Author: aruckkeene

Re SRK – Court of Appeal dismisses appeal

The Court of Appeal has dismissed the Secretary of State’s appeal against the decision of Charles J in Re SRK [2016] EWCOP 27.   By way of refresher, Charles J found in that case that the state was indirectly responsible for “private” deprivations of liberty arising out of arrangements made by deputies administering personal injury payments.   The Secretary of State for Justice (‘SSJ’) appealed the decision on two grounds, contending that:

1. The combination of the existing civil and criminal law and the obligations of public bodies to safeguard vulnerable individuals were sufficient to satisfy the positive obligation of the State under Article 5 where the day to day care of a person, who was objectively deprived of liberty but lacked capacity for the purposes of the MCA to consent to that loss of liberty, was being provided entirely privately rather than by the State. In particular, the SSJ contended that Charles J was wrong to conclude that, in such a situation, the State’s positive obligation under Article 5(1) ECHR can only be discharged if a welfare order is made by the CoP under s.16 MCA authorising the deprivation of liberty pursuant to s.4A(3) MCA;

2. Responsibility for a “private” deprivation of liberty could not be attributed to the State in a case such as that of SRK, there was no reason for the local authority or any other public body to have any suspicions about abuse, that there was some deficiency in the care provided to the person, that something has been done that was not in their best interests or that the deprivation of their liberty was greater than it could and should have been.

Sir Terence Etherton MR, giving the sole reasoned judgment, had little hesitation in dismissing both of these grounds of appeal.

State’s Article 5 obligations

The only live question on the appeal was whether SRK’s deprivation of liberty was imputable to the state under the third limb identified in Storck: i.e. by way of its failure to discharge its positive obligation to protect him from deprivation of liberty contrary to Article 5(1).

The Master of Rolls held, whilst, that the SSJ had been correct to identify that the State’s positive obligation under Article 5(1) is to take reasonable steps to prevent arbitrary deprivation of liberty, Charles J had adequately expressed that test in his own language.  As Charles J had noted in his judgment, Storck does not help on whether, in any particular case, the proper or the defective performance of a regime that has been put in place pursuant to the positive requirement of Article 5(1) would amount to a violation of that positive obligation. In other words, the Master of the Rolls held (at para 63) “Storck does not identify what has to be in place to meet the minimum requirement of Article 5(1).”

The Master of the Rolls accepted that the ECrtHR in Storck left open the possibility that a regime short of the requirement of a court order and court supervision might be adequate for the State to meet its positive obligations under Article 5(1).   It was the SSJ’s case, he noted, that “notwithstanding the absence of a requirement for a welfare order from the CoP, the United Kingdom’s existing domestic regime of law, supervision and regulation in respect of incapacitated persons who are being treated and supported entirely in private accommodation by private providers is sufficient compliance with the State’s positive obligation under Article 5(1), at least where the public authorities have no reason to believe that there has been any abuse or mistreatment” (para 65).   The SSJ relied particularly on the functions of the Care Quality Commission, the functions of the Public Guardian, the professional responsibilities of doctors and other health professionals, the safeguarding obligations of local authorities, and (in the words of the SSJ’s skeleton argument) “the general framework of the criminal justice system and civil law.”

However, Sir Terence Etherton MR held, Charles J had been both entitled, and right, to dismiss that argument:

74.  The critical point, as Ms Nageena Khalique QC, for the Council, emphasised, is that, although local authorities and the CQC have responsibilities for the quality of care and the protection of persons in SRK’s position, they will only act if someone has drawn the matter to their attention and there is nothing to trigger a periodic assessment. The same is true of doctors and other health professionals. Save where there are already proceedings in the CoP (when the functions of the Public Guardian will be engaged), the current domestic regime depends on people reporting something is wrong, and even then it will only be a notification of grounds for concern at that specific moment in time. That may be particularly problematic in cases where no parents or other family members are involved in the care and treatment. It does not meet the obligation of the State under Article 5(1) to take reasonable steps to prevent arbitrary deprivation of liberty.

75. For the same reasons, as was stated by the ECrtHR in Storck, criminal and civil law sanctions which operate retrospectively after arbitrary deprivation of liberty has occurred, are insufficient to discharge the State’s positive obligation under Article 5(1).

 Sir Terence Etherton MR therefore held that:

78. The Judge was fully entitled, and right, to conclude in the circumstances in paragraphs [143] and [146] that, absent the making of a welfare order by the CoP, there are insufficient procedural safeguards against arbitrary detention in a purely private care regime.

