrives in darkness, and it is most efficient and effective in silence and in isolation…”

Challenging Reporting Restrictions in the Court of Protection

“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”

Should life-sustaining treatment be continued?

“Nine public observers attended (via MS Teams) an all-day hearing in the Court of Protection before Mr Justice Poole (COP 1353507, 30 October 2020) concerning whether or not life-sustaining treatment should be continued…”

Over-ruling P’s Strong Wishes in a Best Interests Decision: Autonomy, Protection and P’s voice

“…The position taken by the Official Solicitor (OS) meant that the Local Authority (the applicant), the NHS Trust (the second respondent) and the OS (the first respondent) all took exactly the same position – all opposed to P’s wishes. It felt very one-sided and as though nobody was arguing for what P wanted, except for P herself…”