Updates

Revision as of 14:22, 29 January 2019 by Jonathan (talk | contribs)

If you have anything which is not yet on the internet (e.g. court results or transcripts) then please send it in (see Help page). As well as reading the website, you can keep up to date by subscribing to the CPD scheme, email updates, email discussion list, and the various other options listed at the top of each page.

Recent updates on website

For details of any news item, click on the relevant link below.


  • 18/09/19
    (2122)
    : Event. PELT: Advanced course for Mental Health Act Administrators (Hoylake, 11/3/20) —"This course assumes basic knowledge and experience and will examine the many demands of the job and provide some effective and legal coping mechanisms. In addition to the MHA, the Code and the Regulations, the course will analyse the relevance and implications of case law. It will also look at how the MCA and DoLs dovetail into the MHA. The course will enable a group of experienced MHAAs to get together and share both the demands of the job and some solutions." Price: £125 plus VAT (£150). See [Price: £125 plus VAT (£150). See Peter Edwards Law Training website for further details and booking information. Peter Edwards Law Training website] for further details and booking information.
  • 16/09/19
    (2236)
    : Case (Validity of will). Parsonage v Parsonage [2019] EWHC 2362 (Ch) — " The validity of the 2011 Will is challenged by D1 on the grounds that BP lacked capacity (1) to know and understand the nature and effect of the 2011 Will, (2) to know and understand the size of her estate, and/or (3) to know and appreciate the claims to which she ought to give effect. The underlying factual basis of the challenge is the severity or extent of BP's dementia and the circumstances in which the 2011 Will was prepared and executed."
  • 16/09/19
    (2200)
    : Event. MHLA: 20th Annual Conference - Birmingham, 22/11/19 —Speakers: Legal Aid Agency; Sir Simon Wessely ('The MHA Review'); Natalya O’Prey ('Secretary of State - improving the Restricted Patient system'); Sarah Johnston DCP ('HMCTS Update'); Dr Harinder Bains; Tam Gill & Laura Janes ('Case law and practice update'). Chaired by Kate Tyrrell. Price: £230 (non-member), £160 (member), £145 (groups of three or more members). See MHLA website for further information and booking details.
  • 16/09/19
    (2152)
    : Event. RAB: AMHP Refresher and Re-approval course - London, 25/11/19 to 27/11/19 —This 3-day course is based near London Bridge station at the London Boroughs' training venue. It prepares AMHPs for re-approval as well as providing 18 hours' training to meet the annual regulations requirement. Speakers: Rob Brown and Christine Hutchison. Cost £400 + VAT. Contact Rob Brown on robbrown@btinternet.com for further details and booking information.
  • 10/09/19
    (1202)
    : Event. MHLA: Panel course - London, 28/10/19 and 29/10/19 —The MHLA is an approved provider of the two-day course which must be attended by prospective members of the Law Society’s mental health accreditation scheme. Price: £300 (MHLA members); £390 (non-members); £270 (group discount). See MHLA website for further details and to book online.
  • 10/09/19
    (1155)
    : Event. MHLA: Refresher and reaccreditation - Leeds, 2/10/19 —This course will be suitable for those seeking re-accreditation, by: (a) reviewing the legal and procedural developments of the last three years; (b) providing a forum for discussing these along with the re-accreditation process; (c) fulfilling the requirement to obtain six mental health CPD points for re-accreditation. Price: £150 (£195 for non-members). See MHLA website for for further details and booking information.
  • 05/09/19
    (2139)
    : Event. Manchester University/AMHPA: Taking Stock conference - Manchester, 15/11/19 —Taking Stock is an annual national conference jointly promoted by the Approved Mental Health Professionals Association (North West England and North Wales) and the University of Manchester (the Applied Mental Health programme and the School of Law). Speakers: Neil Allen (keynote presentation); Prof Barbara Taylor (The Last Asylum: memories of late 20th century mental health care); Prof Nav Kapur (Risk, recession, mental health services and suicide); Mark Trewin (Update on the work of the Office of the Chief Social Worker); Jake Mills (Compere and update on the Hub of Hope and Chasing the Stigma campaign). Price: £100. For further details and booking information, see the Eventbrite web page.
  • 30/08/19
    (2010)
    : Case (Complaint about community care delay). Derbyshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust (17 012 839a) [2019] MHLO 44 (LGSCO)LGSCO's summary: "The Ombudsmen do not consider Derbyshire County Council and Derbyshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust delayed providing support for Mrs X’s mental health needs. We have not found fault with the way the Council decided what support she needed. The Ombudsmen consider Derbyshire County Council delayed completing Mr X’s carer assessment and should have considered carrying out an integrated assessment with Mrs X. However, it has remedied the distress Mr X suffered."
  • 22/08/19
    (2302)
    : Trust fined for failing to provide safe care and treatment. CQC, 'Avon & Wiltshire Mental Health Partnership fined £80,000 after patient is injured falling from hospital roof' (21/8/19) — Extract from press release: "The risk of the low roof at Applewood Ward had been highlighted in previous annual risk assessments since 2011. The outcome was that the risk should be managed through staff observation. CQC believe this was an inappropriate and inadequate response to the risk posed to all service users by this low roof. In 2015 there were 28 direct references to the low roof in the garden of Applewood Ward between January and December at seven different Trust forums. The Trust was also aware that numerous other service users had been able to access the low roof prior to the service user’s fall in January 2016. The trust was fined £80,000 for failing to provide safe care and treatment and putting patient at risk of avoidable harm. It was also ordered to pay the prosecution costs of £12,033.96 and a £170 victim surcharge."
  • 22/08/19
    (2256)
    : Case (Failure to carry out carer's assessment). Rotherham Doncaster & South Humber NHS Foundation Trust (18 010 101a) [2019] MHLO 43 (LGSCO)LGSCO's summary of decision: "The Trust and Council were at fault in not carrying out a carer’s assessment and not involving Mrs S during her husband’s period of treatment. There was also fault in record-keeping and delays in responding to the complaint. These failings caused an injustice to Mrs S as she lost the opportunity for additional support and is likely to have suffered additional distress. The Trust and Council have already taken action to address these failings and improve processes. The Trust and Council have agreed to pay Mrs S financial redress and the Trust has agreed to monitor and report on improvements in its complaints handling."
  • 20/08/19
    (2238)
    : DOLS statistics. NHS Digital, 'Mental Capacity Act 2005, Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards England, 2017-18' (2/10/18) — Extract from NHS Digital summary: "This official statistics report provides the findings from the Mental Capacity Act 2005, Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) data collection for the period 1 April 2017 to 31 March 2018. ... The report looks at aspects of DoLS activity, including the profile of people for whom a DoLS application was received, applications completed and their outcome, and applications not completed. The data tables and interactive business intelligence tool published alongside the report present further analyses and breakdowns of the data, including breakdowns by local authority."