79. The fact that, as the Judge acknowledged in paragraph [147], in the present and in many other such cases, a further independent check by the CoP will add nothing, other than unnecessary expense and diversion of resources, does not detract from the legitimacy of his conclusion since, as he observed in paragraph [148], there are other cases where the person lacking capacity will not have supporting family members or friends, and deputies and local authorities may not act to the highest requisite standards. No doubt, as the Judge observed in paragraph [148(v)], the practical burden of such applications would be reduced, in a case such that of SRK, by a streamlined paper application for the making of the initial welfare order and paper reviews.

The relevance of abuse

Sir Terence Etherton MR was equally dismissive of the second ground of appeal:

83. Turning to the second substantive part of Ms Kamm’s submissions, I do not accept the SoS’s argument that, since each case of an alleged breach of Article 5(1) is fact dependant, there was no breach by the State of its positive obligation under Article 5(1) in the present case because SRK’s care regime was in his best interests and was the least restrictive available option, and there was nothing to suggest the contrary to the Council or that there was any abuse. That is an argument that, even where there is objective and subjective deprivation of liberty of an individual, of which the State is aware, there can be no breach of Article 5(1) if the individual is being cared for, supported and treated entirely privately and happens to be receiving a proper standard of care in accordance with the requirements of the MCA at the particular time the State becomes aware of the deprivation of liberty. There is nothing in the jurisprudence to support such an argument. It runs counter to the interpretation and application of the spirit of Article 5(1) in, for example, HL and Cheshire West, in which the focus was entirely on the State’s duty to prevent arbitrary deprivation of liberty and not on the quality of care and treatment actually being provided or, indeed, on whether the best and least restrictive treatment would not have involved deprivation of liberty of the individuals in those cases.

By way of concluding observation (without express reference to the Law Commission’s work, but surely with this in mind), the Master of the Rolls noted:

83. inally, it is important to note that, while an application to the CoP is necessary in the present state of law and practice for the State to discharge its positive obligation under Article 5(1), such a step might not be essential if a different legislative and practical regime were to provide for proactive investigation by a suitable independent body and periodic reviews. It would, as Ms Kamm said, be for the Government to fill the gap as it had done in the case of the Bournewood gap.

Comment

It is difficult to see how the Court of Appeal could have reached any other conclusion than that reached by Sir Terence Etherton MR, although it is notable that he did not seem to have reached it with the same degree of reluctance as did Charles J.

The ratio of the decision of the Court of Appeal would appear – to my mind – to apply to “private” arrangements made by any court appointed deputy (whether or not they are administering a personal injury payout).   Trickier is the question of whether or not they apply to “private” arrangements made by an attorney as an attorney, unlike a deputy, is not appointed by the state.  However, Charles J had at first instance referred to the potential for an attorney paid personal injury damages as one of those who should be required to know that the regime of care and treatment creates a deprivation of liberty within Article 5(1), and Sir Terence Etherton MR made no comment upon this (see para 60).

More broadly, in the circumstances, it seems to me that there is now really very little distinction between “public” and “private” deprivations of liberty: wherever the state is or, ought, to be aware of a person being confined under arrangements to which they cannot consent, then they will need to take steps to ensure that confinement is authorised. Absent legislative change to enable administrative procedures to be used, it will be necessary to obtain authority from the Court of Protection under the Re X procedure.

It is in this regard unfortunate that the Court of Appeal did not take the opportunity to confirm whether it is, in fact, the responsibility of the deputy (or – by analogy – attorney) to seek such an order in such cases.   What, of course, is particularly problematic with any approach which requires steps to be taken on behalf of the person concerned is that they will inevitably cost money, money which (in most cases) will have to come from their estate.  In cases such as SRK’s, it is possible to factor this into any personal injury award, but in other cases it does come dangerously close to suggesting that people should pay for the privilege of being detained.

Until and unless either this decision is successfully appealed, or the Supreme Court or Strasbourg determines that “deprivation of liberty” has a narrower meaning than that given at present, it remains the case, therefore, that the tentacles of the state will – inevitably – have to extend ever further into private settings in the name of protecting Article 5 rights.   I have my own thoughts as to how we might find a principled way to define deprivation of liberty in a way which returns it to its core meaning of coercion, but those are for another day.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Court of Protection Handbook Second Edition now out!

