Category: Uncategorized

Transparently pulling in different directions

In the sequel to the decision in C’s case, V v Associated Newspapers & Ors [2016] EWCOP 20, Charles J has considered afresh the Court of Protection’s approach to reporting restrictions orders, not least in light of the transparency pilot currently underway.

For present purposes, the facts can be very shortly summarised.   C’s case came before the Court of Protection for determination as to her capacity to consent to renal dialysis.   A reporting restrictions order was made at the outset of the proceedings (in standard terms for a serious medical treatment case) restricting reporting of information leading to the identification of C and her adult daughters.  The order was expressed to have effect during C’s lifetime.   After a hearing at which it was determined that C had the capacity, such that the Court of Protection had no jurisdiction, C died.  The case was the subject of considerable media interest, and both the tactics adopted by some reporters and the style of some reporting caused considerable distress to C’s family.   The adult daughters applied for a continuation of the reporting restriction order; by the time that the matter came finally to be determined by Charles J, the relevant media organisations did not contest that the order should be continued to the 18th birthday of C’s teenage daughter, although raised an issue as to whether the order could be made by Charles J as a Court of Protection judge (as opposed to a High Court judge)    Subsequent to the hearing, a further application was made that the order be extended to cover C’s inquest, which the media organisations did not resist, and which Charles J found to be justified on the particular facts of the case, especially given the prurient nature of the reporting that had taken place.

Much of Charles J’s judgment, therefore, consisted of determination of general principles for future guidance, rather than the resolution of a contest as to how they should apply upon the facts of the instant case.   In characteristic fashion, the judgment delves into matters in considerable detail, but for practitioners, the following conclusions he reached are key.

First: the Court of Protection has jurisdiction to make a post mortem reporting restrictions order (although in the instant case, and on a “belt and braces approach,” Charles J also made the order as a High Court judge to avoid any future jurisdictional arguments).   Further, reporting restrictions orders in serious medical treatment cases can extend beyond the death of the subject of those proceedings and there is no presumption or default position that such orders should end on P’s death.

Second: the Court of Protection should generally address the following questions:

  1. Are there good reasons for the hearing to be in public?
  2. If there are, should that public hearing be ordered with or without reporting restrictions? As part of that determination, how effective are any such reporting restrictions likely to be in protecting and promoting the relevant Article 8 rights and how restrictive are they likely to be of the relevant Article 10 rights having regard to the factors, propositions and public interests that underlie and promote those competing rights?
  3. In light of the conclusions as to these questions, and applying the ultimate balancing test required by Re S (A Child) (Identification: Restrictions on Publication) [2005] 1 AC 593, should the hearing be in private or in public? If in private, what documents (with or without redactions and anonymisation) should be made public (and when and how this should be done)?   If in public, what reporting restrictions order / anonymity order should be made?

Third, the answer to the first question is almost always going to be “yes” because of the benefits of open justice and so almost always the Re S exercise will be engaged by addressing the second and third questions.

Fourth, a distinction can be made between (a) cases where pursuant to the default or general position under the relevant Rules or Practice Directions the court is allowing access (or unrestricted access) to the media and the public, and (b) cases in which it is imposing restrictions and so where the court is turning the tap on rather than off. However, Charles J emphasised that this distinction only reflects the strength of the reasoning underlying those Rules and Practice Direction that in many, perhaps most, cases the important safeguards secured by a public hearing can be secured without the press publishing or the public knowing the identities of the people involved.   The distinction therefore provides weight to the general arguments for anonymity to promote the administration of justice by the court generally and in the given case.  The distinction therefore does not undermine the general proposition that naming people has a valuable function of rendering news stories personal and therefore effective as journalism (see In re Guardian News and Media Ltd [2010] UKSC 1).  As Charles J reminded us, the CoP needs to remember it is not an editor.