  • 19/08/19
    (2315)
    : Case (Pregnancy - OS out-of-hours representation). Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust v X [2019] EWCOP 35 — (1) Official Solicitor's lack of out-of-hours service: "... I invite the Official Solicitor to urgently review this position and consider putting in place arrangements that will ensure appropriate representation out of normal court hours for those individuals who are the subject of urgent applications that potentially involve serious medical treatment. ... [E]very effort must be made to issue such applications during normal court hours." (2) Pregnancy: "Having considered the submissions of the parties there is, in my judgment, in accordance with s 48 Mental Capacity Act 2005, reason to believe that X lacks capacity in relation to the matter, namely the medical intervention that may be necessary for X to give birth to a baby who is safe and well. On the evidence the court has from Dr Y, which I accept, his assessment is X is unable to reconcile her conflicting beliefs (on the one hand of wanting a natural birth and also wanting a live, well and safely born baby) in a way that she is able to balance the pros and cons. Additionally, there is, in my judgment, a real risk the position is unlikely to change and is more likely to deteriorate. He concluded X showed limited insight in relation to her previous mental ill- health. I have carefully considered the submissions on behalf of the Official Solicitor regarding capacity but looking at all the evidence and information available to the court I am satisfied the interim declaration should be made."
  • 16/08/19
    (2332)
    : Event. Edge Training: Liberty Protection Safeguards - London, 13/12/19 —"This one day course aims to provide a detailed analysis of the Liberty Protection Safeguards. The course considers the differences between DoLS and LPS and looks at what the new process will be and who will be affected." Steven Richards. Cost: £150 plus VAT. See Edge website for further details and booking information.
  • 16/08/19
    (2328)
    : Event. Edge Training: BIA Legal Update (Annual Refresher) - London, 8/11/19 —"This course aims to provide an essential update on case law in relation to the role of the BIA. Learning outcomes: (1) Consider the latest DoLS news, research and guidance; (2) Examine the latest case law relevant to DoLS and the BIA role; (3) Reflect on how the information covered affects BIA practice." Speaker: Aasya Mughal. Cost: £150.00 plus VAT. See Edge website for further details and booking information.
  • 16/08/19
    (2315)
    : LPS glossary. Edge Training, 'Liberty Protection Safeguards: Jargon Buster' (18/6/19) — Edge's summary of this document is as follows: "The Edge LPS Jargon Buster provides a detailed explanation of terms used in LPS such as ‘condition’ (used in a number of different ways), reviews, determinations and the relevant person (did you know the same term can relate to three different roles?)"
  • 16/08/19
    (2311)
    : Event. Edge Training: Best Interests Assessors Legal Update (Annual Refresher) - London, 16/9/19 —"This course aims to provide an essential update on case law in relation to the role of the BIA. Learning outcomes: (1) Consider the latest DoLS news, research and guidance; (2) Examine the latest case law relevant to DoLS and the BIA role; (3) Reflect on how the information covered affects BIA practice." Speaker: Aasya Mughal. Cost: £150.00 plus VAT. See Edge website for further details and booking information.
  • 16/08/19
    (2308)
    : Event. Edge Training: DOLS Mental Health Assessors Annual Refresher Course - London, 27/9/19 —"This refresher course has been designed to meet the needs of DoLS Mental Health Assessors. It will cover key topics that cause uncertainty or dilemmas for MH Assessors and go over the main basic requirements of this challenging role. Common Mental Health Act and DoLS interface issues will also be addressed such as the law around the provision of mental health treatment under DoLS." Speaker: Aasya Mughal. Cost: £195.00 plus VAT. See Edge website for further details and booking information.
  • 16/08/19
    (2306)
    : Event. Edge Training: Best Interests Assessors Legal Update (Annual Refresher) - London, 7/10/19 —"This course aims to provide an essential update on case law in relation to the role of the BIA. Learning outcomes: (1) Consider the latest DoLS news, research and guidance; (2) Examine the latest case law relevant to DoLS and the BIA role; (3) Reflect on how the information covered affects BIA practice." Speaker: Steven Richards. Cost: £150.00 plus VAT. See Edge website for further details and booking information.
  • 16/08/19
    (2304)
    : Event. Edge Training: Mental Capacity and Best Interests Assessments (Advanced) - London, 1/11/19 —"This course considers practice issues under the Mental Capacity Act such as record keeping, disputes, unwise decisions and balancing risk. The course also conveniently disseminates the body of court judgments that apply to mental capacity assessments and best interests. It looks at some of the more complex cases around special issues in assessing capacity such as risk taking, contact, serious treatment, residence, vulnerable people and the inherent jurisdiction. The judgments used are selected to be most useful to health and social care staff and will provide a practical knowledge base they can refer to in daily practice." Speaker: Aasya Mughal. Cost: £150.00 plus VAT. See Edge website for further details and booking information.
  • 16/08/19
    (2300)
    : Event. Edge Training: Sexual relations, contraception, marriage and restricting contact: Article 8 and the MCA - London, 29/11/19 —"This one day course is designed to enable participants to understand mental capacity in these sensitive areas. Participants will gain awareness of the relevant case law in relation to capacity and (where relevant) best interests decision making. Guidance will be offered on the steps to take where an individual lacks capacity to consent in these areas, to ensure that they are adequately safeguarded, and legal obligations are met." Speaker: Steven Richards. Cost: £150.00 plus VAT. See Edge website for further details and booking information.
  • 13/08/19
    (2121)
    : Event. Northumbria University: The Legal Research Agenda for Medicine, Capacity and Mental Health: A Gap Analysis - Newcastle, 2/9/19 —"A Northumbria University Law School and North East Court of Protection Practitioners Association event, funded by the Society of Legal Scholars. The all day event will critically explore research gaps domestically and internationally in medical and mental health legislation and related practices. An overarching purpose of this research event is to effect advantageous change to the position of practitioners and patients in the medical and mental health context, including those involved in the criminal justice system. Speakers include leading academics and practitioners well placed to describe the shortcomings of the current legal system that they work within. Full details are contained in the programme." Free Admission. Register online to confirm your place and to access the full programme of events.
  • 13/08/19
    (2108)
    : Event. PELT: Advanced course for Mental Health Act Administrators - Hoylake, 11/9/19 —"This course assumes basic knowledge and experience and will examine the many demands of job and provide some effective and legal coping mechanisms. In addition to the MHA, the Code and the Regulations the course will analyse the relevance and implications of case law. It will also look at how the MCA and DoLs dovetail into the MHA. The course will enable a group of experienced MHAAs to get together and share both the demands of the job and some solutions." Price: £125 plus VAT (£150). See Peter Edwards Law Training website for further details and booking information.
