The Judge then went on to say that as I had only requested access at 10.50pm the evening before, she had not had time to go through formalities. She then referred to Claire Martin, another public observer (and core member of the Open Justice Court of Protection Project) who was also observing the proceedings and requested that we ‘kindly leave’. So that was that. Abrupt as it was, I duly obliged, and felt slightly down beaten at this point.
Tag Archives: Open Justice
Capacity and elective caesarean
By Samantha Halliday, 26 January 2022 I have written extensively about court-authorised obstetric intervention[i] but I’ve always relied upon reported decisions. I am acutely aware that as Rosie Harding has commented: “When only the judgment is available for academic scrutiny, we cannot be clear as to the ways that the various submissions were framed”. That being the case,Continue reading “Capacity and elective caesarean”
“Non-mainstream” treatments and CPR for a COVID-19 patient in intensive care
Counsel asked whether, if the court were of the view that CPR was in AB’s best interests, the treating team would then be willing to administer CPR. This question was presumably designed to address a lack of clarity (quite common, in my experience, in Court of Protection cases) as to whether a proposed treatment is actually an available option for the court to consider. The court cannot order doctors to give futile treatments – and CPR had been so described by Dr G.
Untenable and unsafe: A trial of living in the community breaks down
So, Mr G will return to the safety of residential care, where he will no doubt continue to rage against his incarceration, but there will be a suitable infrastructure to help him manage his precarious health condition. The question one is left with, of course, is, as Munby J famously said: “What good is making someone safer if it merely makes them miserable?”
A mother abroad and a family dispute: Part 3
By Kristy Regan, 6th January 2022 This long-running case (COP 13677853) concerns Mrs P, an 80+ year old widow who’s been living in a European country at an unknown address with one of her daughters, “Kim” (all names are pseudonyms), a litigant in person. The applicant is Mrs P’s other daughter, “Louise” (represented by Sarah Haren of 5 StoneContinue reading “A mother abroad and a family dispute: Part 3”
Disputes about COVID vaccination should be rapidly referred to the Court
“at First Avenue House – and I’ve checked with the senior judge – if an application comes in concerning a dispute about vaccination, one of our technical experts will deal with it, and it will be referred to a judge quickly. The arrangements in the regional hub courts are similar – the court staff are alert to the need to progress vaccination applications quickly” (DJ Mullins)
“At loggerheads”: Habitual residence, best interests and life-sustaining treatment
loggerheads”, but also that the family was effectively “on a different page” about how serious treatment decisions are made in a patient’s best interests, and how the Court of Protection works to ensure that.
Family witnesses in court: Four reflections on Re AH (A Rehearing)
Suggesting that the family is lacking in objectivity because they are in some way psychologically compromised serves the purpose of undermining and discrediting their evidence. This was not necessary to powerfully argue the Trust’s case that ongoing life-sustaining treatment is not in AH’s best interests. The medical evidence stood alone.
Elective caesarean in her best interests
Despite guidance concerning applications for court-sanctioned interventions in childbirth, it’s common for cases to come before the court (as here) where women are within 4 weeks of their expected delivery, and judges regularly express concern that they are having to make decisions about childbirth for women close to (or even after) their due dates.
Approving a conveyancing plan to move P to residential care
The need for an urgent hearing was because the house that P had been living in had been sold at auction and completion of the sale was due the following week (on 18th November). The house needed to be cleared of furniture and effects before then. Additionally, P needed to vacate the property and live elsewhere.
Promoting Open Justice in the Court of Protection 