Category:2015 cases

The old category structure used on this page is comprehensive as it contains every relevant case. The new database structure was introduced in 2019. It is more potentially useful than the old categorisation system: it includes all cases since January 2017, but only a minority of older cases: see Special:Drilldown/Cases. The pages below are initially ordered according to the dates on which they were added to the site (most recent first). The order can be changed by clicking on the symbol beside a column heading: click on the symbol beside "Page and summary" for alphabetical order; click beside "Categories" for the order in which the cases were reported. Click on the arrow symbol again to reverse the order. Click on a page name to view the relevant page. Asterisks mark those cases which have been added to the new database structure.

Case and summary	Date added	Categories
* Welfare benefits and transferred prisoners SS v UK 40356/10 54466/10 [2015] ECHR 520 — Patients subject to s47/49 and s45A argued that denying them the social security benefits that are paid to other detained patients was contrary to Article 14, taken with Article 1 of Protocol No 1. The ECtHR rejected the applications as being manifestly unfounded.	2021‑03‑10 23:46:03	2015 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Welfare benefits cases, Judgment available on Bailii, 2015 cases
* Discharge from DOLS P v A Local Authority [2015] EWCOP 89 — "This is an application by P (the Applicant) acting through his litigation friend, the Official Solicitor, for an order under section 21A of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) discharging the standard authorisation made on 24 June 2015 which authorises a deprivation of liberty in his current accommodation (the placement)."	2016‑11‑24 23:48:11	2015 cases, Cases, Deprivation of liberty, Judgment available on Bailii, Judgment available on MHLO, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript, Judgment available on Bailii, 2015 cases
Miles v The Public Guardian [2015] EWHC 2960 (Ch), [2015] MHLO 139 — "I have before me two appeals from decisions of Senior Judge Lush sitting in the Court of Protection, one in a case called Re Miles and one in a case called Re Beattie in both of which he was concerned with lasting powers of attorney either for property and financial affairs or for health and welfare matters. In each case the former power of attorney had been drafted by the same solicitor and contained provisions which the Judge was asked to rule on, as to whether they were effective."	2016‑10‑07 22:17:38	2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, LPA cases - substitute attorneys, No summary, Transcript
PJV v Assistant Director Adult Social Care Newcastle City Council [2015] EWCOP 87, [2015] MHLO 138 — "The appeal before me ... relates to the part, if any, that the Court of Protection must play in the finalisation of an award of compensation under the relevant scheme that the Second Respondent (CICA) has decided and the applicant has agreed is to be held on trust."	2016‑08‑29 20:39:18	2015 cases, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function
Lucia Benyu v Solicitors Regulation Authority [2015] EWHC 4085 (Admin), [2015] MHLO 137 — "This is the adjourned hearing of the Appellant's appeal brought pursuant to section 49 of the Solicitors Act 1974 against the order of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal ('SDT') dated 3/10/14, striking the Appellant off the Roll of Solicitors and ordering her to pay costs in the sum of £48,000. The decision followed a full three day hearing at which the Appellant was represented by experienced counsel, although she has indicated that she has now made a complaint against that counsel. The SDT found the Appellant to have been dishonest to the criminal standard. But it went on to say that the seriousness of her misconduct was such that it would have struck her off even if it had not made such a finding. ... The Appellant acted in person at the substantive appeal hearing. She has not attended for the hand down of this judgment, although she is fully on notice of it. She invites the court to the set aside the SDT's order; or, alternatively, to strike her off with no dishonesty attached."	2016‑08‑27 22:27:41	2015 cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, No summary, SRA decisions, Transcript, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function
Public Law Project v Lord Chancellor [2015] EWCA Civ 1193, [2015] MHLO 136 — The proposed Legal Aid residence test was lawful (the High Court had been wrong to decide it to be ultra vires and unjustifiably discriminatory). The proposed test is described as follows in the judgment: "To satisfy the residence test, an individual would have to be lawfully resident in the UK, the Channel Islands, Isle of Man or a British Overseas Territory on the day the application for civil legal services was made, and (unless they were under 12 months old or a particular kind of asylum claimant or involved with the UK Armed Forces) have been so lawfully resident for a 12 month period at some time in the past (excluding absences of up to 30 days). There were proposed exceptions to the test. Claimants pursuing certain types of proceedings were not required to satisfy the test (for example, domestic violence cases, and challenges to the lawfulness of detention). In any event, regardless of residence, a claimant who failed the residence test would have been entitled to apply for legal aid under the Exceptional Case Funding regime in s.10 of LASPO whose purpose is to ensure that all those who have a right to legal aid under the ECHR or EU law are able to obtain it."	2016‑02‑21 22:49:03	2015 cases, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Transcript, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function