Fifth, the weight to be given to the “naming proposition” and the conclusion as to what generally best promotes the administration of justice will vary from case to case, and may require specific consideration (and reasons) in specific cases.   Charles J gave some useful examples of how these considerations might apply in different cases:

  1. If the case involves a celebrity but otherwise is not out of the ordinary, the Court will be exercising a well-known decision making process, and the difficulty or impossibility of providing effective anonymisation may found a decision not to order a public hearing. The question for the trial judge will therefore be what (if any) document or judgment should be made public;
  2. If the case involves a celebrity but raises new or unusual points and so is out of the ordinary this may found a decision for a public hearing with no (or unusual) reporting restrictions;
  3. Where findings of serious mistreatment or malpractice are sought or when a member of a family wants (or has initiated) publicity that identifies P and family members issues will arise whether: (1) there should be a public hearing with no reporting restrictions (so the rival arguments and assertions are made public and linked to identified individuals); or (2) whether there should be a private hearing (with disclosure to relevant bodies or persons).

Charles J also used the opportunity to set out in a schedule to the judgment a comparison between the Transparency Pilot and the approach to reporting restrictions orders in serious medical treatment cases.   His analysis includes a useful – technical – explanation of the reasons why the two are different, a useful discussion of the purpose of notice, and also an invitation to the media and other interested persons to provide comments and contributions as to the practice relating to and the terms of Transparency Pilot Orders and PD13 Reporting Restriction Orders, not least so as to enable the ad hoc Rules Committee he chairs to consider whether  separate practice directions and different standard orders should continue in respect of serious medical treatment cases and/or whether the existing practice/template order in such cases should be changed.

Comment

In light of the sorry picture painted of the conduct of the relevant media organisations, it is hardly surprising that Charles J took the (very unusual) step of extending the RRO to cover C’s inquest.   Of wider significance and longer-term importance, however, are Charles J’s observations as to the general approach to be taken and questions to be asked as the CoP continues to look – via the Transparency Pilot – for the best approach to enable it secure the correct balance between Articles 8 and 10 ECHR and thereby correctly promote the powerful (and often competing) public interests they engage and reflect.

[A version of this note appeared in the May 2016 39 Essex  Chambers Mental Capacity Law Newsletter]

 

JM-Time to step up

Charles J has handed down a stinging judgment in Re JM and others [2016] EWCOP 15– the latest instalment in the sequence that started with Re X [2014] EWCOP 25. (See also Re X [2014] EWCOP 37, Re X [2015] EWCA2015. and Re NRA [2015] EWCOP 59.

The case concerned the requirements of a process to authorize the deprivation of liberty of adults lacking capacity to consent to their living arrangements, where the statutory scheme set out in Schedule A1 MCA 2005 (“DOLS”) is not available, for example those living in supported living. The only “procedure prescribed by law” for the purpose of Article 5 is an application to the court. New legislation to fill the gap is anticipated in the form of the Law Commission proposals but this is some way off.

All the earlier cases have grappled with the question of the “very essence” of Article 5. What is the right balance between a proportionate and “streamlined” process and procedural safeguards for the vulnerable person at the centre of the case? In particular how can they participate in the process?

In NRA Charles J held that the appointment of a representative under Rule 3A would fulfill the requirements of Article 5, in cases that are uncontentious (and this is an important qualification). He noted that there were some case where there was literally no one available to take on this role and asked for test cases to be listed before him.

The cases of Re JM and others were duly heard on 3 and 4 December and 13 January 2016. He heard from the applicant statutory bodies, the Secretaries of State for Justice and Health and the Official Solicitor. The Law Society was given permission to file submissions.

Charles J reiterated the potential for Rule 3 A representatives – often in the form of advocacy services commissioned by local authorities- to provide the required standards of fairness which the streamlined process needs.

He held that – irrespective of the investigatory role of the COP and the duty of disclosure on applicant authorities- a fair procedure for the purpose of Article 5 and the common law must involve “someone assistance from someone on the ground who considers the care package through P’s eyes” (§140).

The problem is that of availability. He described the case as an opportunity for central government to “face up and constructively address the availability in practice of such Rule 3A representatives” (§17). He concluded that central government had failed to take this up and instead sought to pass the responsibilities to local government and criticized the “avoidant approach that prioritises budgetary considerations over responsibilities to vulnerable people” (§19).

Unsurprisingly he held that the COP should not attempt to direct local authorities to take steps to identify or provide a Rule 3 A representative (§24 and ±102-103). The primary responsibility to put the court in the position where it can meet the minimum requirements of fairness is on central government or on central government together with applicant authorities (§24).

