All practitioners dealing with COP work under a mental health contract should be aware of the new guidance published by the Legal Aid Agency. This has been updated from the 2014 version. You can read the guidance here. We will shortly update the handbook with references to the new version.
Charles J has today (25 September) handed down the judgment in Re NRA  EWCOP 59, sometimes described as Re X (2).
The case concerned welfare orders sought in respect of ten individuals whose care arrangements involved deprivation of their liberty. He described it as part of the “fall out” from the majority judgment in P v Cheshire West.
The case considered the procedural safeguards needed and at the heart of the case was the question as to whether P should be joined as a party. The Re X litigation had thrown up contradictory obiter views in respect of applications (which were referred to as “judicial detention” cases) that were seen as uncontentious. The President of the Court of Protection had delivered two judgments (Re X (1) and Re X (2)). The Court of Appeal judgment had concluded that the initial Re X judgments had been ultra vires. Therefore the Court of Appeal did not have jurisdiction to consider the appeal, but had strongly indicated what they would have done had they been able to do so, and all three judges considered that P should be a party. The Court of Appeal had not considered ancillary issues such as, if P is always a party, who should act as litigation friend and whether there should be an oral hearing.
The cases were described as examples of “benevolent” arrangements that “many find difficult to characterize as a deprivation of liberty” (taken from the comments of Baroness Hale at para 10 in P v Cheshire West).
Charles J noted that in Cheshire West Baroness Hale referred to the need for “periodic checks” and suggested that these should not be stigmatizing. He cast doubt on whether this reflected the experience of family carers and noted that any simplified solution should recognize the central role of families and carers [para 12].
His approach was to consider what was required to satisfy requirements of common law and Convention rights, which he grouped under the heading “the safeguards” [para 24] and then what procedural steps would satisfy these in a practical effective and speedy way in cases of deprivation of liberty. Identifying the Safeguards entailed considering alternative ways of guaranteeing procedural fairness (“the requirements”) and whether these were likely to work (“the Effects”) [para 25].
Charles J acknowledged that the instinctive reaction of lawyers in England and wales would be that P should be a party in all cases in the Court of Protection because he will be affected and bound by them [para 34]; but that consideration of the fact that the overwhelming majority of cases relate to property and affairs and are uncontentious indicates that fairness does not always require this. He applied to the Court of Protection the comment in Re R (Care; Disclosure; Nature of Proceedings)  1 FLR 755 that family cases have both adversarial and investigatory aspects [para 36]. The requirements of fairness will be different depending on whether a case is or is not contentious. An independent check on each of the property and affairs cases – and deputyship applications- would be disproportionate; hence the presumption that P need not be a party in such cases.
The purpose of ss5 and 6 MCA was again to allow day to day decisions to be made by those involved in caring for P [para 40]. The test for such interventions (ie, is the intervention the least restrictive and in P’s best interests) is not different in substance from the test to be applied in Article 5 cases [para 41].
Moreover some adults with capacity are objectively deprived of their liberty by their care packages but have no alternative but to accept this as they lack the resources to bring judicial review proceedings [para 42].
Charles J accepted that a balance needed to be struck in order to acknowledge the risk that an apparently uncontentious package in P’s best interests may not in fact be either; and acknowledged the advantage for P of an outside check [para 44].
In many cases the appointment of a family member or friend, or the Official Solicitor will add little value other than to confirm the accuracy of information provided (and in some cases to uncover inaccuracies) [para 51].
Reviewing the statutory scheme under the MCA and DOLS Charles J noted that the Court does not determine whether P should or should not be deprived of his liberty but makes a determination of his best interests the corollary of which may be a deprivation of his liberty and thus require additional safeguards eg reviews and whether P should be a party [para 73]. The existence of a deprivation of liberty may further have relevance to the question of damages for breach of Article 5.
Although the Official Solicitor had agreed to accept an appointment to act under specific funding arrangements in 8 of the 10 cases (whereby some solicitors had agreed to carry out some preliminary work pro bono) the Official Solicitor had indicated that he would reach saturation point in the future absent additional funding.
Under the heading “legal aid” Charles J noted that the Lord Chancellor had been reviewing the impact of Cheshire West and the House of Lords recommendations to end the disparity between those detained under DOLS and those detained under the MCA for some time [para 95]. He noted that full representation would only be granted if there was to be or was likely to be a hearing [99 onwards] and rejected the suggestion that an oral hearing was always necessary and should not be listed simply to access legal representation.
He took the view that legal help would not be available once proceedings were issued and P was represented by a litigation friend  and even if this were incorrect the means requirements precluded this as a source of funding in most cases.
He concluded (correctly) that legal aid will only be a solution if the case proves contentious and requires a hearing.
He did not agree that a rule 3A representative would resolve the issue  as this did not provide P with the status of a party. He rejected the Law Society’s submission that an ALR could never be appointed in a case involving deprivation of liberty .
He noted the impact on resources of the Court of Protection of the joinder of P in all cases, as well as on the resources of litigation friends .
He concluded that a litigation friend need not always act through a solicitor. A litigation friend is not a party . In comments which emphasise the rapprochement between the Court of Protection and the Mental Health Tribunal worlds, he referred to his judgment in YA v CNWL, where he likened the role of the appointed representative under TPR 11(7)(b) to a litigation friend who may sometimes have to over-ride P’s wishes. He returns to this analogy when considering the role of the RPR.
At paragraphs 158 onwards Charles J considered the availability of family or friends as potential litigation friends to P. This can be replete with difficulties where there is family conflict (as in Re UF) or a dissonance between the views of P and of his family (as in Re AJ).