We are very  pleased to announce that the second edition of the Court of Protection Handbook is now available from the LAG bookstore (as paperbook and eBook).  The new edition has been rewritten to take account of the amendments made by the Court of Protection (Amendment) Rules 2015, the Case Management Pilot that started in September 2016 and the Transparency Pilot that started in January 2016, along with coverage of the Re X procedure for judicial authorisation of deprivation of liberty. It also includes new practical guidance for improving the participation of P.

The website has also been thoroughly updated to include a whole new suite of – free – downloadable precedent orders (including those used by the judiciary in the Case Management Pilot).   It also, as before, serves an updater for the book. As ever, feedback is very welcome, to alex.ruckkeene@39essex.com.

 

Objections, DOLS and the Court of Protection

The long-awaited judgment from Baker J following up on AJ has just been published.  A full report will appear in the next 39 Essex Chambers Mental Capacity Law Newsletter, but in brief Baker J had to address the question of: “When, if at all, does the requirement under Article 5(4) to assist P to exercise his or her right of appeal to the Court of Protection under s.21A of the MCA arise in cases other than those in which P expresses a clear and consistent objection to the arrangements for his/her care and treatment?”

Having answered the question in characteristically erudite fashion, Baker J then very helpfully gave (at para 86) general guidance for the future, reproduced below.

(1) The RPR must consider whether P wishes, or would wish, to apply to the Court of Protection. This involves the following steps:

(a)   Consider whether P has capacity to ask to issue proceedings.  This simply requires P to understand that the court has the power to decide that he/she should not be subject to his/her current care arrangements.  It is a lower threshold than the capacity to conduct proceedings.

(b)   If P does not have such capacity, consider whether P is objecting to the arrangements for his/her care, either verbally or by behaviour, or both, in a way that indicates that he would wish to apply to the Court of Protection if he had the capacity to ask.

(2)    In considering P’s stated preferences, regard should be had to:

(a)   any statements made by P about his/her wishes and feelings in relation to issuing proceedings,

(b)   any statements made by P about his/her residence in care,

(c)   P’s expressions of his/her emotional state,

(d)   the frequency with which he/she objects to the placement or asks to leave,

(e)   the consistency of his/her express wishes or emotional state; and

(f)    the potential alternative reasons for his/her express wishes for emotional state.

(3)     In considering whether P’s behaviour constitutes an objection, regard should be had to:

(a)   the possible reasons for P’s behaviour,

(b)   whether P is being medicated for depression or being sedated,

(c)   whether P actively tries to leave the care home,

(d)   whether P takes preparatory steps to leave, e.g. packing bags,

(e)   P’s demeanour and relationship with staff,

(f)    any records of challenging behaviour and the triggers for such behaviour.

(g)   whether P’s behaviour is a response to particular aspects of the care arrangements or to the entirety of those arrangements.

(4)   In carrying out this assessment, it should be recognised that there could be reason to think that P would wish to make an application even if P says that he/she does not wish to do so or, conversely, reason to think that P would not wish to make an application even though he/she says that she does wish to, since his/her understanding of the purpose of an application may be very poor.

(5)   When P does not express a wish to start proceedings, the RPR, in carrying out his duty to represent and support P in matters relating to or connected with the Schedule, may apply to the Court of Protection to determine any of the four questions identified in s.21A(2) i.e. on the grounds that P does not meet one or more of the qualifying requirements for an authorisation under Schedule A1; or that the period of the standard authorisation or the conditions subject to which the standard authorisation is given are contrary to P’s best interests; or that the purpose of the standard authorisation could be as effectively achieved in a way that is less restrictive of P’s rights and freedom of action.

(6)   Consideration of P’s circumstances must be holistic and usually based on more than one meeting with P, together with discussions with care staff familiar with P and his/her family and friends.   It is likely to be appropriate to visit P on more than one occasion in order to form a view about whether proceedings should be started.

(7)   By way of an alternative to proceedings, it may be appropriate to instigate a Part 8 review, or to seek to work collaboratively with the family and the commissioning authority to see whether alternate arrangements can be put in place. Such measures should not, however, prevent an application to the court being made where it appears that P would wish to exercise a right of appeal.

(8)   The role of the IMCA appointed under s.39D is to take such steps as are practicable to help P and the RPR understand matters relating to the authorisation set out in s.39D(7)(a) to (e), and the rights to apply the Court of Protection and for a Part 8 review, and how to exercise those rights.  Where it appears to the IMCA that P or the RPR wishes to exercise the right, the IMCA must take all practical steps to assist them to do so.  In considering P’s apparent wishes, the IMCA should follow the guidance set out above so far as relevant.

