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”
Tag Archives: Transparency
“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.
On not allowing the strong views of family members to prevail: A COVID-19 hearing
“Strongly held views by well-meaning and concerned family members should be taken into account but never permitted to prevail nor allowed to create avoidable delay. To do so would be to expose the vulnerable to the levels of risk I have identified, in the face of what remains an insidious and highly dangerous pandemic virus“ (Hayden J §26, SD v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea [2021] EWCOP 14)
Abuse and coercive control? A fact-finding hearing and exoneration
allegations against Miss F. They included allegations of physical and financial abuse and coercive control, and an allegation that she’d deliberately administered an insulin overdose when she visited him in hospital. There were also reports of her being obstructive and hostile to healthcare professionals trying to support Mr G.
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)
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.
Naming a putative ‘expert’ in a COVID vaccination case: A letter to the judge
Videos posted by Dr Rogers online include assertions that masks are ineffective and that it is not “a good thing to do” to have a vaccine unless you are very elderly or vulnerable.
Fact-finding, ‘magnetic importance’, and the consternation of colleagues: A final hearing adjourned
At the heart of this hearing is the question of whether P can live with her mother, who loves her and wants to care for her. Attempts to elicit P’s wishes and feelings have been unsuccessful, but the social worker has said that “having observed the loving and affectionate relationship that [P] has with her family and that she has been cared for by them throughout her life, it is understood that [P] would wish to continue to stay with her family and be cared for by them”.
Last-minute vacated hearings in the Court of Protection
By David York, 8th November 2021 For many public observers in the Court of Protection, it will be a familiar experience to request access to a hearing, only to get an email response saying that the hearing has been vacated or adjourned. This leaves members of the public wondering what actually happened to that caseContinue reading “Last-minute vacated hearings in the Court of Protection”
Reflections on Disability and Reproductive Justice in a court hearing
P’s awake while giving birth, adding layers of complexity to what could be considered P’s best interests because she raised the importance to her of bonding and the symbiotic relationship between mother and baby. To her, being awake and with her partner are fundamental to establishing that relationship. Without her ability to participate, how could the court have recognised this?
Promoting Open Justice in the Court of Protection 