In a comment which sits uncomfortably with the judgement of Baker J in Re AJ, Charles J does not agree that the RPR should challenge a standard authorization whenever P objects; but instead should decide whether to issue at all and then should only advance arguable points (again analogous to his views about the role of the Tribunal representative in YA): para 171-2.
Part 3 of the judgment contains the discussion on the question whether the Requirements and the Effects mean that P must be a party to ALL applications for welfare orders seeking a deprivation of liberty. He concludes that the answer is “no” and that he prefers the obiter reasoning of the President to the Court of Appeal: para 177.
This is because:
- what fairness requires will depend on the context [para 187] where Charles J noted that in para 57 of the judgment in Winterwerp the court concluded that an Article 5(4) compliant process must “have a judicial character and gives the individual concerned guarantees appropriate to the kind of detention in question” [para 187 (iii)].
- The comments in RP vUK about the margin of appreciation, which takes into account “all relevant factors” including the nature and complexity of the issue and what was at stake for P” [para 187 (v)].
He acknowledged the need to protect “the very essence” of Article 5 rights which will vary with each case [para 190].
The heart of the judgment is Charles J’s conclusions as to the “essence” of the rights guaranteed by Article 5.
These are set out below:
“The combination of the requirements of Article 5(1) and 5(4) to the initial decision making and the challenge of the decision made (see paragraph 182 above) shows that, when in reliance of Article 5(1)(e) there is or is going to be an objective deprivation of liberty, the essence of Article 5 is to provide safeguards that put a person who lacks the relevant capacity in a sufficiently equivalent position to a person who has that capacity and so who could himself:
- consider, test and decide between competing provisions for his care or treatment,
- consent to one of them, and
- keep under review and challenge the arrangements put in place.
This gives rise to the need for a process that is directed to ensuring that the steps referred to in paragraph 164 (i) to (iii) above are adequately carried out or that their subject matter is adequately investigated by the court. Namely:
- the elicitation and communication to the court of P’s wishes and feelings and the matters referred to in s. 4(6) of the MCA without causing P any or any unnecessary distress,
- the critical examination from the perspective of P’s best interests, and with a detailed knowledge of P, the pros and cons of a care package, and whether it is the least restrictive available option, and
- the review of the implementation of the care package and changes in P’s behaviour or health.
and in his view require
- elicitation of P’s wishes and feelings and the matters referred to in s4(6) MCA “without causing P any or any unnecessary distress”;
- critical examination of the pros and cons of the care plan from the perspective of P’s best interests and in the context of the least restructive alternative and
- the review of its implementation and changes in P’s behaviour and health.”
The minimum standards required of procedural safeguards will vary from case to case and within the exceptions to Article 5, and within the issues which arise in each case [para 193]. He considers this consistent with Baroness Hale’s comments about the possibility of simplifying the safeguards in Cheshire West [para 195] which support the proposition that the COP rules can be applied flexibly.
Under the heading “Flaws and gaps in the reasoning of the Court of Appeal” [para 197 onwards] he criticizes the reasoning of Black LJ for treating “all deprivations of liberty as being effectively the same for the purpose of the application of the procedural safeguards” [para 205]. He distinguishes cases where deprivation of liberty is authorized purely because of P’s best interests from secure accommodation cases relating to children and these involve factors other than the paramountcy principle (such as risk to others, which also features in decisions to detain under the MHA); and this is relevant to the minimum standards question.
Nor does the Court of Appeal recognize that the relevant comparator is with an adult with capacity who consents to the deprivation of liberty because this is the role of the court under s16 (circular!- possibly an argument for reduced safeguards on review).
At para 215 Charles J refers to his conclusion in YA at paras 39-41 that legal representation is not a minimum requirement in all cases. He considered that in many cases family members will be best placed to act as litigation friends and provides examples from the 10 cases before him.[219-224].
At paragraphs 223- 229 Charles J considers the information provided in the streamlined procedure and how this could be improved. He recommends additional information, such as- importantly- details of when supervision is provided; use of sedation or assistive technology; what would happen if P tried to leave, and statements from those providing care to P .
He suggested that information should also be provided about any tenancy agreement; the participation of family and friends; and why it is considered that the case can be dealt with on the papers.
As litigation friends do not need to instruct solicitors; and as a hearing is not needed in all cases, there is very little benefit in making P a party and appointing a family member as a litigation friend rather than as a Rule 3A representative and where this is an available option this will provide P with the requisite safeguards [231-2]. There should be a direction to keep the care package under review. He considers that this can reliably secure P’s participation without making P a party and thus falls within the exceptions to the need for party status identified by Black LJ in the Re X judgment.
Where there is not a family member or friend who can be appointed this should not require joinder of P but instead the court should consider the use of s49 reports and summonses; and the “much better solution” of the Secretary of State for justice of appointing “Rule 3A representatives identified by the local authority”. He urged the Secretary of State and local authorities to consider “urgently” how this solution can be provided on the ground and recognized that it this not available this will need to be addressed [265-7].
He expresses the view that his conclusions do not discriminate for the purposes of Article 14 [para 268].
His conclusions are summarized in 269:
“A brief summary of my conclusions is that:
- P does not have to be a party to all applications for welfare orders sought to authorise, and which when they are made will authorise, a deprivation of P’s liberty caused by the implementation of the care package on which the welfare order is based.