  • 13/08/19
    (2106)
    : Event. PELT: Introduction to the MHA - Hoylake, 16/10/19 —"The basic course is for all those who need an understanding of the MHA and Code and how it works in practice. It is aimed at all those whose work involves working with those detained, or who may be detained, under the MHA." Price: £125 plus VAT (£150). See Peter Edwards Law Training website for further details and booking information.
  • 13/08/19
    (2105)
    : Event. PELT: Introduction to MCA and DOLS - Hoylake, 29/10/19 —"Intensive introduction to all those who need a basic understanding of the MCA and DOLS. Identifying the ‘decision maker’ as the person responsible for the outcome of that particular decision is the key to lawful decision making on behalf of those who lack capacity. Realising that depriving a person of their liberty removes the legal protection given to decision makers unless the deprivation is ‘prescribed by law’ catches many people out." Price: £125 plus VAT (£150). See Peter Edwards Law Training website for further details and booking information.
  • 13/08/19
    (2103)
    : Event. PELT: Depriving Children and Young People of their Liberty Lawfully - Hoylake, 20/11/19 —"Supreme Court Re D (Parents authorising DoL?) Where do new LPS fit in? DoLs start at 18. MCA 16. MHA no minimum age for detention. How to lawfully deprive a C or YP of their liberty requires great care. What is a DoL and where does parental responsibility fit? The course looks at the complex inter relationship between the MCA, MHA and Children Act. When should a child or young person be sectioned? What alternatives are there? Where does s.25 Children Act (secure accommodation) fit in?" Price: £125 plus VAT (£150). See Peter Edwards Law Training website for further details and booking information.
  • 13/08/19
    (2102)
    : Event. PELT: Mental Health Act Masterclass - Legal Update - Hoylake, 27/11/19 —This course will allow practitioners to reflect on and update their practice by ensuring they have an up to date understanding of the law. The contents of the course will be up to date and reflect any changes or significant developments which affect lawful practice. To include relationship between MHA and LPS. Price: £125 plus VAT (£150). See Peter Edwards Law Training website for further details and booking information.
  • 13/08/19
    (2100)
    : Event. PELT: Introduction to using COP including s21A Appeals - Hoylake, 28/11/19 —The Court of Protection has a very wide ambit potential touching the lives of many vulnerable people. It is now the place where deprivation of liberty safeguards and procedures are authorised or challenged and where arguments about capacity or adult protection and best interests are resolved. It is essential that all those working with vulnerable people / safeguarding have an understanding of how to access and use the Court. In certain circumstances there is a legal obligation on authorities to apply to the Court. Price: £125 plus VAT (£150). See Peter Edwards Law Training website for further details and booking information.
  • 13/08/19
    (2056)
    : Event. PELT: COP/MCA Masterclass - Legal Update - Hoylake, 12/12/19 —Reviews recent developments in Court of Protection cases. It will include the latest CoP cases on deprivation of liberty, capacity, health and welfare, legal aid and treatment and what practitioners can learn from these cases that will promote effective and lawful practice. The developing role of ALRs and how can they be utilised and what will be the implications for litigation friends and IMCAs? Price: £125 plus VAT (£150). See Peter Edwards Law Training website for further details and booking information.
  • 10/08/19
    (2218)
    : Case (Serious medical treatment - delay in making application). Royal Bournemouth and Christchurch Hospitals NHSFT v SE [2018] EWCOP 45 — "Whilst, of course, it is understood emergencies do arise, in this case the emergency was due to the failure to have any effective system in place for securing legal advice for clinicians in the Trusts. I hope that the procedures now put in place (as set out at the end of this judgment) will be replicated elsewhere to avoid this situation happening again. ... [H]er best interests will be met by this court endorsing the Order that has been agreed and giving the applicants permission to be able to carry out the procedures set out in paragraph 4, namely the amputation of her right leg ...
  • 10/08/19
    (2204)
    : Case (Failure to carry out DOLS assessments). Staffordshire County Council (18 004 809) [2019] MHLO 41 (LGSCO) — LGSCO decision: "The Council has acted with fault in deciding not to assess low and medium priority Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards applications. The Council is also taking too long to deal with urgent applications. This is causing a potential injustice to the thousands of people in its area who are being deprived of their liberty without the proper checks that the restrictions they are subject to are in their best interests." The final sentence of the conclusion states: "[I]t is not acceptable that the only way low and medium priority applications are resolved is because the people involved move away or die."
  • 09/08/19
    (0038)
    : Summary of Blavo case. Paul Bracchi, 'How DID they let this legal aid lawyer con us all out of £22m?' (Daily Mail, 11/1/19) — The following quotation is from this detailed article: "In another ludicrous example, investigators found that the mental health facility in question had closed (in 2008) and burnt down (in 2010), so was not operational at the time the tribunal supposedly took place. The officials who checked this nonsense must have wondered if the person who put it on paper was a solicitor or a comedian."
  • 01/08/19
    (2320)
    : Case (Non-legal research by judge). JG v Kent and Medway NHS and Social Care Partnership Trust [2019] UKUT 187 (AAC)Judicial summary from gov.uk website: "Mental Health First-tier Tribunal - Judicial Bias - Apparent bias - Breach of Natural Justice - Procedural Irregularity. Where a First-tier Tribunal judge undertook non-legal research by accessing a court of appeal judgment in respect of the appellant, did this lead to a presumption of bias and automatic disqualification? Did it lead to a conclusion of a real possibility of bias? Whether so doing amounts to a procedural irregularity leading to a breach of natural justice in that it rendered the hearing unfair. In the circumstances appertaining there can be no presumption of bias leading to automatic disqualification. On the facts of the case there was no real possibility of bias. Undertaking the non-legal research was a procedural irregularity but on the facts the hearing was not unfair."
  • 01/08/19
    (2257)
    : MHCS targets. HMPPS, 'Mental Health Casework Section and NHS England - joint performance management framework and target timescales 2019/20' (1/8/19) — This document presents target timescales for the Mental Health Casework Section to consider key decisions for restricted patients. The targets, measured in calendar days from receipt of application to decision issued, are: (1) prison transfer, 5 days; (2) remission to prison, 7 days; (3) hospital transfer - trial leave from high to medium secure, 28 days; (4) hospital transfer - downgrade in security, excluding high to medium, 28 days; (5) hospital transfer, level, 14 days; (6) hospital transfer, upgrade, 7 days; (7) community leave, escorted day, 28 days; (8) community leave, unescorted day, 35 days; (9) community leave, overnight, 35 days; (10) community leave, long-term escorted leave, 35 days; (11) conditional discharge, 28 days; (12) absolute discharge, 28 days; (13) recall, same day. Compassionate and medical leave have not been included in this set of targets; where cases are urgent, they remain at 24 hours.
  • 01/08/19
    (0046)
    : Event. Edge Training: BIA Legal Update (Annual Refresher) - London, 16/12/19 —This course aims to provide an essential update on case law in relation to the role of the BIA. Learning outcomes: (1) Consider the latest DoLS news, research and guidance; (2) Examine the latest case law relevant to DoLS and the BIA role; (3) Reflect on how the information covered affects BIA practice Speaker: Steven Richards. Cost: £150.00 plus VAT. See Edge website for further details and booking information.