 

 

s21A MCA can be used to bring SMT case

In Re Briggs [2016] EWCOP 48, Charles J  has held that it is possible for the question of whether it is a person’s best interests to continue to be given clinically assisted nutrition and hydration (‘CANH’) to be determined in proceedings brought under s.21A MCA 2005.  Charles J concluded that the question was an issue to be considered in determining the existence of the best interests condition, included in the definition of the best interests requirement, which is one of the requirements for the grant of a DOLS authorisation, and hence by the Court of Protection under s.21A MCA 2005.   Although an apparently technical question, a great deal turned upon his conclusion because it meant that the applicant – Lindsey Briggs – is eligible for non means tested legal aid funding for representation on the issue of whether it is in her husband’s best interests to be continue to be given CANH that is to be determined by the COP at a hearing presently fixed to take place at the end of November.

The case is also of some considerable interest for Charles J’s analysis of what precisely DOLS involves, and his confirmation (at paragraph 87) that they go beyond what is required to meet Article 5 and effectively include the best interests test that is applied whenever a decision has to be made pursuant to the MCA for a person who lacks capacity to make that decision himself.

We will have further analysis of this case in the December issue of the 39 Essex Chambers Mental Capacity Law Newsletter.

New guidance issued on facilitating participation of ‘P’ and vulnerable persons in Court of Protection proceedings

Charles J has recently issued guidance on facilitating participation of ‘P’ and vulnerable persons.   It is intended to allow sharing of good practice in the creative development of ways in which P can in fact be put at the heart of proceedings, and draws upon the important work done by the Advocates Gateway and also Nicola Mackintosh QC.   Importantly, perhaps, it shows that there are many steps which can be which do not necessarily require the expenditure of money; instead they require thinking outside the conventional framework within which P is expected to bend to the will of the court.

Bulk tenancy applications

In line with the approach to bulk applications (there in respect of deputyship) set out in the Friendly Trust’s Bulk Application [2016] EWCOP 40, practitioners should be aware that the 2012 guidance as to bulk tenancy applications has now been withdrawn.   Any applications for the same will now be met with the following response:

‘The previous guidance, which was drawn up following an approach by the Association of Public Authority Deputies and other court users, has been withdrawn. That had indicated that the court was prepared to deal with all of the adults required to sign the tenancy agreement(s) in a single bulk application.  Attention has been drawn to the fact that the Court of Protection Rules 2007 make no provision for bulk applications to be made.  It is not possible, as the rules stand at present, to entertain an application made on that basis.’

You have been warned!

Revised COPDOL 10 form to come into effect on 1 December 2016

The revised COPDOL 10 form, incorporating (in particular) the additional questions posed by Charles J in Re NRA, is to come into effect on 1 December.  A copy of the form is available here, but the ’embargo’ marking is a reminder that it cannot be used before 1 December (the current form, in PDF and unofficial Word form) is available here.

Guest Post: Facilitating participation of ‘P’ in Court of Protection proceedings

[We publish here by way of a guest post a case study  written by Nicola Mackintosh QC (Hon) as to the facilitation of P in Court of Protection proceedings.  The case study will form part of the second edition of the Court of Protection Handbook, coming soon.  Nicola acted as P’s solicitor, instructed by the Official Solicitor as his litigation friend, in A County Council v (1) AB (2) JB (3) SB [2016] EWCOP 41, the case in which the measures set out below were explored].

In the body of [this book], we set out some of the ways in which practice needs to change within the Court of Protection to ensure that the court and representation process is looked at through P’s eyes, rather than just adding P as an afterthought.   Whilst the COPR and accompanying Practice Directions may well need to be amended in due course to secure this goal, creative steps are already possible within the framework of the COPR as they stand.   As a case study, we set out here those which were implemented to facilitate P’s participation in a fact-finding hearing listed to determine allegations of abuse at the hands of his parents.