- In two of the test cases before me I have made orders that reflect that conclusion and my conclusion that the procedural safeguards required by Article 5 are (and are best) provided in those cases by appointing a parent of P as P’s Rule 3A representative. As such, that parent as a continuation of the dedicated and devoted support given by P’s family to P and directed to promoting P’s best interests, in a balanced way, can best provide (a) the court with the information it requires about the care package and P, and (b) P’s participation in the proceedings. Also, that parent can and in my view will monitor the implementation of the care plan and so initiate any challenge to it or review of it that the parent considers should be made in P’s best interests.
- I do not have a test case before me in which (a) P has not been joined as a party and the Official Solicitor has not agreed to act as P’s litigation friend, and (b) the appointment of a family member or friend as P’s Rule 3A representative without joining P as a party is not an available option. Such a test case or cases should be listed for hearing.
- In contrast to the Court of Appeal in Re X and subject to further argument in such a test case or cases, I consider that the way in which the Court of Protection can at present best obtain further information and P’s participation in such cases is for it to exercise its investigatory jurisdiction to obtain information through obtaining s. 49 reports or through the issue of a witness summonses. This keeps the matter under the control of the court rather than invoking the necessity of appointing a litigation friend with the problems and delays that history tells us this entails and will entail and I have concluded is, or shortly will be, not fit for purpose.
- I do not for a moment suggest that absent further resources being provided there will not be problems and delays in taking the course referred to in paragraph (4). Also, and importantly, I recognise that it would be focused on Article 5(1) and would not provide for monitoring on the ground until it is repeated from time to time for that purpose. But, the appointment of a litigation friend will also not provide that monitoring.
- In such cases the argument advanced by the Secretary of State before me that a Rule 3A representative identified by the local authority be appointed shows that if this was a practically available option it would replicate the input that I have decided can be provided by an appropriate family member or friend and so satisfy the procedural safeguards required by Article 5 and common law fairness in non-controversial cases without joining P as a party.
- That replication is an obvious solution that will provide the necessary safeguards more efficiently and at less expense than either
- the making of orders for s. 49 reports and the issuing of witness summonses perhaps coupled with more frequent reviews, or
- joining P as a party.
- So I urge the Secretary of State and local authorities to consider urgently, and in any event before a test case or cases of this type are before the court, how this solution can be provided on the ground.”
This is a decision focussed on practical solutions. It is of note however that much reliance is placed on the availability of resources – the Rule 3A representatives. There will of course be cases where family members and friends are able and willing to step into this role. There will be many other cases where P is unbefriended. In these cases, the court has two options. The first is to make use of s49 reports and the power to issue witness summonses to elicit the required information. This appears quite onerous, and can also be contentious- see the recent decision in RS. The second is the solution identified by the Secretary of State which is to appoint Rule 3A representatives “identified by the local authority.”
There must be some doubt as to the ability of local authorities- already struggling to meet their obligations to provide IMCA and Care Act advocacy- to conjure up another group of individuals who will step in and provide the safeguards needed. Nor is there any consideration given as to how these representatives will be funded.
The comments on YA and Re AJ can be seen as obiter as both judgments related to quite different scenarios. However it is noteable that in paragraph 145 Charles J appears to go further than he went in the YA judgment by expressly referring to the need for litigation friends (and by analogy Rule 11(7) representatives) to over-ride the wishes and feelings of patients without capacity.
It is worth remembering that those appointed as “Rule 3A” representatives may ask for directions under COPR 148A, which could include a request for P to be joined and a litigation friend appointed.
The possible use of “accredited legal representatives” (ALRs) if they become available was dealt with quickly at paragraph 117. There is currently no such panel of ALRs (although there is also no cohort of rule 3A representatives to be called on by local authorities). This would have been a practical solution at least in cases where P is entitled to legal aid. It is noted that in Re PD Baker J encouraged the possible use of ALRs in Schedule 3 cases. ALRs appointed in Re X types cases would have been well placed quickly to scrutinise and identify which cases require contested hearings and which really are uncontentious.
In some of his most trenchant comments to date, Sir James Munby P has raised the stakes yet further in the battle (we entirely support) to secure proper funding for representation in proceedings concerning the most vulnerable. In Re D (A Child)  EWFC 39, the President was concerned with care proceedings in which:
- The father lacked capacity to litigate and therefore required a litigation friend. That litigation friend was the Official Solicitor, who was only prepared to act because the father’s solicitor and counsel had agreed to act, thus far, pro bono and, indeed, further, the solicitor had agreed to indemnify him against any adverse costs orders; 
- The mother, although she had learning disabilities, was not a protected party. Because of her ‘personal characteristics, intellectual functioning and limitations which affect [her],’ she was in the view of her counsel (endorsed by the President) ‘wholly unable to represent herself in relation to any aspect of [the] proceedings’;
- Neither qualified for legal aid but both lacked the financial resources to pay for legal representation where, as the President put it ‘unthinkable that they should have to face the local authority’s application without proper representation’.
Sir James Munby set out a number of propositions of equal application – we suggest – to ‘adult care’ proceedings before the Court of Protection where a local authority wishes to remove an adult P from the care of their parents.
He noted, in particular, the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in RP v United Kingdom  ECHR 1796, drawing attention, especially, to the underlined words in paragraph 67:
67. In light of the above, and bearing in mind the requirement in the UN Convention that State parties provide appropriate accommodation to facilitate disabled persons’ effective role in legal proceedings, the Court considers that it was not only appropriate but also necessary for the United Kingdom to take measures to ensure that RP’s best interests were represented in the childcare proceedings. Indeed, in view of its existing case-law the Court considers that a failure to take measures to protect RP’s interests might in itself have amounted to a violation of Article 6(1) of the Convention (emphasis added).