A Local Authority v M [2015] EWCOP 69, [2015] MHLO 135 — This judgment dealt with various issues including deputyship, deprivation of liberty, and disclosure.	2016‑02‑08 20:08:33	2015 cases, Deprivation of liberty, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function
Re M (Costs): A Local Authority v M [2015] EWCOP 45, [2015] MHLO 134 — Court of Protection costs judgment.	2016‑02‑08 20:04:52	2015 cases, COP costs cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment missing from Bailii
R v Fletcher [2015] EWCA Crim 2007, [2015] MHLO 133 — The appellant unsuccessfully sought a restricted hospital order in place of an IPP sentence.	2016‑01‑28 17:18:26	2015 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Sentence appeal cases, Transcript
WH v Partnerships in Care [2015] UKUT 695 (AAC), [2015] MHLO 132 — The tribunal, having decided that the appropriate treatment test in s72(1)(b)(iia) was met, refused to discharge a patient who had a diagnosis of dissocial personality disorder. (1) The Upper Tribunal allowed the appeal on the following grounds: (a) The appropriate treatment test relates only to the treatment that a patient is receiving at the detaining hospital, so the tribunal erred in law by considering the test met because treatment was available elsewhere. (b) The tribunal also erred in law by providing inadequate reasons: (i) the reasons were not set out by reference to the relevant criteria; (ii) the tribunal failed to address any of the solicitor's submissions about appropriate treatment; (iii) it was unclear what evidence was accepted or rejected, and why; (iv) the tribunal made findings which were wholly unsupported by the evidence. (2) The Upper Tribunal also stated that: (a) The tribunal is required to evaluate the evidence and reach its own conclusions, so was not obliged to accept the RC's opinion that no appropriate treatment was available; (b) Looking at the evidence as a whole, it was not necessarily the case that there was no evidence of appropriate treatment being provided to the patient; (c) It would be desirable for the MHRT for Wales to adopt the English Practice Direction on Reports, as the Welsh Rules provided little useful guidance, and full reports would have assisted in this difficult case; (d) The patient was currently detained in England so the Welsh tribunal was invited to transfer the case to England.	2016‑01‑03 23:08:27	2015 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, MHLR summary, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions, Judgment available on Bailii
Somerset v MK [2015] EWCOP B1, [2015] MHLO 131 — "In the light of all of this it seems to me that this is plainly a case where the usual order for costs should be departed from to the extent that the Local Authority should pay the costs of all of the other parties involved. The other matter that I should deal with is whether those payments should be on an indemnity basis. ... I am very conscious of the impact of such an order. However, in that same case of G v E [2010] EWHC 3385 (Fam) Mr Justice Baker considered that the local authority's conduct amounted to 'a significant degree of unreasonableness' giving rise to a liability for costs on an indemnity basis. If one reads my judgment in full it is clear that that there was in this case as well a significant degree of unreasonableness both in the Local Authority's approach to the substantive and procedural issues in the case. In those circumstances it seems to me that the argument for indemnity costs is an overwhelming one in this case and that is the order that I intend to make here."	2015‑12‑22 22:31:12	2015 cases, COP costs cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii
Re CMW: Public Guardian v AM [2015] EWCOP 86, [2015] MHLO 130 — "This is an application by the Public Guardian to revoke a Lasting Power of Attorney ('LPA') for property and affairs. ... I am satisfied that Carla lacks capacity to revoke the LPA herself. ... I am also satisfied that the respondent has behaved in a way that contravenes his authority and is not in the donor's best interests. He has broken virtually every rule in the book and, having exhausted his mother's funds in order to meet his "life's requirements at that time", he blithely expects the taxpayers of Surrey to pick up the tab to meet his mother's care needs now. I have no hesitation in revoking the LPA and directing the Public Guardian to cancel its registration. I shall make a separate order appointing Michael Stirton as Carla's deputy for property and affairs."	2015‑12‑22 21:53:29	2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, LPA cases - revocation, No summary, Transcript
Re WP (deceased) and EP [2015] EWCOP 84, [2015] MHLO 129 — "This is an application by two attorneys acting jointly under two separate Enduring Powers of Attorney for the retrospective approval of monthly payments of £150 each that they have made to themselves and to their sister from the donors' funds. ... This application is a composite claim for the payment of an allowance of £150 per month to each attorney in respect of three distinct heads of claim, and I shall deal with these heads of claim in the following order: (1) travelling expenses; (2) remuneration for acting as attorneys; and (3) a 'gratuitous' care allowance. I would prefer not to be cornered into approving any particular mileage rate. If the Public Guardian wishes to give guidance on such matters, that's up to him. What I shall say is simply by way of general observation. ... In my judgment, the business mileage rates quoted by HMRC [45 pence for every business mile for the first 10,000 miles and 25 pence for every business mile thereafter] should be substantially discounted to reflect the fact that these are not 'business' rates but domestic rates. When dealing with the affairs of an elderly and incapacitated relative, attorneys are generally expected to act out of common decency and not to profit from their position. ... I do not propose to allow them any specific remuneration for the actual management of their parents' property and financial affairs. ... I am satisfied in Theresa's case that the care support she provides and the travelling expenses she incurs merit the payment of a sum of £150 a month from her parents' funds. Stephen does slightly less than his sister Theresa in terms of care support, but has to travel a greater distance to perform these functions and, on balance, I am satisfied that he too should continue to pay himself a composite allowance of £150 a month in respect of travelling expenses and care support."	2015‑12‑22 21:50:32	2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other EPA cases, Transcript