P had expressed a wish to attend Court to come to the fact finding hearing to listen to what his parents and other witnesses were saying, as well as to ‘tell his story’ to the court. This was opposed by both his parents and the local authority, but the court ruled that he should attend.   The court also ruled that, whilst P was “almost certainly not competent to give evidence [this is] is no reason not to seek with appropriate help to elicit ‘information’ from him via a skilled intermediary….using Rule 95 (e) the Court may admit the information but there is no guarantee that it would accept or act upon it….. the Court’s ability to have information provided by P is wide and flexible…”

In the light of the judgment the practical arrangements which had already been made were implemented. These steps show clearly how vital it is when securing and enhancing P’s participation that each and every detail of the arrangements is planned from P’s perspective and not simply limited to a meeting with the judge (important as that is).  This involved the following:

  1. P’s lawyers meeting with P and securing appropriate Speech and Language Therapy support to prepare for the hearing by exploring concepts such as the following:(b) ‘what is a judge, what will the judge be deciding, why is it important to you’?(d) ‘how can I tell my story’?
  2. (c) ‘what will happen at the hearing, who will speak when, how long will it take etc.’?
  3. (a)‘what is happening in court, what is a case, why is your case in court, what is the case about’?
  4. Considering which court location would best meet the needs of the case, taking into account all physical facilities, travel time for P and others etc.
  5. As the court’s video facilities did not allow for P to be in an adjacent room viewing the proceedings from a distance so as to minimise distress, an alternative facility was found nearby which could provide a video link to the court. Arrangements were made for this between the IT specialists of the court and the other facility, and for the video link to be tested in advance to ensure it was working. In the event this facility was not used as P remained in court throughout the proceedings.
  6. (With consent) taking photographs of the judge, the courtroom and all the lawyers involved in the proceedings to explain to P the physical location and the identity of all involved in advance of the hearing.
  7. Before the hearing arranging a visit by P to the courtroom when the court was not sitting to see the layout, and also to meet the court clerk who was to be allocated to the hearing days.
  8. Deciding where it was best for P to sit in his wheelchair in the courtroom to listen to the proceedings, taking into account the position of other parties and ‘lines of sight’ with others.
  9. Arranging for P to be supported by staff regarding personal care, and ensuring mobile hoists were provided for P in both locations for care.
  10. Ensuring that there was enough physical space in the court complex so that P had a separate room just next to the courtroom, with a fan (P being a wheelchair user had reduced temperature control).

The first day of the hearing was listed as a Ground Rules Hearing, as provided for in the Advocates’ Gateway. On the first day, as planned, the judge met with P in a side room next to the courtroom. P’s solicitor was present, and P’s SALT also assisted by explaining to the judge that P was able to respond ‘yes, no, happy and sad’ through different Makaton signs. P showed the judge how he communicated each of these expressions, enabling the judge better to understand how to interpret P’s wishes and reactions.

Although the fact finding hearing was listed for 9 days, after the initial part of the first day of the hearing (P being present in court with his carers and intermediary) the parties set out their updated positions which then resulted in negotiations to see if a settlement could be reached without the need for the fact finding process. This lasted the first day and the terms of an order were agreed on the second day of the hearing. P was present during all discussions between lawyers and the court, and communicated his wish to continue to be involved and to listen to the proceedings. Between updates to the court he was permitted by the judge to remain in the courtroom with his support workers, watching a DVD. This reduced the need for him to be taken in and out of the courtroom, waiting for long periods in a small stuffy side room, and was invaluable. This could not have been arranged without the court’s co-operation and flexibility of the court staff.

Once agreement had been reached in principle between the parties as to the core issues in the case, it was considered vital for P’s wish to ‘tell his story’ to be facilitated. A very careful consideration of the issues raised, and the broad themes set out in the fact finding schedule was undertaken. Questions of P were drafted by P’s legal representatives with the assistance of P’s SALT and intermediary. As P’s communication was limited to responses such as ‘yes, no’ etc, it was necessary for leading questions to be posed however these were broken down into questions so that the leading element was minimised. Examples of questions included ‘Do you want to talk about when you were living at home?’, ‘How did you feel when you were living at home?’, When you were living at home did anyone do X to you?’, and if the answer was affirmative, ‘How did it make you feel?’ These questions were devised to ensure that P’s broad wishes were communicated to the court notwithstanding the agreement between the parties, so that P felt that he had been listened to by the parties and the judge, but avoiding detailed questioning on the fact finding schedule which eventually proved to be unnecessary.

The question and answer sessions were broken down into more than one session to allow P to rest and refocus. With agreement they were filmed on a mobile phone and then played to the judge in his chambers. They were then also played to the other parties. This flexibility avoided all the delays and organisational problems associated with using the court video facilities.