The President described the parents’ predicament as ‘shocking’:
31. Stripping all this down to essentials, what do the circumstances reveal?
i) The parents are facing, and facing because of a decision taken by an agent of the State, the local authority, the permanent loss of their child. What can be worse for a parent?
ii) The parents, because of their own problems, are quite unable to represent themselves: the mother as a matter of fact, the father both as a matter of fact and as a matter of law.
iii) The parents lack the financial resources to pay for legal representation.
iv) In these circumstances it is unthinkable that the parents should have to face the local authority’s application without proper representation. To require them to do so would be unconscionable; it would be unjust; it would involve a breach of their rights under Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention; it would be a denial of justice.
v) If his parents are not properly represented, D will also be prejudiced. He is entitled to a fair trial; he will not have a fair trial if his parents do not, for any distortion of the process may distort the outcome. Moreover, he is entitled to an appropriately speedy trial, for section 1(2) of the 1989 Act and section 1(3) of the 2002 Act both enjoin the court to bear in mind that in general any delay in coming to a decision is likely to prejudice the child’s welfare. So delay in arranging for the parents’ representation is likely to prejudice the child. Putting the point more generally, the court in a case such as this is faced with an inescapable, and in truth insoluble, tension between having to do justice to both the parents and the child, when at best it can do justice only to one and not the other and, at worst, and more probably, end up doing justice to neither.
vi) Thus far the State has simply washed its hands of the problem, leaving the solution to the problem which the State itself has created – for the State has brought the proceedings but declined all responsibility for ensuring that the parents are able to participate effectively in the proceedings it has brought – to the goodwill, the charity, of the legal profession. This is, it might be thought, both unprincipled and unconscionable. Why should the State leave it to private individuals to ensure that the State is not in breach of the State’s – the United Kingdom’s – obligations under the Convention? As Baker J said in the passage I have already quoted, “It is unfair that legal representation in these vital cases is only available if the lawyers agree to work for nothing.
The President then threw down the gauntlet in no uncertain fashion, in a fashion presaged in his earlier decision in Q v Q  EWFC 7, and directed a further hearing:
36 … at which, assuming that the parents still do not have legal aid, I shall decide whether or not their costs are to be funded by one, or some, or all of (listing them in no particular order) the local authority, as the public authority bringing the proceedings, the legal aid fund, on the basis that D’s own interests require an end to the delay and a process which is just and Convention compliant, or Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service, on the basis that the court is a public authority required to act in a Convention compliant manner.
37. Copies of this judgment, and of the order I made following the hearing on 8 October 2014, will accordingly be sent to the Lord Chancellor, the Legal Aid Agency, Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service and the Association of Directors of Children’s Services, inviting each of them to intervene in the proceedings to make such submissions as they may think appropriate. If they choose not to intervene, I shall proceed on the basis of the conclusions expressed in this judgment, in particular as I have set them out in paragraph 31.
 It should also be noted that the solicitor, Rebecca Stevens of Withy King had spent in excess of 100 hours, all unremunerated, working to resolve the issue of the father’s entitlement to legal aid. As the President noted, ‘This is devotion to the client far above and far beyond the call of duty’.
Baker J has handed down judgment in a highly unusual case, A Local Authority v M and others. The facts of the case are startling and underline some of the findings in the House of Lords Select Committee on the Mental Capacity Act about the lack of awareness of the MCA amongst some clinicians. The judge made important comments about, amongst other matters, the vital importance of proper decision-making when prescribing treatment, including “alternative” treatments, the correct use of welfare deputyships, and the disclosure obligations on litigants in person. M was the son of E and A, and had childhood autism. Both parents, but particularly his mother E, became convinced that this was as a result of the MMR vaccine, and, as the court found, made numerous false statements about this and other aspects of her son’s health. A claim had been made on behalf of M in the litigation seeking compensation over the vaccine, but ended when legal aid funding was withdrawn. Baker J summarised the facts succinctly at the end of his judgment:
- The critical facts established in this case can be summarised as follows. M has autistic spectrum disorder. There is no evidence that his autism was caused by the MMR vaccination. His parents’ account of an adverse reaction to that vaccination is fabricated. The mother has also given many other false accounts about M’s health. He has never had meningitis, autistic enterocolitis, leaky gut syndrome, sensitivity to gluten or casein, disorder of the blood brain barrier, heavy metal poisoning, autonomic dysautonomia (which, in any event, is not recognised in any classification of medical conditions), rheumatoid arthritis or Lyme disease. As a result of E maintaining that he had these and other conditions, she has subjected M to numerous unnecessary tests and interventions. He did have a dental abscess for which E failed to obtain proper treatment and caused him 14 months of unnecessary pain and suffering. E has also insisted that M be subjected to a wholly unnecessary diet and regime of supplements. Through her abuse of her responsibility entrusted to her as M’s deputy, she has controlled all aspects of his life, restricted access to him by a number of professionals and proved herself incapable of working with the local authority social workers and many members of the care staff at the various residential homes where M has lived. This behaviour amounts to factitious disorder imposed on another. In addition, E has a combination of personality disorders – a narcissistic personality disorder, histrionic personality disorder and elements of an emotional unstable personality disorder.
The judgement repays reading in full. For the purpose of this post, we focus on three areas: the proper use of welfare deputyship, fact-finding and the disclosure obligations on litigants in person. Deputyship: In 2010 E applied to be M’s welfare deputy, and asked in her application that this:
” … include life-long custodian to him. In addition, for the court to decide that life-long advocacy is also included in this role unless otherwise delegated by me.”
In the box on the application form asking how the order would benefit M, E stated, inter alia:
“My son would benefit from all decisions being made in his very best interests and without the influence of external pressures or distractions.”