Charles J has therefore taken the following steps in all cases bar one – VE- where a representative became available:

1. He joined the MoJ and DoH as parties;
2. Invited the parties to identify an immediately available Rule 3A representative or an alternative procedure;
3. He stayed the applications until such steps had been taken with liberty to apply.
Importantly he held that this order should be made by the COP in similar cases. (§26)

He provided a list of options that could be taken by central government to break the stalemate that will now see government departments joined in potentially hundreds of cases:

1. Enter into contracts with advocacy providers
2. Provide local authorities with resources so that they can enter into contracts
3. Set up a pool of Accredited Legal Representatives with the support of the Lord Chancellor
4. Increase resources to the Official Solicitor.
5. Make changes to legal aid
6. Provide resources to extend the range of s49 visitors.
7. Take a case to the Supreme Court and invite it to re-visit Cheshire West.

In the course of the judgment Charles J:

1. Accepted that a change to legal aid regulations to permit non-means tested legal aid in both contentious and non-contentious DOL welfare hearings could prove part of a solution (together with the creation of ALRs) (§73)
2. Criticised the Secretary of State for seeking to “pass the parcel” to local authorities without addressing the problems they identified (§85)
3. Quoted from detailed evidence from local authorities demonstrating the levels of pressure in advocacy providers (which will come as no surprise to providers) (§96).
4. Found that full and investigative legal aid is not properly available for any process that does not require a hearing (because of the requirements in the Civil Legal Aid (Merits) Regulations 2013) (§114)
5. Agreed with the Law Society that although some solicitors carry out work in streamlined cases under legal help, this does not sit easily with the underlying purpose of legal help (§120)
6. Expressed doubt over the suggestion by the LAA that the sufficient benefit test for legal help might not be met if P is already represented by an experienced Rule 3A representative (§121)
7. Expressed the view that the use of legal help is not a viable option because of the level of payments (§123)
8. Accepted the Law Society’s evidence about the difficulties in increasing the number of matter starts (§124).
9. Warned of the dangers to local authorities of relying on a welfare order that is not underpinned by a fair procedure (§133).

In a separate judgment, Re VE [2016] EWCOP 16, Charles J endorsed a useful guidance note for family members contemplating acting as Rule 3A representatives, explaining their role and responsibilities.

 

Court of Protection Handbook Second Edition – your chance to make a difference

We are setting the wheels in motion to produce a second edition of the Court of Protection Handbook by the end of the year.   We think we know what we need to cover – not least all the exciting developments such as the Case Management Pilot – but we would very much like to hear from you with suggestions of what we need to make sure we add (or conversely, what we can lose).   All answers on an electronic postcard please to courtofprotectionhandbook@gmail.com.

Case Management Pilot Draft published

The long-awaited case management pilot has now been published in draft form for comment and consideration before it goes live in June of this year. There will be more analysis of it and of its implications in next month’s Mental Capacity Law Newsletter, but and very brief terms of pilot envisages very clear pathways for health and welfare cases, property and affairs cases, and mixed cases.

In all cases, the pilot Case Management Direction will place an obligation on applicants to provide improved analysis of the issues at the start of a case, allowing for more robust case management decisions to be taken at the outset and all issues to be identified at the earliest opportunity in proceedings. It will also seek to encourage early resolution of cases, to reduce the number and length of hearings required in contested cases and to promote judicial continuity. The pilot is expected to run for up to 12 months.

Separately, and also to start in June, a pilot has been published to tighten up the  relating to s.49 reports. The pilot aims to ensure that such reports from public bodies are attained in a proportionate, targeted and, above all, useful fashion.  

Transparency guidance on anonymisation updated

Following feedback that the procedure being adopted to ensure that parties were anonymised was perhaps a little too over-zealous, new guidance has been issued.   If further issues such as these are identified, the guidance accompanying the pilot will no doubt be subject to further amendment in due course as all those involved continue to find their feet.

[Update 25 February, this guidance is going to be further updated in light of an ambiguity brought to the attention of the relevant authorities so we have removed the link for the time being]

When to find facts?

The President of the Court of Protection Sir James Munby has handed down judgment in an appeal against an order of HHJ Rogers, in the case of AG.

AG had a moderate learning disability and autistic spectrum disorder.  She was removed from her home, where she held a tenancy, on 16 November 2011 in the context of a breakdown of care arrangements.  AG was supported by a package of care and the removal was preceded by allegations and counter-allegations by DG, AG’s mother and the care staff.   She was placed in residential care and an authorisation under schedule A1 MCA 2005 was granted.  on 24 November an application to the Court of Protection was made.