By the end of the second day, agreement had been reached in the form of a detailed order. The judge held a further short hearing and again explained the outcome to P, coming into the courtroom and sitting by P to confirm what was going to happen. P was repositioned in his wheelchair to be solely in the line of sight of the judge and not the other parties.

Although this case required considerable practical arrangements to be made, forward planning was vital in ensuring that all elements of P’s participation was effective in meeting the goal of P’s enhanced involvement in the proceedings. Each case will be as different as each P is different. The more that proceedings in the Court of Protection are attended by P, or P’s participation is secured by other creative means, the more the judiciary, Court staff, lawyers and all the parties will become accustomed to putting P at the centre of the process, and making appropriate arrangements. This is the beginning of a new era in the Court of Protection. This is only right given the role of the Court in making decisions which are of such fundamental importance to P’s life.

 

Case Management, s.49 and Transparency Pilot updates

Case Management Pilot

The Case Management Pilot will start on 1 September, to run until 31 August 2017 (alongside the s.49 Pilot and the extended Transparency Pilot, both discussed further below).[1]

The Case Management Pilot can be found here. It introduces three distinct pathways for COP proceedings: 1) a Property and Affairs pathway, 2) a Health and Welfare pathway, and 3) a hybrid pathway for cases that have elements of both. The expectations of practitioners will be different depending upon which pathway is engaged.     Common to each, though, is an expectation of much greater ‘front-loading’ and cooperation to narrow the issues.

The Case Management Pilot is accompanied by a revised set of Rules which foreshadow a re-numbering of the Rules that is anticipated as part of the second tranche of rules changes (moving to the same model as in the CPR and FPR).   For ease of reference, all the Rules that will apply for purposes of the Pilot are set out in an annex – with suitably highlighted amendments – to the Pilot practice direction.   They are also found collected together on the Court of Protection Handbook website here.   There are six Pilot Parts:

  • Pilot Part 1: the overriding objective, including the participation of P, heightened duties upon the court and upon parties, and new duties upon both legal representatives and litigants in person;
  • Pilot Part 2: interpretation and general provisions;
  • Pilot Part 3: managing the case;
  • Pilot Part 4: hearings;
  • Pilot Part 5: court documents;
  • Pilot Part 15: experts.

As these parts cover the majority of relevant matters that arise during the life of an application, the intention is that practitioners (and the judiciary) will have to do the minimum of cross-referencing to the current iteration of the Rules during the life of the Pilot.    However, an unfortunate consequence of the fact that for reasons beyond the control of the ad hoc Rules Committee the renumbering of the Rules cannot take place at present is that there will be parallel Rules for the life of the Pilot depending on whether cases are within or outside the Pilot.   This means, for instance, that Rule 3A representatives are actually Pilot Rule 1.2A representatives in cases on the Case Management Pilot.

Before highlighting the key points of the three pathways, it is important to note the types of applications which the Pilot will not affect, which include: uncontested applications, applications for statutory wills and gifts, applications relating to serious medical treatment and deprivation of liberty applications (both Re X applications and s.21A applications).   However, even for such cases, we strongly suggest that it is prudent to proceed in any case on the basis of any stricter obligation/test that would apply if the case were on the Pilot.   If the Case Management Pilot achieves its aim of changing the culture of the Court of Protection, then it is likely that the judiciary will seek to follow its spirit even where its letter does not apply.

It should also be noted that the intention is that the Case Management Pilot sits alongside and does not displace the Transparency Pilot, so the expectation will be that all of the hearings noted below, with the express exception of the Dispute Resolution Hearing provided for in the property and affairs pathway, will be listed according to the Transparency Pilot rules as regards public/media attendance.

Personal welfare pathway

The personal welfare pathway starts pre-issue, with a set of requirements designed to ensure that only those applications which actually require resolution by court proceedings come to court, and those which do, do so in circumstances where the issues are clearly delineated from the outset.   The Pilot Practice Direction then specifies in some detail what must be included with or accompany the application upon issue including – importantly – a statement as to how it is proposed P will be involved in the case.

The next stage is for matters to be considered by a judge on the papers both for gatekeeping purposes (i.e. allocating to the correct level of judiciary) and the making of initial directions including, importantly, listing a Case Management Conference within 28 days (unless the matter is urgent).      The judge can also direct that there be an advocates’ meeting before the CMC.