  • 01/08/19
    (0043)
    : Event. Edge Training: MCA and Tenancy Agreements - London, 16/12/19 —This course will consider how staff should assess mental capacity in relation to tenancy agreements and the key case law in this area. It will also consider the legal validity of tenancy agreements signed by, or on behalf of, those lacking capacity; and when people lacking capacity may be placed without a tenancy agreement being in place. Speaker: Aasya Mughal. Cost: £150.00 plus VAT. See Edge website for further details and booking information.
  • 01/08/19
    (0041)
    : Event. Edge Training: 2019 AMHP Conference - London, 6/12/19 —We are pleased to announce that booking for the 2019 AMHP conference is now open. This one-day conference explores issues relevant to AMHP practice. The full list of Speakers and Programme will be confirmed closer to the date. Cost: £150.00 plus VAT (group discount available). See Edge website for further details and booking information.
  • 01/08/19
    (0039)
    : Event. Edge Training: DOLS MH Assessors Annual Refresher Course - London, 2/12/19 —This refresher course has been designed to meet the needs of DoLS Mental Health Assessors. It will cover key topics that cause uncertainty or dilemmas for MH Assessors and go over the main basic requirements of this challenging role. Common Mental Health Act and DoLS interface issues will also be addressed such as the law around the provision of mental health treatment under DoLS. Speaker: Aasya Mughal. Cost: £195.00 plus VAT. See Edge website for further details and booking information.
  • 01/08/19
    (0037)
    : Event. Edge Training: Hoarding and the Law - London, 29/11/19 —This one-day interactive course for mental health and social care professionals reviews the different manifestations of hoarding and the possible origins of this behaviour, and then considers a range of possible responses under the law and where each one might be appropriate. Speaker: Simon Foster. Cost: £150.00 plus VAT. See Edge website for further details and booking information.
  • 01/08/19
    (0035)
    : Event. Edge Training: DOL, Children and Young People - London, 25/11/19 —This course aims to update staff working with children, young people and those in transition with the latest case law and developments in relation to deprivation of liberty. The course will consider these developments and the impact on practice. It examines the Supreme Court ruling on deprivation of liberty and considers practical issues in its application for children and young people. Speaker: Dawn Revell. Cost: £150.00 plus VAT. See Edge website for further details and booking information.
  • 01/08/19
    (0033)
    : Event. Edge Training: DOLS Authorised Signatories Training - London, 18/11/19 —This course aims to provide guidance on the role of signatories and to update designated signatories in relation to the latest case law around their specific role within the DOLS procedures. Please note: this course is not designed for BIAs but specifically the role of local authority managers acting as authorised signatories. Speaker: Steven Richards. Cost: £150.00 plus VAT. See Edge website for further details and booking information.
  • 01/08/19
    (0025)
    : Event. Edge Training: BIA Report Writing - London, 8/11/19 —This course is targeted specifically at qualified Best Interests Assessors (BIAs) and aims to provide them with the knowledge and skills needed to ensure robust and legally defensible assessments under the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguarding (DoLS). Speaker: Piers McNeil. Price: £150 plus VAT. See Edge website for further details and booking information.
  • 01/08/19
    (0020)
    : Event. Edge Training: Liberty Protection Safeguards - London, 4/10/19 —This one day conference will go through the new rules; how to prepare and plan ahead and will also consider the concerns and challenges which will need to be addressed. A central focus of the conference will be the rights of vulnerable incapacitated people and how front line staff can ensure they are best protected under the new rules. Speakers: Anselm Eldergill (Court of Protection Judge); Dr Lucy Series (Researcher, Cardiff Law School); Steven Richards (Edge Director & Author of the DoLS Handbook); Ian Brownhill (Court of Protection Barrister); Mr E (Carer of HL in the Bournewood judgment). Chair: Aasya F Mughal (Edge Director & Author of the DoLS Handbook). Cost: £155 plus VAT (10% group discount). See Edge website for further details and booking information.
  • 26/07/19
    (2140)
    : Case (Oral tribunal decision). PAA v SSHD [2019] UKUT 13 (IAC)The UT's summary of this judgment is as follows: "(1) In accordance with rule 29(1) the First-tier Tribunal may give a decision orally at a hearing. (2) If it does so, that is the decision on the appeal, and the effect of Patel v SSHD [2015] EWCA Civ 1175! is that there is no power to revise or revoke the decision later. The requirement to give written reasons does not mean that reasons are required in order to perfect the decision. (3) If the written decision, when issued, is inconsistent with the oral decision, both decisions, being decisions of the Tribunal, stand until set aside by a court of competent jurisdiction; but neither party is entitled to enforce either decision until the matter has been sorted out on appeal. (4) In such a case, as in any other, time for appealing against the decision given at the hearing runs, under rule 33 (2) and (3), from the date of provision of the written reasons, however inappropriate the reasons may appear to be, subject to any successful application for extension of time." Rule 41(1) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Health, Education and Social Care Chamber) Rules 2008 is the same as rule 29(1) of the immigration and asylum rules cited above.
  • 26/07/19
    (2016)
    : Case (Immigration tribunal - fair hearing, litigation friends). AM (Afghanistan) v SSHD [2017] EWCA Civ 1123In this judgment the Court of Appeal gave guidance on the general approach to be adopted in FTT and UT immigration and asylum cases to the fair determination of claims for asylum from children, young people and other incapacitated or vulnerable persons whose ability to effectively participate in proceedings may be limited. In relation to litigation friends, despite there being no provision in the tribunal rules for litigation friends, the court decided that: "[T]here is ample flexibility in the tribunal rules to permit a tribunal to appoint a litigation friend in the rare circumstance that the child or incapacitated adult would not be able to represent him/herself and obtain effective access to justice without such a step being taken. In the alternative, even if the tribunal rules are not broad enough to confer that power, the overriding objective in the context of natural justice requires the same conclusion to be reached."
  • 17/07/19
    (1523)
    : New policy for contacting nearest relative — On 14/6/19 the tribunal secretariat wrote to tribunal users as follows: "Following the feedback from some of our users. From Monday the 17 June the Tribunal will use the information provided on the Statement of Information about a patient objecting to their nearest relative being contacted in precedence to that provided on the application form. It is therefore vital that questions 14 and 15 on the form are fully completed. If we do receive forms which are unclear or the questions haven’t been answered then these will be returned to the mental health authority." See Form T132: In-patient: Statement of information about the patient.