V v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2015] EWCOP 88, [2015] MHLO 128 — "I do not propose to say very much in this judgment. The reason I do not propose to say very much is that I am pleased to report that the media respondents have indicated to me that they would wish to put in some further evidence relating to the public interest in identifying C. They would also wish to (and I can understand why they would wish to) put in evidence relating to criticism of an approach by a journalist employed by one of them. Additionally and, to my mind, importantly, they also wish to take the opportunity, if so advised, to put in evidence and/or representations on more general points concerning the mechanics and principles that arise in respect of Court of Protection proceedings that the court directs are to be heard in public and in respect of which the court makes some form of reporting restriction order or anonymity order. ... In those circumstances, it seems to me that it is inevitably appropriate to continue the injunction until 4.30 on the day I hand down judgment. The indication from the Bar is that there will be no need for further oral submissions."	2015‑12‑22 21:37:31	2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function
V v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2015] EWCOP 83, [2015] MHLO 127 — "MacDonald J ... concluded C did have capacity to refuse the treatment and dismissed the application by the Hospital Trust. C, sadly, died on 28 November 2015. ... I was notified at about 5.45 pm on 2 December 2015 that an application was likely to be made by Mr Vikram Sachdeva Q.C. on behalf of C's daughter, V, for the RRO to be extended after C's death. ... There is no issue between the parties that the court has jurisdiction to extend a RRO in these circumstances. ... I concluded the RRO should be extended for 7 days to enable an effective inter partes hearing to take place."	2015‑12‑22 21:30:33	2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii
Re JW [2015] EWCOP 82, [2015] MHLO 126 — "This began as an application by a family member to be appointed as a joint deputy for property and affairs with the existing deputy, East Sussex County Council. When it became apparent that the Council was unwilling to act jointly with him, the applicant revised his application and asked the court to remove the Council as deputy and to appoint him in its place. ... I propose to allow Geoffrey's revised application and shall appoint him as Joan's deputy in place of East Sussex County Council. My main reason for appointing him is that I think it would be sensible to repair and renovate the house in Hailsham that Joan inherited from her daughter Daphne so that it can be sold to best advantage, and I am prepared to give it a try. ... Zena Boniface concluded her witness statement by saying that: 'ESCC feel that it would be a conflict of interest for Geoffrey to be appointed deputy, as he stands to make a financial gain from the cost of the building works to his late sister's property and the reimbursement of his time and travel costs in dealing with her estate.' It was entirely reasonable of her to voice this concern and it merits a detailed response. ... I propose to control the conflict between Geoffrey's interests and Joan's by providing the following appropriate and effective safeguards to prevent abuse: ..."	2015‑12‑22 21:15:24	2015 cases, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust v C [2015] EWCOP 80, [2015] MHLO 125 — "The question in this difficult and finely balanced case is whether C has the capacity to decide whether or not to consent to the life saving treatment that her doctors wish to give her following her attempted suicide, namely renal dialysis. Without such treatment the almost inevitable outcome will be the death of C. If the treatment is administered the likelihood is that it will save C's life, albeit that there remains an appreciable and increasing possibility that C will be left requiring dialysis for the rest of her life. C now refuses to consent to dialysis and much of the treatment associated with it. ... For the reasons set out above I am not satisfied on the evidence before the court that the Trust has established on the balance of probabilities that C lacks capacity to decide whether or not to accept treatment by way of dialysis. ... [A] capacitous individual is entitled to decide whether or not to accept treatment from his or her doctor. The right to refuse treatment extends to declining treatment that would, if administered, save the life of the patient and, accordingly, a capacitous patient may refuse treatment even in circumstances where that refusal will lead to his or her death. The decision C has reached to refuse dialysis can be characterised as an unwise one. That C considers that the prospect of growing old, the fear of living with fewer material possessions and the fear that she has lost, and will not regain, 'her sparkle' outweighs a prognosis that signals continued life will alarm and possibly horrify many, although I