The CMC will be the first attended hearing and a vital step in the proceedings because of the obligations placed upon the court (not just the parties) to ensure that the issues are narrowed and directions set for the proportionate resolution of those that are in dispute. Importantly, one of the matters that the court will do is to allocate a judge to the matter – judicial continuity being recognised as crucial to the success of the pilot.    It is also important to note that this Pilot is running alongside the s.49 pilot discussed further below, and also includes a tightening of the rules in relation to experts (where the Pilot applies) so as to limit permission to circumstances where their evidence (1) is necessary to assist the court to resolve the issues in the proceedings; and (2) cannot otherwise be provided.

The intention is that in the ordinary run of the events there would then only be (at most) two more hearings, a Final Management Hearing and the Final Hearing. Ahead of the Final Management Hearing, whose purpose is to determine whether the case can be resolved by consent and, if not to ensure proper preparation for trial, an advocates’ meeting is to be listed at least 5 days in advance for purposes of – inter alia – preparing a draft order for the court to consider at the FMH.    Matters that are likely to be covered at the FMH will include such things as the trial timetable and a witness template, as well as the contents of the trial bundle: in line with the injunction given by the Court of Appeal in Re MN, the expectation is that the trial bundle for the Final Hearing will not generally exceed 350 pages, and must not include more than one copy of the same document.

It is important to note that, unlike the Public Law Outline, there is no fixed timeframe within which proceedings must be concluded, the only fixed date being the listing of the Case Management Conference.   The intention, however, is that the process set down in the Pilot is will mean dramatically shorter resolution of welfare applications.

Property and Affairs pathway

The property and affairs pathway does not start pre-issue because it is recognised that it is often only upon issue that it becomes clear that a property and affairs application is contentious.   It therefore comprises four stages.

The first stage is when the application becomes contested, i.e. when the court is notified in the COP5 that the application is contested or a respondent wishes to seek a different order.

The case management stage takes place on the papers, and includes either: (1) listing for a Dispute Resolution Hearing; or (2) transfer to a suitable regional court for listing of the DRH and future case management.   If the respondent has not given sufficiently clear reasons for opposing/seeking a different order, the judge will also at that stage require such reasons to be given.

The Dispute Resolution Hearing is a major innovation, and represents – in essence – judicial mediation in a form familiar to family practitioners.   A DRH, which will normally take place before a District Judge, is to enable the court to determine whether the case can be resolved and avoid unnecessary litigation, and to that end the content of the hearing is not to be disclosed and everything said therein is not admissible (save in relation to a trial for contempt).    The court is expressly required to give its view as to the likely outcome of the proceedings as part of the DRH.   The aim is for the court to be able to endorse a consent order at the end of the DRH; if not, the court will list for directions of the management of the hearing and a Final Hearing.

The last stage – the Final Hearing – will take place in accordance with directions made at the DRH (there being no Final Management Hearing as with the welfare pathway).

As with the welfare pathway, there is no fixed timeframe for the determination of the application.   Nor, in this instance, is there a specific timeframe for listing of the first attended hearing – the DRH.   This recognises that there is merit to flexibility because there will be some cases in which allowing longer for a DRH is more likely to bring about a quicker resolution overall; conversely, in some cases, the sooner that judicial banging of heads takes place the better.

Mixed pathway

If an application comprises elements of both welfare and property and affairs, prospective parties are directed at the pre-issue stage to identify which pathway is most effective and to comply with the requirements of that pathway so far as possible.   At point of issue, they must file a list of issues to allow the court to identify which pathway or mixture of elements is most appropriate.

The court will then, on the papers, either allocate the case to one of the two pathways set out above, or give directions as to the elements of each pathway are to apply and the particular procedure the case will follows.

Urgent applications

In all cases there is express provision for urgent applications, requiring the parties in particular to specify why the matter is urgent and any particular deadline by which the issue(s) need to be resolved as well, as well as directing compliance (insofar as possible) with any necessary pre-issue steps.

Expert evidence

An important change that is introduced by the Case Management Pilot is a revised Part 15 on expert evidence.   Crucially, the test for permission has been revised in COPR Pr121 to make it more stringent.   The court’s duty is now to restrict expert evidence to that which is necessary to assist the court to resolve the issues in the proceedings, and by COPR Pr 121(2) the court may only give permission to file or adduce expert evidence if it is satisfied that it is both necessary and cannot otherwise be provided.   Further, the court must now in deciding whether to give permission to file or adduce expert evidence have specific regard by COPR Pr123(2A) to (a) the issues to which the expert evidence would relate; (b) the questions which the expert would answer; (c) the impact which giving permission would be likely to have on the timetable, duration and conduct of the proceedings; (d) any failure to comply with any direction of the court about expert evidence; and (e) the cost of the expert evidence. Additionally, by para 4.5(m), the Case Management Pilot Practice Direction provides that for cases on the welfare pathway, the court must at the case management hearing actively consider whether a section 49 report (or a report from a Rule 3A/PR r1.2 representative) could achieve a better result than the use of an expert.