  • 17/07/19
    (1028)
    : Case (Reinstatement). JS v SLAM NHS Foundation Trust [2019] UKUT 172 (AAC) — (1) Reinstatement: "As there is no right to reinstatement, the tribunal has a discretion whether or not to reinstate the party’s ‘case’. It must, like all discretions, be exercised judicially and that involves complying with the overriding objective of the tribunal’s rules of procedure, which is ‘to enable the Tribunal to deal with cases fairly and justly’ (rule 2(1)). ... Considered methodically, the factors that the tribunal should take into account neatly divide into three. First, the tribunal should consider whether there is anything to undermine either the patient’s application to withdraw or the tribunal’s consent. Just to give some examples, the application may have been based on a misunderstanding of the facts or the law. Or there may be an issue whether the patient had capacity or gave informed consent. Or the tribunal’s reasons for consenting may have been defective. Second, there may have been a change of circumstances that makes it appropriate to agree to reinstatement. Third, the tribunal will have to consider any other factors that may be relevant under the overriding objective. These will include: (a) the reasons given in support of the application, whatever they may be; (b) any prejudice to the patient in refusing consent; (c) any detriment to the other parties if consent is given; (d) any prejudice to other patients if consent is given; and (d) any impact that reinstatement might have on the operation of the tribunal’s mental health jurisdiction system as a whole." (2) Respondent status: "[T]he Trust was properly named as a respondent on the appeal to the Upper Tribunal ... The Trust was the responsible authority and, as such, a party to the proceedings in the First-tier Tribunal ... On appeal by the patient to the Upper Tribunal, everyone else who was a party before the First-tier Tribunal became a respondent ... That is standard procedure in appeal generally. The Trust’s letter shows a confusion between an appeal and a judicial review. In the latter, the tribunal is the respondent, and others may be interested parties."
  • 17/07/19
    (1010)
    : Case (Immigration detention). R (ASK) v SSHD [2019] EWCA Civ 1239 — "These appeals raise important issues concerning the powers of the Respondent Secretary of State to detain those who suffer from mental health conditions pending removal from the United Kingdom. In each case, the Appellant is a foreign national who satisfied the statutory criteria for detention pending removal, but who suffered from mental illness such that it is said that, for at least some of the period he was detained, he was not only unfit to be removed and/or detained in an immigration removal centre ("IRC"), but did not have mental capacity to challenge his detention and/or engage with the procedures to which he was subject as a detainee. As a result, it is submitted that, in detaining each Appellant, the Secretary of State acted unlawfully in one or more of the following ways. ..."
  • 08/07/19
    (2225)
    : Case (Death - wishes and feelings). Royal Bournemouth and Christchurch Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v TG [2019] EWCOP 21 — "I am being asked to take today an irreversible decision that will lead inevitably to death sooner rather than later and probably within minutes or seconds of the tube being removed. I am being asked to do so in the face of what I find are the wishes and feelings of TG. ... I have come to the clear decision that it is in the patient's best interests that intubation should continue. I recognise that this places a huge burden on the treating team. It is against their advice and their wishes and of course also those of Dr Newman but I remind myself constantly, this is her life and her wishes as I have found them to be and nobody else's. It may be that if the position were to remain the same in six months' time or no successful tracheostomy had been carried out that different considerations might apply but I am not looking at the future, I am looking at things as they are now and for those reasons I reach my decision and refuse the application."
  • 08/07/19
    (2206)
    : Case (Jehovah's Witness - blood transfusion). Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust v DE [2019] EWCOP 19 — "The only issue during the hearing was the degree to which DE's wishes and feelings would be overborne by a decision to allow a blood transfusion, in the light of her being a Jehovah's Witness; and therefore whether there was a disproportionate interference in DE's article 8 rights. However, the evidence even at the oral hearing was that although DE described herself as a Jehovah's Witness she was not someone for whom those beliefs were central to her personality or sense of identity. During the oral hearing I did not get any sense that she would feel deeply upset if an order was made in the form sought, or that she would feel a deep conflict with her religious beliefs. As such she was someone who was in a quite different decision from B in Jackson J's decision, where his religious beliefs were fundamental to B's sense of who he was. The other stark contrast with that case is that DE had been completely clear that she did not want to die. She is also significantly younger than was B."
  • 06/07/19
    (2225)
    : Case (Litigation friend). LJ v Mercouris [2019] EWHC 1746 (QB) — "The essential questions are: (1) Does Mr [J] lack capacity within the meaning of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. (2) Is the court satisfied that Mrs [J] satisfies the conditions in Rule 21.4 (3). This requirement is incorporated by Rule 21.6 (5). The main function of a litigation friend appears to be to carry on the litigation on behalf of the Claimant and in his best interests. However, part of the reasoning for imposing a requirement for a litigation friend appears also to be for the benefit of the other parties. This is not just so that there is a person answerable to the opposing party for costs."
  • 04/07/19
    (2242)
    : Case (Summary of MH sentencing guidance - life sentence replaced with s37/41). R v Fisher [2019] EWCA Crim 1066Having summarised the Sentencing Council's Definitive Guideline for Manslaughter (in force 1/11/18) and the relevant available disposals under the MHA, the Court of Appeal revoked sentences of imprisonment and replaced the life sentence with a s37/41 restricted hospital order.
  • 24/06/19
    (1305)
    : Event. Bristol University: AMHPs and nearest relatives - Bristol, 8/7/19 —This seminar will explore the experiences of Approved Mental Health Professionals of working with Nearest Relatives under the Mental Health Act. The event will include presentations by legal, social work and psychology researchers from the Universities of Bath, Bristol, and UWE. Presentations will focus on: the findings of an empirical project with AMHPs and Nearest Relatives in the South West of England; current challenges and practice dilemmas; and recent proposals for reform set out in the Independent Review of the Mental Health Act, as well as potential areas for further research. The event is organised jointly by: the Centre for Health, Law and Society at the University of Bristol; UWE; and the University of Bath. Price: free. Times: 1300-1600. See Eventbrite website for further details and booking information.
  • 17/06/19
    (1253)
    : Case (MHT/Parole Board delay). LV v UK 50718/16 [2019] MHLO 32 (ECHR)LV, a s47/49 patient, had argued that there had been a delay, in breach of Article 5(4), in securing her release, in particular because of the two-stage process involving both the Mental Health Tribunal and Parole Board. She accepted the government's offer of £2,500 in settlement of her claim.