On 2 November 2012 HHJ Rogers approved the local authority’s plan which was to move AG from residential into semi-supported accommodation and by the time of the final hearing on 3 September 2013 AG had moved into a supported placement.  The final order followed a contested hearing with evidence from the independent social worker, DG and the allocated social worker.

The final order named the local authority as the decision-maker in respect of AG’s contact with her family, approved the proposed plan for AG’s supervised contact with DG to be increased and the level of supervision decreased, granted the local authority the power to enter and terminate a tenancy on AG’s behalf and made declarations as to AG’s capacity and best interests.  It was in AG’s best interests to reside in her current accommodation or “such other accommodation as may be identified by the local authority”, to receive a care package in accordance with her assessed needs and to have contact with her family in accordance with her wishes and feelings and the local authority’s contact plan.

DG appealed on four grounds all of which failed.   Perhaps the most significant for practitioners is the second ground- the complaint that the judge failed to make findings of fact.

DG’s position will resonate with many family members in Court of Protection proceedings where there is a background of allegations, which may or may not have been the subject of conclusions in safeguarding procedures, but which are never determined by the court.

DG argued that in the absence of a fact-finding procedure violated her rights under Article 8 ECHR.  The President’s conclusions are set out below:

  1. Further, it is said by Mr Dixon that, in failing to make findings of fact, Judge Rogers was wrong in law given: (i) the obligation under section 4(2) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to consider all the relevant circumstances; (ii) the presence in this case of what are said to be a multitude of factors recognised in law as justifying the need for a fact finding hearing; (iii) the fact that the issue of contact was, it is said, inextricably linked with the allegations of abuse; (iv) the inconsistency of the local authority’s stance – professing to have no need for a fact finding hearing yet relying upon the allegations; and (v) that the failure to make such findings amounted to a procedural violation of Article 8. DG, it is said, was entitled to a hearing at which she could seek to be exonerated.
  2. In support of contention (ii), Mr Dixon placed reliance on the decisions of McFarlane J in A County Council v DP, RS, BS (By the Children’s Guardian) [2005] EWHC 1593 (Fam), [2005] 2 FLR 1031, para 24, and in Re W (Care Proceedings) [2008] EWHC 1118 (Fam), [2010] 1 FLR 1176, para 72, and the decision of Cobb J in LBX v TT (By the Official Solicitor as her Litigation Friend), MJ, WT, LT [2014] EWCOP 24, paras 49-50.

 

24. In the first of these cases, McFarlane J, as he then was, had to consider whether to direct a fact finding hearing in the context of care proceedings where by that stage no party was seeking any public law order. He identified the relevant authorities before summarising matters thus (para 24):

“The authorities make it plain that, amongst other factors, the following are likely to be relevant and need to be borne in mind before deciding whether or not to conduct a particular fact finding exercise:

(a) the interests of the child (which are relevant but not paramount);

  1. (b)  the time that the investigation will take;
  2. (c)  the likely cost to public funds;
  3. (d)  the evidential result;
  4. (e)  the necessity or otherwise of the investigation;
  5. (f)  the relevance of the potential result of the investigation

to the future care plans for the child;

(g) the impact of any fact finding process upon the other parties;

  1. (h)  the prospects of a fair trial on the issue;
  2. (i)  the justice of the case.”
  1. Proper application of these principles in the circumstances of the present case – and those circumstances were carefully analysed by reference to each of the factors identified by McFarlane J – clearly pointed, Mr Dixon says, to the need for a fact finding hearing. The argument was further bolstered by what the same judge had said in Re W (para 72):“It is important that the planning in the future for these children … is based upon as correct a view of what happened to R as possible. It is not in the children’s interests, or in the interests of justice, or in the interests of the two adults, for the finding to be based on an erroneous basis. It is also in the interests of all of the children that are before this court for the mother’s role to be fully understood and investigated.”
  2. Furthermore, as Mr Dixon pointed out, in LBX Cobb J accepted the submission (see paras 39, 49) that, suitably modified, these principles could be appropriately transported from the Family Division to the Court of Protection as providing a useful framework of issues to consider in relation to the necessity of fact finding in the jurisdiction of the Court of Protection.