On 18th June 2010, District Judge Rogers made an order appointing E as M’s deputy for property and affairs and personal welfare decisions. This order was made without notice to the local authority, Y House or any other agency involved in M’s care. [para 27]. Baker J found that E had grossly abused her power as deputy and that she had used the power to control M’s life and restrict the roles of the professionals, describing her as having a “fanatical desire to maintain control over her son’s life”. He considered E’s decision-making in imposing a regime of supplements and alternative treatments on M, often on the advice of practitioners who did not meet M and were content to take instructions wholly from M. The judge noted the views of the expert witness Dr Peter Carpenter: 178 Dr Carpenter observed that most of the dietary and nutritional therapies given to M are ones that he has experienced with other patients over the years. He has not objected to them being used in most cases. He also observes that E appears to have normally sought professional help when using therapies; that she has not devised treatment protocols without advice. He adds, however, that he found little evidence that E carried out what he would expect a best interests decision-maker to do when using non-conventional therapies for an adult who does not have capacity to choose for himself: namely, (a) draw in as wide a range of advisors as possible, and (b) ensure that the therapists are fully aware of the medical history. Dr Carpenter is very concerned that the therapists in this case were not given copies of any diagnostic reports but were, rather, given accounts of how the MMR vaccine had induced a vegetative state and a diagnosis of enterocolitis, which was not supported by any contemporaneous medical records. 179. Dr Carpenter also criticises E for failing to question the reason and purpose of any of the therapies or interventions used or seek unbiased evidence about their effectiveness. He is concerned at the lack of evidence that E looked at the arguments against therapies, as well as the arguments for. He is concerned at the apparent inadequacy of some of the assessments prior to starting therapy. He is also concerned at the apparent lack of monitoring of the effects of therapies. He notes that, despite the lack of evidence that any of the supplements work, the number and manner of taking them has been allowed to grow so that they now seemingly dominate M’s life and care regime. It is the quantity and intensity of the supplements given to M that causes concern for Dr Carpenter rather than any single supplement. 180. For a number of years, until his placement at N House, M was on a gluten and casein free diet. The efficacy of this diet for people with autism is a matter of controversy. Dr Carpenter quoted the guidelines issued by NICE in 2013, which he helped to draft, which recommended against the use of exclusion diets such as gluten or casein free diets for the management of core features of autism in children and young people. He cites research published by “Research Autism”, which he described as a generally respected organisation that attempts to review the evidence of main treatments and interventions in an unbiased manner and which concluded:
“The theory behind the gluten free/casein free diet [“GFCF”] is weak and unproven and there is limited evidence as to whether GFCF diets are actually effective for individuals with autism. Reviewers have found the research evidence to be inconclusive. Despite this lack of evidence, many people embark on a GFCF diet with high expectations that there will be beneficial effects. However, these diets can involve significant inconvenience and costs, as well as a significant limitation on what the individual can eat. Because of this we cannot recommend the use of such diets.
181.A different opinion was expressed by several witnesses called by E and A. Mr Shattock said that excluding gluten and casein from the diet had been reported as leading to measurable improvements in a high proportion of subjects, though in some instances the improvements were minor and not worth the effort, cost or possible disruption to life. Those reports are, however, based on the impression of parents and carers rather than any scientific analysis. Mr Shattock conceded that the benefits of the diet are clinically unproven and frankly acknowledged in his report that, had he been on the NICE committee himself, he would not have been able to disagree with the negative conclusion as to the use of such diets for people with autism. Dr Aitkin said that in general there are several reasons why such a diet might be considered as part of a management approach in an individual with an autism diagnosis and not merely used as a placebo. He cited research that suggested that such a diet is safe if properly adhered to and that there is some limited evidence of benefit. Some individuals with autism showed improvements on such a diet, for reasons other than a casein or gluten free intolerance. Again, however, the evidence of such improvements is the subject observations of parents and carers rather than any clinical or scientific analysis. Ms Haywood, however, was clear that there is now overwhelming evidence about how much autistic people benefit from a gluten free diet
182.In M’s case, there is no clear evidence that being on a GFCF diet is beneficial. The notes of the Royal Free Hospital recorded on 18th March 2001 that E had tried M on such a diet, but by January 2002 the hospital was recording that “he remains on a normal diet as there were no improvements in his behaviour or bowel habits on a gluten and dairy free diet” and there is no evidence that the Royal Free made any subsequent recommendation that he be put back on that diet. The diet was subsequently reintroduced unilaterally by E without positive medical approval. Professor Williamson regards it as a “telling fact” that, since M became resident at N House, he has remained in good physical health despite eating a normal diet, free of any restrictions and devoid of any of the numerous supplements that he had previously been obliged to take. On the contrary, he is eating well and gaining weight. When Professor Williamson saw him, he thought that he looked in excellent physical shape. Professor Williamson advised that, if M can stay well after a restricted diet, vitamins and minerals, it provides “strong evidence to suggest that they are unnecessary.”
183 For Dr Carpenter the key feature was that the reason given for M being on a diet – that he had a diagnosis of enterocolitis – was fallacious. In those circumstances there was no good reason for his diet being restricted in this way. It seems plain that those who advised E about the diet, in particular Ms Haywood, assumed that the diagnosis of enterocolitis given by E was correct. The concern about the insistence of the diet in this case was, therefore, not so much about the use of the diet per se, (which is plainly not uncommon amongst people with autism, notwithstanding the clear view expressed in the NICE guidelines), but, rather, the fabricated diagnosis which led to the diet being imposed.
