By Celia Kitzinger, 3 June 2022 The quotation in the title of this blog is (as many readers will recognise) from a judgment by Munby J. In full, the relevant passage reads as follows: A great judge once said, “all life is an experiment,” adding that “every year if not every day we have to wager ourContinue reading ““What good is it making someone safer if it merely makes them miserable?” A contested hearing and delayed trial of living at home”
Tag Archives: Open Justice
Treatment delay: “My son has got disabilities but that doesn’t mean he’s a nobody”
Research has painted a troubling picture of the quality of healthcare people with a learning disability have received (or not received) over the course of the pandemic, exacerbating already high levels of health inequalities
When family members apply to become parties: A hidden and “private” (but not sinister and secret) hearing
Many people who contact the Open Justice Court of Protection Project believe that the court is deliberately obstructive of open justice. I understand why it can feel like that.
It really isn’t the case that the lists are deliberately designed to discourage us from observing hearings. It’s just that – very often – they have that effect. Having attended this hidden and “private” hearing, I can’t detect any reason why anyone would have sought to exclude me: there was nothing ‘secret’ or ‘sinister’ about it at all.
A section 21A hearing: Impressions from a veteran observer and the daughter of (a different) P in a s.21A case
By Celia Kitzinger and Anna (Daughter of P), 9th May 2022 Anna (not her real name) contacted the Open Justice Court of Protection Project towards the end of April 2022, saying that she’d been asked to attend a s. 21A directions hearing about her mother (in a care home, with Alzheimer’s) and was finding the Court ofContinue reading “A section 21A hearing: Impressions from a veteran observer and the daughter of (a different) P in a s.21A case”
Refusing to eat and declining a feeding tube: Capacity at issue
By Celia Kitzinger, 21st April 2022 The hearing concerned an application from an NHS Trust (represented by David Lawson) to insert a PEG-J tube under general anaesthetic and then to deliver clinically assisted nutrition and hydration (CANH) to a young woman (P) who was admitted to hospital having fractured her femur and is now refusing to eat. She’sContinue reading “Refusing to eat and declining a feeding tube: Capacity at issue”
The value of observing a case management hearing in the Court of Protection
By Helen Moizer, 7th April 2022 The value of observing a case management hearing in the Court of Protection. When I observed a Court of Protection hearing for the first time, I did not know what I was entering into or what to expect. Despite it being a video hearing link, I still felt apprehensiveContinue reading “The value of observing a case management hearing in the Court of Protection”
Two years on: A postscript to “Remote justice”
What families mean by “gravitas” (dignity, seriousness, solemnity) does not in fact reside in court architecture, coats of arms, wigs and robes, or rituals of address and behaviour. In my experience, these external manifestations of “justice” can sometimes seem rather ridiculous, and the “performance” element of the courtroom can alienate lay people and distract everyone from the serious business at hand. Rather, the “gravitas” families appreciate is a quality of attention, a focus, a willingness to engage, in depth, with the medico-legal and ethical issues before the court.
Capacity to engage in sex: Putting the MCA’s foundational values to protect and empower to the test
By Samantha Williamson, 18th March 2022 Most of us couldn’t begin to imagine being told (as adults) that we are prohibited from spending private time with our chosen partner – and that we cannot be allowed to have sex with them. That’s been the case for 19-year-old T and her 25-year-old boyfriend since 19th November 2021. Continue reading “Capacity to engage in sex: Putting the MCA’s foundational values to protect and empower to the test”
Withdrawing treatment after brain-stem death: A case in the Family Division
Today I watched a hearing about whether or not a woman in her 40s is dead. She was declared dead at 11.45 on Thursday 10 March 2022, following brain stem death testing. The reason the doctors have continued to treat the patient and the reason the Trust has applied to court is that the family has opposed withdrawal of ventilation (and other treatments) and has asked for a private second opinion.
When doctors are not willing to offer treatments
By Celia Kitzinger, 13th March 2022 This was an unusual hearing because of its focus on a treatment (clinically assisted nutrition) that doctors were not willing to offer. By the day of the hearing, the person at the centre of this case (P) had not received nutrition for 10 days, ever since his nasogastric (NG) tubeContinue reading “When doctors are not willing to offer treatments”
Promoting Open Justice in the Court of Protection 