 

  1. In support of contention (v), Mr Dixon prays in aid McMichael v United Kingdom (1995) 20 EHRR 205, paras 87, 91, and R (B) v Crown Court at Stafford [2006] EWHC 1645 (Admin), [2007] 1 WLR 1524, para 23. In the latter case, May LJ said this:“… the court will have regard to the decision-making process to determine whether it has been conducted in a manner that, in all the circumstances, is fair and affords due respect to the interests protected by article 8. The process must be such as to secure that the views of those whose rights are in issue are made known and duly taken account of. What has to be determined is whether, having regard to the particular circumstances of the case and notably the serious nature of the decisions to be taken, the person whose rights are in issue has been involved in the decision making process, seen as a whole, to a degree sufficient to provide them with the requisite protection of their interests. If they have not, there will be a failure to respect their family life and privacy and the interference resulting from the decision will not be capable of being regarded as “necessary” within the meaning of article 8.”
  2. In answer to this, the local authority and the Official Solicitor make common cause. Their arguments contain five essential strands.
  3. First, as Ms Khalique points out, by reference to the decision of Wall J, as he then was, in Re S (Adult’s Lack of Capacity: Care and Residence) [2003] EWHC 1909 (Fam), [2003] 2 FLR 1235, para 13, it is important to remember that, unlike in the case of care proceedings in relation to a child, there is no requirement to establish ‘threshold’ in the case of proceedings in relation to an adult, whether the proceedings are brought in the High Court under the inherent jurisdiction or, as here, in the Court of Protection.
  4. Wall J went on to point out (para 15) that the absence of any threshold criteria equivalent to those contained in section 31 of the Children Act 1989, “raises the question as to the extent to which (if at all) it is necessary, for the purposes of exercising the jurisdiction and deciding which course of action is in the best interests of S, to make findings of fact relating in particular to disputed historical issues.” His answer was as follows (paras 18, 21):

“18 … I agree that there must be good reason for local authority intervention in a case such as the present. Equally, if there are disputed issues of fact which go to the question of Mr S’s capacity and suitability to care for S, the court may need to resolve them if their resolution is necessary to the decision as to what is in S’s best interests. Findings of fact against Mr S on the two issues identified in para [16] would plainly reflect upon his capacity properly to care for S. But it does not follow, in my judgment, that the proceedings must be dismissed simply because the factual basis upon which the local authority instituted them turns out to be mistaken, or because it cannot be established on the balance of probabilities. What matters (assuming always that mental incapacity is made out) is which outcome will be in S’s best interests. There will plainly be cases which are very fact specific. There will be others in which the principal concern is the future, and the relative suitability of the plans which each party can put forward for both the short and long-term care of the mentally incapable adult. The instant case, in my judgment, is one of the cases in the latter category.

21 Whilst I acknowledge that in a relatively untried jurisdiction there are dangers in too relaxed an approach to historical issues, I am unable to accept the proposition that the approach to best interests is fettered in any way beyond that which applies to any judicial decision, namely that it has to be evidence based; that it excludes irrelevant material; and that it includes a consideration of all relevant material. In a field as complex as care for the mentally disabled, a high degree of pragmatism seems to me inevitable. But in each case it seems to me that the four essential building blocks are the same. First, is mental incapacity established? Secondly, is there a serious, justiciable issue relating to welfare? Thirdly, what is it? Fourthly, with the welfare of the incapable adult as the court’s paramount consideration, what are the balance sheet factors which must be drawn up to decide which course of action is in his or her best interests?”

31.   I respectfully agree with that analysis.

 