184If the only alternative treatment therapy provided to M had been the GFCF diet, there would be relatively little concern. But it was not. Rather, it was one of a multitude of treatments given. In her final statement, E described M as an:
” … ever-changing minefield of biochemical hormone surges that require constant awareness of and treatment in terms of biomedical natural supplementation and dietary intake.”
In terms of nutrition, he was supplied with a large number of supplements to be taken daily. Here, it was Ms Haywood’s advice on which E acted. In contrast to the approach recommended by Mr Shattock in the Sunderland Protocol, there was no incremental approach (testing the efficacy of each individual supplement) but rather the prescription of a cocktail of supplements every day.
- Dr Carpenter quotes the NICE guidelines again as not recommending the use of such supplements for the treatment of the core symptoms of autism in adults. He notes that: “Research Autism” observed the evidence of nutritional supplements being untested or incapable of being proved and, therefore, it was not a treatment that they could recommend. Dr Carpenter notes, however, that most of the supplements appeared to have no known toxic overdose limit. He acknowledged that he is not an expert, although he expresses concern in general about how over the years the number of supplements delivered to M has increased dramatically and how the rigidity of instructions given for the supply of the supplements produces what he describes as unnecessary behaviour and choice restrictions of M.
- I accept Dr Carpenter’s opinion on this point. There is no evidence that the supplements caused physical harm, but I am not persuaded that there is any reliable evidence that they cause any benefit. The important issue is the manner and the quantity in which they were prescribed, without proper objective analysis, to a young man who lacked capacity to make decisions about whether or not to take them.
The judge found that E was the last person who should be entrusted with the role of M’s deputy, but found that it was highly likely that a welfare deputy would be needed because of the fundamental disagreements between the local authority and the family. Fact-finding: The judge set out the following principles to be applied in fact-finding hearings in the Court of Protection. 83. First, the burden of proof lies with the local authority. It is the local authority that brings these proceedings and identifies the findings that they invite the court to make. Therefore, the burden of proving the allegations rests with them. 84. Secondly, the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities: Re B (Children)  UKHR 35. If the local authority proves a fact on the balance of probabilities, this court will treat that fact as established and all future decisions concerning M’s future will be based on that finding. Equally, if the local authority fails to prove any allegation, the court will disregard that allegation completely. In her written submissions on behalf of the local authority, Miss Bretherton contended that the court should apply the principle that
“the more serious the allegation the more cogent is the evidence required to overcome the unlikelihood of what is alleged and thus to prove it.”
This principle, originally stated by Ungoed-Thomas J in Re Dellows Will Trust 1 WLR 451, was at one time applied by the courts considering allegations of child abuse in family proceedings under the Children Act 1989. In Re B, however, the House of Lords emphatically rejected that approach. Baroness Hale of Richmond, with whose judgment the other four Law Lords agreed, having analyzed the case law, stated at paragraphs 70 to 72:
“70 I would announce loud and clear that the standard of proof in finding the facts necessary to establish the threshold under s.31(2) or the welfare considerations of the 1989 Act is the simple balance of probabilities – neither more nor less. Neither the seriousness of the allegation nor the seriousness of the consequences should make any difference to the standard of proof to be applied in determining the facts. The inherent probabilities are simply something to be taken into account, where relevant in deciding where the truth lies.71. As to the seriousness of the consequences, they are serious either way. A child may find her relationship with her family seriously disrupted or she may find herself still at risk of suffering serious harm. A parent may find his relationship with his child seriously disrupted or he may find himself still at liberty to maltreat this or other children in the future. 72. As to the seriousness of the allegation, there is no logical or necessary connection between seriousness and probability.”
In my judgment, the same approach must surely apply in the Court of Protection where the court is carrying out a similar exercise in determining the facts upon which to base decisions as to the best interests of an incapacitated adult. 85.Thirdly, findings of fact in these cases must be based on evidence. As Munby J (as he then was) observed in Re A (A Child : Fact-finding hearing: speculation)  EWCA Civ 12:
“It is an elementary proposition that findings of fact must be based on evidence, including inferences that can properly be drawn from the evidence, and not on suspicion or speculation.”
86. Fourth, the court must take into account all the evidence and, furthermore, consider each piece of evidence in the context of all the other evidence. As Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, President, observed in Re T  EWCA Civ 458,  2 FLR 838, at paragraph 33:
“Evidence cannot be evaluated and assessed in separate compartments. A judge in these difficult cases must have regard to the relevance of each piece of evidence to the other evidence and to exercise an overview of the totality of the evidence in order to come to the conclusion whether the case put forward by the local authority has been made out to the appropriate standard of proof.”
- Fifth, whilst appropriate attention must be paid to the opinion of medical experts, those opinions need to be considered in the context of all the other evidence. The roles of the court and the experts are distinct. It is the court that is in the position to weigh up expert evidence against the other evidence: A County Council v. K, D and L  EWHC 144 Fam,  1 FLR 851 per Charles J.
- Sixth, in assessing the expert evidence, which involves a multi-disciplinary analysis of the medical information conducted by a group of specialists, each bringing their own expertise to bear on the problem, one important consideration – and of particular relevance in this case – is that the court must be careful to ensure that each expert keeps within the bounds of their own expertise and defers where appropriate to the expertise of others – see the observations of Eleanor King J in Re S  EWHC 2115 Fam.
- Seventh, the evidence of the parents is of the utmost importance. It is essential that the court forms a clear assessment of their credibility and reliability. They must have the fullest opportunity to take part in the hearing and the court is likely to place considerable weight on the evidence and impressions it forms of them – see Re W and another (Non-accidental injury)  FCR 346.