  • 15/06/19
    (2248)
    : Case (Costs in s21A case). BP v London Borough of Harrow [2019] EWCOP 20 — "The relevant circumstances of the adjournment of the January hearing are that the Respondent, the London Borough of Harrow, offered at the hearing a trial of BP returning home. ... For the Applicant, it is submitted that this is a case where it is appropriate to depart from the usual costs rule and to order the costs of the January hearing be paid by the Respondent because of the Respondent's consistent failure to offer a trial period at home before the start of and for the duration of the proceedings, and its decision to do so only after the January hearing had commenced. ... Overall, I can see the basis on which the Applicant considers an application for costs to be justified. However, this was a finely balanced case on the Applicant's own submissions in position statements, in particular that of 15 June 2018. I bear in mind the authorities on which the parties rely, in particular the Applicant's reliance on the comments of Hooper LJ in the Court of Appeal. I note the circumstances of Manchester City Council v. G, E and F [2010] EWHC 3385 were quite different. On balance and considering the circumstances as a whole, I am not persuaded that it is appropriate to depart from the general rule on this occasion. I decide this based on the chronological position of the parties set out above and all the circumstances. The Respondent's conduct falls short, to what degree is immaterial, of the necessary test. This case does not represent a blatant disregard of the processes of the Act and the Respondent's obligation to respect BP's rights under ECHR as in the Manchester case (paraphrased slightly)."
  • 11/06/19
    (1251)
    : COPUG minutes. Minutes of Court User Group Meeting (11/4/19) — (1) Apologies; (2) Minutes and Action points; (3) Court Manager's Report; (4) Update on the Mental Capacity Amendment Bills; (5) Response to correspondence; (6) Update on ALR scheme; (7) Contacting the court by telephone; (8) Update on progress of e-bundling; (9) COP9 papers not served; (10) COP General visitors using insecure IT equipment when visiting lay deputies; (11) Dealing with urgent applications; (12) Applications for authorities outside the standard terms of deputyship; (13) Request for consideration of a streamlined property and affairs process; (14) Amendment of property and affairs order templates to include reference to support for making decisions when P has capacity; (15) Naming solicitors in judgments; (16) Any other business. Next meeting: 15/10/19 at 1400, at First Avenue House.
  • 07/06/19
    (2121)
    : Event. Edge Training: MHA and MCA Interaction - London, 14/10/19 —This course aims to enable health and social care staff to consider the impact of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 on their work and its relationship to the use and application of the Mental Health Act 1983. Speaker: Steven Richards. Cost: £150.00 plus VAT. See Edge website for further details and booking information
  • 07/06/19
    (2118)
    : Event. Edge Training: Understanding the Court of Protection - London, 30/9/19 —This one day course is designed to enable participants to feel equipped to attend the Court of Protection and to ensure they know what to expect: the best way to give evidence; the key Court of Protection roles; courtroom etiquette and terminology. The course will help delegates prepare to give evidence and deal with challenging questioning. A barrister in the field will give them tips on staying calm and composed under pressure and ensuring the evidence they give is fair, balanced and accurately represents application of the key components of the Mental Capacity Act to the Court of Protection judge. Speaker: Sophy Miles. Cost: £150.00 plus VAT. See Edge website for further details and booking information.
  • 07/06/19
    (2117)
    : Event. Edge Training: Liberty Protection Safeguards - London, 22/11/19 —This one-day course aims to provide a detailed analysis of the Liberty Protection Safeguards contained in the Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill. The course considers the differences between DoLS and LPS and looks at what the new process will be and who will be affected. Speaker: Steven Richards. Cost: £150 plus VAT. See Edge website for further details and booking information.
  • 07/06/19
    (2116)
    : Event. Edge Training: Liberty Protection Safeguards - Manchester, 18/10/19 —This one-day course aims to provide a detailed analysis of the Liberty Protection Safeguards contained in the Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill. The course considers the differences between DoLS and LPS and looks at what the new process will be and who will be affected. Speaker: Steven Richards. Cost: £150 plus VAT. See Edge website for further details and booking information.
  • 07/06/19
    (2114)
    : Event. Edge Training: Liberty Protection Safeguards - Manchester, 12/7/19 —This one-day course aims to provide a detailed analysis of the Liberty Protection Safeguards contained in the Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill. The course considers the differences between DoLS and LPS and looks at what the new process will be and who will be affected. Speaker: Steven Richards. Cost: £140 plus VAT. See Edge website for further details and booking information.
  • 07/06/19
    (2112)
    : Event. Edge Training: Level 3 Safeguarding Adults - London, 8/7/19 —This one-day Level 3 Safeguarding Adults training course offers delegates the opportunity to explore the legal framework which underpins safeguarding adults work, and to explore the key challenges that may arise in practice. It will guide the delegates through the safeguarding adults process and focus on making safeguarding personal. It is for all staff who may be involved in safeguarding adult work, which could include social workers, community care officers, social care workers, social care managers, GP’s, practice nurses, heads of quality, chief nurses, designated nurses for safeguarding adults, occupational therapists, psychologists and psychiatrists. Speaker: Dawn Revell. Cost: £140.00 plus VAT. See Edge website for further details and booking information
  • 07/06/19
    (2110)
    : Event. Edge Training: BIA Legal Update (Annual Refresher) - London, 9/8/19 —This course aims to provide an essential update on case law in relation to the role of the BIA. Learning outcomes: (a) Consider the latest DoLS news, research and guidance; (b) Examine the latest case law relevant to DoLS and the BIA role; (c) Reflect on how the information covered affects BIA practice. Speaker: Aasya Mughal. Cost: £140.00 plus VAT. See Edge website for further details and booking information.
  • 07/06/19
    (2107)
    : Event. Edge Training: BIA Legal Update (Annual Refresher) - London, 1/7/19 —This course aims to provide an essential update on case law in relation to the role of the BIA. Learning outcomes: (a) Consider the latest DoLS news, research and guidance; (b) Examine the latest case law relevant to DoLS and the BIA role; (c) Reflect on how the information covered affects BIA practice. Speaker: Steven Richards. Cost: £150.00 plus VAT. See Edge website for further details and booking information
  • 07/06/19
    (2103)
    : Event. Edge Training: Sexual relations, contraception, marriage and restricting contact - London, 17/6/19 —This one-day course is designed to enable participants to understand mental capacity in these sensitive areas. Participants will gain awareness of the relevant case law in relation to capacity and (where relevant) best interests decision making. Guidance will be offered on the steps to take where an individual lacks capacity to consent in these areas, to ensure that they are adequately safeguarded, and legal obligations are met. Speaker: Steven Richards. Cost: £140.00 plus VAT. See Edge website for further details and booking information.
  • 01/06/19
    (2226)
    : Event. MHLA: Foundation course - London, 28/8/19 —This course is aimed at new practitioners and those intending to attend the panel course in the near future. Attendance at the foundation course is strongly recommended in order to achieve a sound understanding of the basic principles of mental health law, practice and procedure and in order to achieve the most from the two-day panel course, which is a pre-requisite for application to the Law Society’s mental health panel. Speakers: Tam Gill and Neil Cronin. Price: £150 (MHLA members); £195 (non-members). See MHLA website for further details and booking information.
  • 01/06/19
    (2225)
    : Event. MHLA: Panel course - London, 17/7/19 and 18/7/19 —The MHLA is an approved provider of the two-day course which must be attended by prospective members of the Law Society’s mental health accreditation scheme. Price: £300 (MHLA members); £390 (non-members); £270 (group discount). See MHLA website for further details and to book online.
