At first sight, this appeared to be a straightforward example of the post-AGNI legal framework in practice. The applicant local authority invited the court to discharge the COPDOL order. But there was a complication. The P in this case is a “restricted patient”, living in the community under “conditional discharge”.
Tag Archives: Open Justice
Objections (and breached conditions) after AGNI
Despite the obvious importance of establishing the legal basis of P’s confinement (is it or isn’t it a ‘deprivation of liberty’?), this judge – like others I’ve watched since AGNI – gave priority to considering whether P’s residence and care arrangements were in his best interests and the least restrictive necessary.
Considering ‘deprivation of liberty’ in a family home setting after AGNI
HHJ Burrows determined that there is no deprivation of liberty for a young woman living under constant supervision and control in an annex to the family home. It was clear from his comments in court that he did so with considerable reluctance, referring to “deeply philosophically difficult” arguments.
Judge authorises medical treatment and DOLS in hospital following AGNI
In the end, despite having watched the hearing and heard the oral judgment, I don’t know why this judge made the decision she did about deprivation of liberty in this case – which pretty much defeats the purpose of observing a hearing in the first place.
Declaration of death or serious medical treatment withdrawal?
The key question in this case, which will be back in court on 2nd July 2026, is whether or not a man in his 40s, who had an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest about a month ago) is now “brain stem dead”.
Iatrogenic harm and the Court of Protection
Court proceedings can cause unintended harm to the person at the centre of the case (“P”) as well as to P’s family, and to P’s wider support network….
A statement on the Court of Appeal’s judgment in Re Gardner (Deceased) (Court of Protection: Disclosure of Position Statements)
By the core team of the Open Justice Court of Protection Project, 9th June 2026 On 21 May 2026, the Court of Appeal handed down judgment in Re Gardner (Deceased) (Court of Protection: Disclosure of Position Statements [2026] EWCA Civ 640. This was an appeal against the decision of Poole J in Re AB (Disclosure of Position Statements) [2025]Continue reading “A statement on the Court of Appeal’s judgment in Re Gardner (Deceased) (Court of Protection: Disclosure of Position Statements)”
Anorexia, declaratory protection and the Mental Health Act: Ventilating a jurisdictional question following Townsend
Given the likelihood of an upcoming Supreme Court hearing, it may be that Townsend provides a very slender thread on which to base the Trust’s argument – or indeed, on which to delay determination of P’s best interests by first detouring down what might turn out to be a jurisdictional cul-de-sac over the next six weeks.
Fit for discharge and still in hospital five months later due to delay with eating and drinking plan – updated after 12th May 2026 hearing
There’ s a deceptively simple solution to enable P to leave hospital – the development of an eating and drinking plan – but a complex web of responsibilities for making that happen, involving multiple public bodies, multiple teams, and multiple people
Judge refuses to make Civil Restraint Order against P’s father
By Celia Kitzinger, 30th March 2026 A Court of Protection judge has refused an application from South Tyneside Council to make a Civil Restraint Order (CRO) against the father of a young autistic man living in supported accommodation. I observed the hearing (COP 14075351) before Mr Justice Poole sitting in person in the Royal CourtsContinue reading “Judge refuses to make Civil Restraint Order against P’s father”
Promoting Open Justice in the Court of Protection 