- Eighth, it is not uncommon for witnesses in these cases to tell lies, both before and during the hearing. The court must be careful to bear in mind that a witness may lie for many reasons – such as shame, misplaced loyalty, panic, fear and distress – and the fact that a witness has lied about some matters does not mean that he or she has lied about everything – see R v. Lucas  QB 720. The assessment of the truthfulness is an important part of my function in this case.
The role of litigants in person. E and A were originally represented but conducted the latter part of the case, including a hearing that lasted 20 days. At para 73, Baker J summed up the procedural steps that the court took in order to assist E and A, and commented ”
- Overall, I cannot recall a case in which litigants in person have been assisted by the court and the other lawyers to the extent provided in this case. I am satisfied that as a result E and A, and indeed M, have received a fair hearing, but this was only achieved at the cost of a significant lengthening of the proceedings. One lesson of this case is that, if parties such as E and A are to be unrepresented in hearings of this kind, be it in the Court of Protection or in the Family Court, the hearings will often take very considerably longer than if they were represented. Denying legal aid in such cases is, thus, a false economy.
Baker J drew attention to the need for all parties to provide disclosure, including of those documents which do not support their case: 76. In total, the court papers filled some 33 lever arch files (court documents and file records) plus two further lever arch files of documents produced by E and A during the hearing. No doubt if the parents had been represented, it might have been possible to reduce this material into a core bundle, as I did myself at the conclusion of the hearing. Even those 35 files may not represent the totality of the disclosable documents that might have been produced. For example, no health visitor records were produced for the period of M’s early years. At a very late stage E alluded to the possibility that she may have copies of these records somewhere in the loft at her home. Furthermore, and despite my explaining the rules about disclosure on more than one occasion, I am not entirely satisfied that E and A have complied with their obligation to disclose all relevant documents, including those that do not support their case. At one point E’s medical records were produced and, when E objected to their disclosure on grounds of confidentiality, I conducted a public interest immunity examination to determine which pages of the records were relevant. In the event, I concluded that only 16 pages fell into that category, but E insisted on challenging the disclosure of some of those pages on the grounds that they would assist the other parties. This illustrates another consequence of parties appearing without representation in these cases, namely that the courts may have to devise new rules as to disclosure.
The President has just handed down a judgment in a family case, Q v Q  EWFC 31 which has implications for Court of Protection practitioners as well as for those working in the family courts.
The judgment related to three unrelated cases: Q V Q, where the President had previously handed down a judgment Q v Q  EWFC 7 ; Re B, which had been heard by HHJ Wildblood (D v K  EWHC 700 (Fam))and a third case, Re C.
All were private law proceedings where the father of child who lived with the mother sought a role in the child’s life. In all three the mother had legal aid and the father did not.
The cases raised problems which pre-dated but were exacerbated by LASPO. The President summarised the provisions of LASPO and exceptional funding regime; noting that the threshold for exceptional funding had been found too high in Gudanaviciene and others v Director of Legal Aid Casework  EWHC 1840 (Admin)and commented that the very small number of successful applications for exceptional funding suggested that the system was “inadequate” [at para 14].
Q v Q was an application for contact by a father who was a convicted sex offender, where the President had invited the Secretary of State for Justice to intervene and make submissions as to how expenditure for certain activities could be met if the court considered it to be necessary but it was not available from legal aid and in particular if it could be met from the other party’s certificate or from the court [para 23]. The Secretary of State declined to intervene; the father had asked the Public Law Project for assistance with exceptional funding application. The proceedings had stalled because the father required an interpreter and possibly a translation of documents; there was no funding to bring the experts in the case to court; and the father had to appear as a litigant in person.
In Re B a father applied for contact with his child. The mother asserted the father had raped her, necessitating a fact-finding hearing. As in the other cases the mother had legal aid and the father did not, giving rise to the spectre of the alleged perpetatrator cross examining an alleged victim in person. This would have been prohibited had this been a criminal case: s34 YJCEA 1999 .
Section 31G(6) Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 was amended by Schedule 10 Crime and Courts Act 2013 and provides
“Where in any proceedings in the family court it appears to the court that any party to the proceedings who is not legally represented is unable to examine or cross-examine a witness effectively, the court is to – (a) ascertain from that party the matters about which the witness may be able to depose or on which the witness ought to be cross-examined, and (b) put, or cause to be put, to the witness such questions in the interests of that party as may appear to the court to be proper.”
HHJ Wildblood found this criteria to be met in January 2014 . Following this the father eventually succeeded in obtaining legal aid after commencing judicial review proceeding sand following the judgment in Gudanaviciene.
Re C again concerned an application for contact by a father where the mother asserted that he had raped her. The father was awaiting trial at the Crown Court.
The President noted at para 43 that:
“The absence of public funding for those too impoverished to pay for their own representation potentially creates at least three major problems: first, the denial of legal advice and of assistance in drafting documents; second, and most obvious, the denial of professional advocacy in the court room; third, the denial of the ability to bring to court a professional witness whose fees for attending are beyond the ability of the litigant to pay. Each of these problems is, of course, exacerbated if the litigant needs a translator to translate documents and an interpreter to interpret what is going on in court.”
By way of setting the scene he referred to the over-riding objective of dealing with cases justly, set out in FPR 1.1 (and at COPR3.1) as well as the requirements of the courts to act consistently with Articles 6 and 8 of the European Convention and the requirement that A6 rights should be effective. Mantovanelli v France (Application no 21497/93 (1997) 24 EHRR 370) indicated indicates the significance of the right to an adversarial hearing guaranteed by Article 6 specifically in the context of an expert’s report which is “likely to have a preponderant influence on the assessment of the facts by [the] court.” (at para 49).
