The reality is that they are likely to experience ongoing and significant state intervention with potentially daily visits from carers, fortnightly visits from health and social care practitioners, medical and hospital appointments etc. While living at home with her mother has been what A has been asking for all along, and the court has determined that it is in her best interests to do so, it may not feel like the least intrusive option given the level of scrutiny and stress they will be exposed to
Tag Archives: Open Justice
A is back home and taking her medication voluntarily: The final hearing in Re A (Covert Medication: Closed Proceedings)
By Claire Martin, 23rd October 2024 Editorial note: Another observer (Meg Niven Withers, a social worker) also watched this same hearing and has blogged separately here: Moving forward in Re A (Covert Medication: Closed Proceedings): A social work perspective The case (Re: A) has been in the Court of Protection since 2018 and we’ve been following itContinue reading “A is back home and taking her medication voluntarily: The final hearing in Re A (Covert Medication: Closed Proceedings)”
Can the court require certain information to be reported and specific words to be used as a condition of publication about proceedings?
‘The court gives permission asked for in paragraphs 1 & 2 on condition that […] the family members are referred to as “they/them” instead of [xxxxxxxx redacted – the words were conventional gendered pronouns]…. any publication should record that there was no formal application made by any party to convert the proceedings from private to public, save for there being a short discussion at the beginning of the hearing’
Fifteen Top Transparency Tips for Judges
By the Core Team of the Open Justice Court of Protection Project, 15th October 2024 The Open Justice Court of Protection Project (henceforth OJCOP) was founded by Celia Kitzinger and Gill Loomes-Quinn in June 2020 to support and promote the judicial aspiration for transparency in the Court of Protection, by encouraging members of the publicContinue reading “Fifteen Top Transparency Tips for Judges”
Elucidating the meaning of deprivation of liberty orders: HHJ Burrows and local authority at cross-purposes on DOLS and care plans
By Celia Kitzinger, 10th October 2024 Update: The judgment has now been published (click on the link in the title of the case): Bury Metropolitan Borough Council v EM & Ors [2024] EWCOP 76 (T2). The judge refers to the protected party as “Emma” in that judgment, so I’ve amended this blog to reflect that.Continue reading “Elucidating the meaning of deprivation of liberty orders: HHJ Burrows and local authority at cross-purposes on DOLS and care plans”
A Puzzling Application, Breach of Court Orders and Draconian Restrictions
By Hita Jadeja, 9th October 2024 This case concerns a young lady (P) with diagnoses of ADHD and Autism Spectrum disorder and with a history of self-harm. She is currently in a rehabilitation placement following treatment at a mental health hospital. HHJ Burrows heard the matter (COP 14216532) remotely via MS Team, on 9 September 2024Continue reading “A Puzzling Application, Breach of Court Orders and Draconian Restrictions”
When parties don’t appear in court and judge goes ahead anyway: Appointing a professional deputy
By Georgina Baidoun, 4th October 2024 At 10.30am on 25 September 2024 I watched a hearing before DJ Ellington at First Avenue House, listed as below. Although listed as ‘in-person attended’, as with several other recent hearings, I had no difficulty in obtaining a link to observe remotely. It was a directions hearing concerning theContinue reading “When parties don’t appear in court and judge goes ahead anyway: Appointing a professional deputy”
Closed hearings, safeguarding concerns, and financial interests v. best interests
By Daniel Clark, 2nd October 2024 The protected party in this case, “B”, is a thirty-year-old woman who, according to Counsel for her mother, has until recently been a “happy, well balanced, sociable person”. She enjoys spending time with her family and, until 2024, had been living with her mother at home. This case (COP 14116349)Continue reading “Closed hearings, safeguarding concerns, and financial interests v. best interests”
Judgment: An update to “A Catch 22 situation for P or Hobson’s Choice?” (and how access to court documents helps transparency and open justice)
By Amanda Hill, 24th September 2024 I’ve now been sent the (as yet unpublished) judgment in the case of “London Borough of Lambeth v CT & North Central London ICB” (issued 21 August 2024, additions made on 4 September 2024). This is the case I observed and blogged about last month: “A “Catch 22” situation for P or Hobson’s Choice? Disagreement amongContinue reading “Judgment: An update to “A Catch 22 situation for P or Hobson’s Choice?” (and how access to court documents helps transparency and open justice)”
Balancing open justice and P’s right to privacy: A protected party says NO to a public observer “and her voice shall be heard”
By Eleanor Tallon, 3rd September 2024 Editorial Note: The judgment (making this hearing private) has now been published: Stockport MBC v NN & Anor [2024] EWCOP 51 (T1) I was not able to observe this hearing because the protected party, N, said she did not want an observer as “she doesn’t know who they are orContinue reading “Balancing open justice and P’s right to privacy: A protected party says NO to a public observer “and her voice shall be heard””
Promoting Open Justice in the Court of Protection 