  • 29/05/19
    (2136)
    : Case (Withdrawal of CANH). A Clinical Commissioning Group v P [2019] EWCOP 18 — "Having given anxious consideration to this very sad case, and with profound regret, for the reasons set out above I am satisfied this court should declare that P lacks capacity to make decisions regarding CANH. Further, in circumstances where I have concluded that P lacks capacity to decide for herself whether or not to continue to receive CANH, I am satisfied that it is in P's best interests to consent on her behalf to the withdrawal of that treatment, a step that I acknowledge will result in her death. ... In all the circumstances, I am satisfied that the sanctity of P's life should now give way to what I am satisfied was her settled view on the decision before the court prior to the fateful day of her overdose in April 2014."
  • 20/05/19
    (1242)
    : Case (Police use of force). Gilchrist v Greater Manchester Police [2019] EWHC 1233 (QB) — "I recognise that this was a challenging situation for the police officers. They were faced with an individual who presented as very angry, covered in blood and with whom they were unable to communicate. Prior to Andrew Gilchrist's explanation, their assumption that Michael Gilchrist was an aggressor who, probably, had assaulted someone and needed to be detained, was reasonable. In those circumstances, their initial actions to attempt to bring him under control using CS gas and Taser were justified, reasonable and proportionate. However, once they were appraised of his vulnerability as an autistic man, and his behaviour suggested that he was defensive rather than aggressive, a more cautious approach should have been adopted. The further use of Taser, which had already proved to be ineffective, and following the use of CS gas, was inappropriate. The alternative course mandated by PS Morris, namely, using the force of the officers available to take Mr Gilchrist to the ground and restrain him without using weapons was a reasonable and proportionate response."
  • 15/05/19
    (2147)
    : Case (Capacity to consent to sex with husband). London Borough of Tower Hamlets v NB [2019] EWCOP 17 — "There is also evidence that indicates that NB very much enjoys the status of marriage, is affectionate to her husband [AU] and, on occasion, initiates sexual relations. This appears consistent with Ms Wilson's observations as long ago as 1996. The primary issue before the Court is whether NB truly has the capacity to consent to sexual relations. ... Unfortunately, the case attracted a great deal of media coverage, this notwithstanding that no argument had been heard and no Judgment delivered. A great deal of the comment was sententious and, in some instances, irresponsible. It is considered, by the Official Solicitor and the applicant Local Authority, that the impact of that publicity frightened AU very considerably, leading him to believe that he was likely to be sent to prison. He has left the party's flat and disengaged with these proceedings. ... [Mr Bagchi for the OS] submits it is a 'general' or 'issue-specific' test rather than a partner-specific one. If Mr Bagchi is correct, the difficulty that presents in this case is that there is only one individual with whom it is really contemplated that NB is likely to have a sexual relationship i.e. her husband of 27 years. It seems entirely artificial therefore to be assessing her capacity in general terms when the reality is entirely specific. ... As I said on the last occasion, these issues are integral to the couple's basic human rights. There is a crucial social, ethical and moral principle in focus. It is important that the relevant test is not framed in such a restrictive way that it serves to discriminate against those with disabilities, in particular those with low intelligence or border line capacity. ... Mr Bagchi has accepted that if a person-specific test were applied here then the outcome, in terms of assessment of NB's capacity may be different. ... I do not necessarily consider that the applicable test in the Court of Protection necessarily excludes the 'person specific approach'. I am reserving my Judgment ..."
  • 15/05/19
    (2138)
    : Case (Capacity and ability to communicate). Patel v Arriva Midlands Ltd [2019] EWHC 1216 (QB) — "Dr Fleminger's assessment was: 'Whether or not he can understand what information he is given and use and weigh this information in the balance to make decision, he is unable to communicate any decision he has made. Whether or not he regains capacity in the future depends on the outcome of his conversion disorder'. I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Dr Fleminger's capacity assessment was made on the basis of incorrect information gleaned from the Claimant's presentation and from what he was told by Chirag Patel of the Claimant's disabilities, namely that the Claimant was unable to communicate any decision he has made. ... In addition ... I do accept Dr Schady's opinion [that there is no conversion disorder]. Once again that leaves the Claimant with a presumption of capacity. ... To summarise: (i) The Claimant is presumed to have capacity. (ii) The court finds that the Claimant has been fundamentally dishonest in respect of his claim, and his litigation friend Chirag Patel has participated in this dishonesty. (iii) The entirety of the claim is dismissed, the court being satisfied that no substantial injustice would be caused in so doing. The court assesses damages for the 'honest part' of the claim at £5750."
  • 15/05/19
    (2127)
    : Case (Inquest and DOLS). R (Maguire) v HM's Senior Coroner for Blackpool and Fylde [2019] EWHC 1232 (Admin) — "First, the claimant contends that the defendant erred in law by determining at the end of the evidence that article 2 no longer applied under Parkinson, thereby prejudging a matter that should have been left to the jury. Secondly, the Coroner erred in law by determining that the jury should not be directed to consider whether neglect should form part of their conclusion. ... That the case law has extended the positive duty beyond the criminal justice context in Osman is not in doubt. The reach of the duty, beyond what Lord Dyson called the "paradigm example" of detention, is less easy to define. We have reached the conclusion, however, that the touchstone for state responsibility has remained constant: it is whether the circumstances of the case are such as to call a state to account: Rabone, para 19, citing Powell. In the absence of either systemic dysfunction arising from a regulatory failure or a relevant assumption of responsibility in a particular case, the state will not be held accountable under article 2. ... We agree that a person who lacks capacity to make certain decisions about his or her best interests - and who is therefore subject to DOLS under the 2005 Act - does not automatically fall to be treated in the same way as Lord Dyson's paradigm example. In our judgment, each case will turn on its facts. ... [The Coroner] properly directed himself as to the appropriate test to apply to the issue of neglect and having done so declined to leave the issue to the jury."
  • 13/05/19
    (1246)
    : Summary of LPS legislation passage through Parliament. Claire Tyler, 'The stormy passage of the Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill' (The House Magazine, 2/5/19) — In this article Baroness Tyler summarises the history of this legislation, concluding that "much relies on what will be set out in the Code of Practice and in secondary legislation, which will be vital in determining how the new system will work, including the vexed issue of a definition of what does and doesn’t constitute a deprivation of liberty" and that "without proper funding[,] staff resources and training it will fail in practice".
  • 10/05/19
    (2146)
    : Case (Diminished responsibility medical evidence). R v Hussain [2019] EWCA Crim 666 — "The single judge has referred the application for leave to appeal against conviction [for murder] and the extension of time application to the full court. The application for leave to appeal raises again the issue of what a trial judge should do when the sole issue to be determined at trial is the partial defence of diminished responsibility provided by section 2 of the Homicide Act 1957 (as amended) and there is unanimity amongst the psychiatric experts as to the mental health of the killer at the time of the killing."