Section 49 Pilot

The s.49 Pilot also starts on 1 September, to run until 31 August 2017.   The Practice Direction applies both to orders made under s.49 MCA by the COP of its own motion and – more importantly – to orders sought by parties. The Practice Direction is accompanied by a draft order.   It recognises, in essence, that s.49 reports are an extremely important part of the COP’s armoury when it comes to information gathering, but that they must be deployed:

  1. Carefully, so as to ensure that they are targeted to public bodies actually able to provide useful information;
  2. With suitable thought and preparation on the basis that, to be effective, they are best approached as if they were expert reports.

An important innovation is the requirement, where possible, for a party seeking a s.49 report from a NHS body or local authority to have made contact prior to the application being heard by the court to identify an appropriate person (“a senior officer”) able to receive the order, and to have discussed with the body the reasonableness and time scales for providing the report.   Although it does not prescribe when a court will and will not order one, the Practice Direction set out (at paragraph 3) common factors that the court may consider when deciding whether to order a s.49 report, including:

  • where P objects to the substantive application or wishes to be heard by the court and does not qualify for legal aid;
  • where it has not been possible to appoint a litigation friend or [under the new numbering] rule 1.2 representative, including where the court has made a direction under rule 1.2(5);
  • where a party is a litigant in person and does not qualify for legal aid;
  • where the public body has recent knowledge of P; or it is reasonably expected that they have recent knowledge of P; or should have knowledge due to their statutory responsibilities under housing, social and/or health care legislation;
  • the role of the public body is likely to be relevant to the decisions which the court will be asked to make;
  • the application relates to an attorney or deputy and involves the exercise of the functions of the Public Guardian; and
  • evidence before the court does not adequately confirm the position regarding P’s capacity or where it is borderline; or if information is required to inform any best interests decision to be made in relation to P by the court.

An unofficial version of the template s.49 order in Word form is to be found here.

Transparency Pilot

The Transparency Pilot has been extended to run until 31 August 2017. We hope in due course that a formal report as to the reasoning will be published, but for present purposes practitioners – and indeed the judiciary – should note the following changes to the Pilot Order (which is available here, including in unofficial Word form):

  • An addition to paragraph 5A (i.e. those bound by the order) to make express that it binds “all persons who are provided with or by any means obtain documents and information arising from this application;”
  •  An addition to paragraph 6 (concerning anonymisation of the transcript of hearings/judgments/orders), making clear that a confidential schedule should be provided with the necessary identification (and a copy of the order) to any person who needs to know the identity of P and/or others anonymised, for instance for purposes of complying with an order for disclosure of documents/information relating to P;
  • A considerable simplification of the requirements relating to anonymisation of documents.  Because – so far – very few hearings have been attended by anyone other than the parties, the initially cautious approach, which required all core documents to be anonymised, has been relaxed.   There is now no requirement that this is to be done; rather the court, by new paragraph 7, may at any time give such directions as it thinks fit (including directions relating to anonymisation, payment, use, copying, return and the means by which a copy of a document or information may be provided) concerning the provision of information or copies of documents put before the court and the terms on which they are to be provided to any person who attends an attended hearing (and who is not already allowed to be given a copy of a document under PD13A – i.e. for such purposes as receiving advice or making complaints to relevant bodies).

Tor Butler-Cole of 39 Essex Chambers had previously prepared an unofficial easy read version of the Pilot Order, and we understand that an updated version to reflect the provisions of the amended Order will be forthcoming.

It should be noted, finally, that the PD extending the Transparency Pilot did so in such a fashion that it is now easier to update the Pilot Order, and practitioners should therefore make sure to ensure that they are using the current version, which will always be found here.

[1] What follows is an updated version of the note that appeared in the March 2016 39 Essex Chambers newsletter, and originally appeared in the August 2016 Newsletter. Alex as a member of the ad hoc Rules Committee has been involved in developing the Pilot.  As before, this note does not represent an official comment upon behalf of the Rules Committee.