  1. Accordingly, it is submitted, the analyses of McFarlane J and Cobb J relied upon by Mr Dixon, have to be read in the context of the overarching principles articulated by Wall J, which, it is submitted, fully justified the approach adopted by Judge Rogers in the present case. I agree.
  2. Secondly, as both Ms Lattimer and Ms Khalique emphasise, Judge Rogers was careful to spell out, and accurately, both in the order of 23 July 2012 and in the passage from his judgment of 2 November 2012 which I have set out in paragraph 19 above, the legal consequences of there having been no fact finding hearing. It is worth repeating, and emphasising, part of what he said:“I bear in mind, however, that those allegations … are strongly denied by DG and, applying a normal approach to the forensic fact finding enquiry, in the absence of the specific findings. I do not hold them in the background as it were by way of a suspicion lurking over DG.”Moreover, there is, they say, nothing whatever to show that this was not in fact the approach adopted by Judge Rogers, both in November 2012 and subsequently in September 2013. Again, I agree.
  1. Thirdly, as Ms Lattimer correctly observes, the decision of Judge Rogers not to have a fact finding hearing must be viewed in context – a context in which, not least in the light of DG’s own stated position, matters had by July 2012 moved on significantly since November 2011. As Ms Khalique puts it, although the proceedings had been issued against the background of the safeguarding concerns arising out of the various allegations, matters had progressed and the court was faced with a different landscape. Judge Rogers correctly recognised that he was looking at the present position and looking to the future. Given how matters then stood, the degree of enquiry undertaken by Judge Rogers during the hearing in October / November 2012 was, says Ms Lattimer, entirely sufficient to inform the decisions in respect of future planning for AG that the court was tasked with making. A lengthy and costly finding of fact hearing would, she submits, have been entirely disproportionate. I agree.
  2. Fourthly, there is, Ms Lattimer submits, and I agree, nothing to suggest that Mr M’s analyses and recommendations were adversely influenced by the allegations.
  3. Finally, as both Ms Lattimer and Ms Khalique point out, DG never sought to challenge on appeal either the order of 23 July 2013 or the order of 2 November 2012. It is far too late to be taking the point now.
  4. In my judgment, Judge Rogers was fully entitled to proceed as he did and for the reasons he gave. I accept Ms Lattimer and Ms Khalique’s submissions.
  5. This ground of appeal fails.

The President rejected DG’s argument that by the time of the final hearing AG’s residence was a fait accompli.  He further rejected the argument that the contact arrangements breached DG’s Article 8 rights, and commented that the judge’s measured findings on this issue were founded in the evidence before him and demonstrated that he had put aside the unresolved allegations against DG.  The President found that DJ Rogers had been appropriately sensitive to balancing AG’s needs and wishes against her mother’s understandable wish to increase contact with her daughter.

He concluded with an important final observation

  1. Ms Khalique submits, and I am inclined to agree, that the local authority acted unlawfully in removing AG from OG in November 2011 and placing her at HH without having first obtained judicial sanction. Local authorities must seek and obtain appropriate judicial authority before moving an incapacitous adult from their home into other accommodation. Local authorities do not themselves have power to do this.

Comment:

This is a clear judgment which builds on the comments made in LBX v TT. The President’s conclusions are not surprising in light of the authorities.  His underlining of the distinction between COP cases and care cases- where there is a threshold- may lead to fewer cases in the COP sphere involving fact-finding hearings.  It is hard however not to sympathise with the desire of those like DG to be able to clear their name in these cases.

The clear statement that local authorities “do not have the power” to remove an incapacitous adult from “their home into other accommodation” is important and may raise the question as to when somewhere becomes “home” for an adult lacking capacity.

We’ve come over all pink – the revised 1st edition of the COPH now out!

We are delighted to announce that a revised first edition of the Court of Protection Handbook is now available, in a frisky pink.  It contains the Court of Protection Rules as amended by the 2015 changes, updated precedent orders, and supplementary commentary highlighting the key changes brought about the 2015 rules changes.   It is available from the LAG bookshop, for £55.

For those of you who already own the book, you can get a supplement – free! – including all the new material, by emailing lag@lag.org.uk.   There are also a limited number of free copies of the supplement available to all comers at the same email address.

Do also remember to visit the COPH website for updates to the main body of the book and all sorts of useful other material such as downloadable (free) Word versions of precedent orders and PDs that are actually locatable (by contrast with the position on the .gov website).

Transparency Pilot Going Live!

This important pilot will start in early 2016.  The majority of hearings will be heard in public, with steps taken to preserve the anonymity of P and P’s family.

 

The link below gives details as to the pilot with links to the new Practice Directions and precedent orders:

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/announcements/court-of-protection-to-test-increased-access-for-public-and-media/

Practitioners will need to ensure their clients are aware of these changes.  The criteria against which the success of this pilot will be assessed will be important as will the methods used to assess it.  We will provide more information as soon as we are able.