  • 10/05/19
    (2137)
    : Case (HBSO, colonoscopy, deception). University Hospitals of Derby and Burton NHSFT v J [2019] EWCOP 16 — "[Anne] is the subject of an application brought by the [Trust] for declarations that it is in Anne's best interests to undergo a hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy and a colonoscopy, and that, in order to enable those to be undertaken, it is in her best interests for a transfer plan to be implemented which will involve her sedation and a level of deception to ensure her presence at hospital for the procedures to be undertaken. The application arises because it is said that Anne lacks capacity. ... It is entirely right that cases such as this, where medical decisions and the plan for their implementation impact so profoundly on P's personal autonomy, bodily integrity and reproductive rights, should be considered by the Court of Protection at High Court level, and as this case demonstrates, once in the hands of the court and the Official Solicitor they can be dealt with rapidly. I therefore have no hesitation in declaring that it is in Anne's best interests to undergo HBSO and colonoscopy (and associated surgical procedures) and for the care plan to be implemented in its final amended form."
  • 10/05/19
    (2131)
    : Case (Suicide burden of proof at inquests). R (Maughan) v Her Majesty's Senior Coroner for Oxfordshire [2019] EWCA Civ 809 — "This appeal involves questions of importance concerning the law and practice of coroners' inquests where an issue is raised as to whether the deceased died by suicide. The questions can be formulated as follows: (1) Is the standard of proof to be applied the criminal standard (satisfied so as to be sure) or the civil standard (satisfied that it is more probable than not) in deciding whether the deceased deliberately took his own life intending to kill himself? (2) Does the answer depend on whether the determination is expressed by way of short-form conclusion or by way of narrative conclusion? Those are the questions falling for decision in this case; but to an extent they have also required some consideration of the position with regard to unlawful killing. ... I conclude that, in cases of suicide, the standard of proof to be applied throughout at inquests, and including both short-form conclusions and narrative conclusions, is the civil standard of proof."
  • 10/05/19
    (2120)
    : Case (Marriage, prenuptial agreement, information about extent of assets, etc). PBM v TGT [2019] EWCOP 6 — "... I identified the issues that would need to be considered at the final hearing. These were: (a) PBM's capacity to: (i) marry; (ii) make a will; (iii) enter into a prenuptial agreement; (iv) manage his property and affairs (or part thereof); (v) make decisions as to the arrangements for his care; and (vi) make decisions in relation to contact with others. (b) If PBM lacks capacity to manage his property and affairs: (i) whether (if he has capacity to enter into an antenuptial agreement and/or make a will) he should be provided with information about the extent of his assets; (ii) whether it is in his best interest for the court to direct any changes or further safeguards in relation to the current arrangement for their management; (iii) what steps should be taken to assist PBM in developing skills which may assist him in gaining capacity in that regard. (c) If PBM lacks capacity as to his care arrangements, whether it is in his best interest for further directions to be given by the court in relation thereto."
  • 10/05/19
    (2115)
    : Case (Residence and care). Harrow CCG v IPJ [2018] EWCOP 44 — "The Court is asked to determine where AJ should live and how he should be cared for. The applicant CCG has proposed an extensive package of care at the family home, with (most of) the financial arrangements managed by a third party broker. JA's parents, who are the Second and Third Respondents, do not agree the proposals and seek the dismissal of the application.
  • 09/05/19
    (1219)
    : Case (Capacity to conduct proceedings). TB v KB [2019] EWCOP 14 — "Law applicable to the court's determination of the question of whether P lacks capacity to conduct proceedings is well settled. ... Having regard to that analysis, I am clear that P does lack that capacity. This leaves the question of P's participation in these proceedings."
  • 30/04/19
    (2259)
    : Case (Nominal damages (Barrymore)). Parker v Chief Constable of Essex Police [2018] EWCA Civ 2788 — "In the early hours of 31 March 2001, Michael Parker (a celebrity entertainer who is better known by his stage name, Michael Barrymore) returned to his home with eight guests. ... In relation to Mr Parker, that arrest was to be effected by Det. Con. Susan Jenkins who had played a central role in the re-investigation and was well aware of the evidence: she believed she had reasonable grounds both to suspect Mr Parker of committing an offence and to conclude that it was necessary to effect his arrest. In the event, she was detained in traffic and a surveillance officer (P.C. Cootes) was ordered to effect the arrest, which he did. ... For these reasons, I would conclude that Stuart-Smith J was correct to conclude that there were reasonable grounds both to suspect Mr Parker of committing an offence and that it was necessary to arrest him. Equally, however, I have no doubt that had things been done as they should have been done (to quote Baroness Hale in Kambadzi), a lawful arrest would have been effected. Thus, I would allow this appeal and, in answer to the issue posed by the Master, declare that Mr Parker is entitled to nominal damages only."
  • 25/04/19
    (2157)
    : Case (LPA witnessed by attorney). Re BGO: Office of the Public Guardian v PGO [2019] EWCOP 13 — "Some time later one of the financial institutions to which the registered property and affairs LPA was sent noticed that BGO’s signature on the instrument had been witnessed by one of the attorneys (MAB), which is contrary to the requirements of Regulations. ... The Public Guardian applied to the Court for a determination as to whether or not the requirements for creation of an LPA were met, and directions as to whether the Public Guardian should cancel the registration of the instrument. ... The wording of paragraph 18 of Schedule 1 is mandatory. Because the requirements of execution have not been met, I must direct the Public Guardian to cancel the registration of BGO’s LPAs. ... For many donors, the failure of their LPA because of a defect in execution can be overcome by the relatively simple step of granting fresh powers, taking care to ensure that the requirements are met – an irritation perhaps and an expense but not an insurmountable hurdle. However, that option is not open to BGO. Sadly, before this defect was identified, BGO’s capacity had deteriorated to the point where she is unable to execute fresh LPAs. ... In the absence of attorneys to manage her property and affairs, the Court may appoint a deputy or deputies. ... In respect of health and welfare, the Court may also appoint a deputy or deputies if considered appropriate, although it does so much more rarely. However, pursuant to section 20(5) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, a deputy cannot be given powers to refuse consent to the carrying out or continuation of life-sustaining treatment. In her welfare instrument, BGO had ticked the box to confirm that she wanted to give her attorneys this power. On the failure of her LPA, there is no means for the Court to give effect to her wishes in this respect. ... The Respondents are invited to make an application for appointment as property and affairs deputies for BGO. ... If the Respondents, or any of them, seek the appointment of a welfare deputy or deputies for BGO, they should also file at Court within 28 days a COP24 statement which sets out any welfare issues which require decisions to be made, why (having regard to s5 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005) an order is needed and why (having regard to section 16(4) of the Act) the decisions should be taken by a deputy rather than the Court."


Update archive