In connection with the need for an interpreter in Q v Q the President noted that HMCTS would provide an interpreter in domestic violence cases or those involving children and commented [at para 53) that where appropriate and if no one else could pay “HMCTS will also, I imagine, pay for the translation of documents needed”, and noted that he had made orders to this effect in this and other cases.
As regards the attendance of the expert the President referred to the requirement that expert evidence should only be obtained when necessary to assist the court in resolving the proceedings ‘justly’ (s 13(6) Children and Families Act 2014).
“56.In principle, the first question in that situation must be, is it, in the view of the court, “necessary”, if the proceedings are to be resolved “justly”, to have the expert in court to answer questions, or will it suffice for the court to be able to read the expert’s report? If the proceedings can be resolved “justly” without requiring the expert’s attendance, then there is no reason why public funds should be spent on something which is, on this hypothesis, unnecessary. If, on the other hand, it is necessary for the expert to attend court to enable the proceedings to be resolved justly – and that must always be a question for determination by the case management judge, not for mere agreement between the parties – then it follows, in my judgment, that the obligation on the State is to provide the necessary funding if a litigant through poverty is unable to pay the cost.
57.In the final analysis, if there is no other properly available public purse, that cost has, in my judgment to be borne by the court, by HMCTS. It is, after all, the court which, in accordance with FPR 1.1, has imposed on it the duty of dealing with the case justly. And, in the final analysis, it is the court which has the duty of ensuring compliance with Articles 6 and 8 in relation to the proceedings before it.”
What if the litigant does not have access to competent legal advice on the difficult questions raised by the allegations against the fathers, raising questions as to whether they are compellable witnesses and the extent to which they could be required to answer – matters the President described as “deep waters”?
The problems from the lack of representation generally were exacerbated by the “acute tensions” where an alleged perpetrator might cross-examine an alleged victim. This had been raise in 2006 in H v L and R  EWHC 3099 (Fam),  2 FLR 162,
In the President’s view S31G(6) clearly anticipated questions being put by someone other than the judge and he held [at para 79]
“In the ultimate analysis, if the criteria in section 31G(6) are satisfied, and if the judge is satisfied that the essential requirements of a fair trial as required by FPR 1.1 and Articles 6 and 8 cannot otherwise be met, the effect of the words “cause to be put” in section 31G(6) is, in my judgment, to enable the judge to direct that appropriate representation is to be provided by – at the expense of – the court, that is, at the expense of HMCTS.”
Applying this to the cases before him the President noted that the issues in Re B had been resolved. If the father’s application for exceptional funding in Q v Q was not granted the costs of the experts, whose attendance the judge found to be necessary, would have to be met by the court.
With regard to Re C the President concluded:
85. I have however come to two conclusions which I can and ought to set out. The first is that the matters to which I have referred above (in particular those relating to the issues of privilege and related issues) are matters on which the father in Re B, and even more so the father in Re C, desperately needs access to skilled legal advice, both before and during the fact-finding hearing. These are not matters which the judge conducting the fact-finding hearing can determine without the benefit of legal argument on both sides. If the judge is deprived of adversarial argument, and if the father is denied access to legal advice both before and during the hearing, there must, in my judgment, be a very real risk of the father’s rights under Articles 6 and 8 being breached both in the family proceedings and possibly also, in the case of the father in Re C, in the criminal proceedings. I bear in mind, of course, that, as I explained in Re X Children  EWHC 1719 (Fam),  1 FLR 589, para 51, the admissibility in the criminal proceedings of any admissions made in the family proceedings is in the final analysis a matter for the criminal, not the family, judge. But this does not, in my judgment, meet the difficulty.
86.Linked to this there is, in the case of the father in Re C, a related point made by Ms Bazley. The proper – the fair and just – management of the case requires, in my judgment, that I give directions inter alia requiring the father to respond to the mother’s allegations and to file all the evidence upon which he intends to rely. Ms Bazley submits with some force, and I am inclined to agree, that to require the father to comply with that part of the order without access to proper legal advice is to imperil his rights under Articles 6 and 8.
87.I add only this. If, on the merits, the circumstances in Re B were such as to bring the father’s application within section 10(2)(a) of LASPO, and the LAA has conceded the point, then it might be thought that the father’s claim in Re C is a fortiori.
88.If the father’s application for public funding under LASPO is successful, then all well and good. If it is not, then I will have to consider what, if any, further order to make. I am inclined to think that, for all the reasons already indicated, the father in Re C requires access to legal advice beforehand and representation at the fact-finding hearing to avoid the very real risk of the court being unable to deal with the matter justly and fairly and of his rights under Articles 6 and 8 being breached. I am inclined to think, therefore, that, if he is unable to afford representation and pro bono representation is not available, and if there is no other properly available public purse, the cost will have to be borne by HMCTS.”
The President emphasized that directions that HMCTs should meet the cost of certain activities should only be met as a last resort and then only following consultation with a HCJ or designated family judge. Such directions may or may not be appropriate in cases which involve allegations of either serious non-sexual assault or of sexual assaults of a less serious nature.
Comment: The President concluded that the Ministry of Justice, the LAA and the Courts Service “may wish to consider the implications” of his judgment. It is likely that this will have far-reaching implications in the most extreme cases and no doubt will be considered by practitioners involved in other cases where the facts are different but where the lack of funding- including even exceptional funding- gives rise to a “very real risk” that the Court cannot deal with the matter fairly. In the Court of Protection context the issue of funding for expert evidence is a familiar one, and is also affected by the decision of the Court of Appeal in JG v The Lord Chancellor and others:  EWCA Civ 656.