am satisfied that the ongoing discomfort of treatment, the fear of chronic illness and the fear of lifelong treatment and lifelong disability are factors that also weigh heavily in the balance for C. C's decision is certainly one that does not accord with the expectations of many in society. Indeed, others in society may consider C's decision to be unreasonable, illogical or even immoral within the context of the sanctity accorded to life by society in general. None of this however is evidence of a lack of capacity. The court being satisfied that, in accordance with the provisions of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, C has capacity to decide whether or not to accept treatment C is entitled to make her own decision on that question based on the things that are important to her, in keeping with her own personality and system of values and without conforming to society's expectation of what constitutes the 'normal' decision in this situation (if such a thing exists). As a capacitous individual C is, in respect of her own body and mind, sovereign."	2015‑12‑22 20:44:29	2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
Re AS [2015] EWCOP 79, [2015] MHLO 124 — "This is YB's application to be appointed as AS's deputy for property and affairs in place of the existing deputy, the London Borough of Islington. ... I have decided to maintain the status quo and to dismiss this application."	2015‑12‑22 20:36:58	2015 cases, Deputyship cases, No summary, Transcript
Re AG [2015] EWCOP 78, [2015] MHLO 123 — "This is an appeal from an order of His Honour Judge Rogers, sitting as a nominated judge of the Court of Protection. Judge Rogers was considering the appropriate welfare arrangements for AG, a young woman born in October 1985. ... DG's grounds of appeal dated 22 September 2013 identify four grounds of appeal. It is said that Judge Rogers: (a) erred in not conducting an adequate assessment of AG's capacity; (b) failed to make findings of fact in relation to the events in 2011 that had triggered the proceedings; (c) made a decision as to where AG should live which by September 2013 was a fait accompli; and (d) acted in breach of Article 8 in directing that DG's contact with AG should be, as it is put, 'heavily' supervised. It is apparent from her counsel's very helpful skeleton arguments ... that the major thrust of DG's case relates to ground (b). ... For these reasons each of DG's grounds of appeal fails. ... 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. Local authorities also need to appreciate and take appropriate steps to minimise the understandable distress and anger caused to someone in DG's position when initial relief is obtained from the court on the basis of allegations which are not thereafter pursued."	2015‑12‑22 20:31:27	2015 cases, Best interests, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
Re HNL: ATL v Public Guardian [2015] EWCOP 77, [2015] MHLO 122 — "This is an application regarding the payment of a gratuitous care allowance. To describe the allowance as 'gratuitous' is slightly incongruous, as it is a payment towards the cost of maintenance of a close relative, who provides care and case management services to someone who is severely incapacitated because of an impairment of, or a disturbance in the functioning of, the mind or brain. ... The Public Guardian is currently reviewing all gratuitous care allowances paid by deputies to family members, particularly in cases where the person to whom the proceedings relate has been awarded damages for clinical negligence or personal injury. Because the number of families who are receiving allowances of this kind and are affected by the Public Guardian's review runs into thousands, I have concluded that it would be in the public interest to publish this judgment. ... Having regard to all the circumstances, therefore, I am satisfied that it is in Helen's best interests for Adrian to continue to provide care and case management services to her and that until further order he should be paid an allowance of £23,000 a year, tax-free in accordance with ESM4016. Even though Adrian has not specifically requested it, I propose to give him the option of index-linking future payments of the allowance. ... I understand that the Public Guardian will shortly be issuing a practice note on gratuitous care payments. ... In our initial discussions, the OPG suggested that these payments should be reviewed regularly. However, a review process of this kind is not cheap and, inevitably, it will have a knock-on effect on the amounts sought by claimants in respect of Court of Protection costs in future claims for damages for personal injury and clinical negligence. ... In Helen's case, because of the wide gulf between the commercial value of the services Adrian is providing and the actual payment he is receiving, I consider that it would be disproportionate to go through this process too frequently, and I suggest that Adrian's gratuitous care allowance should be formally reviewed again in 2022 or earlier, if necessary, because of a change in his or Helen's circumstances."	2015‑12‑22 20:25:56	2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
Surrey And Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust v Ms AB [2015] EWCOP 50, [2015] MHLO 121 — "This is an application by the Surrey and Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust for the court to give permission for the respondent, Ms AB, undergoing an above the knee amputation of her left leg. ... On the basis of the agreed psychiatric evidence, which I accepted, I was satisfied that Ms AB lacks the capacity to make a decision about her medical treatment and surgery. ... I am completely satisfied that, very sadly, the only best interests decision I can make is to give permission for the above knee amputation of Ms AB's left leg to be undertaken. I approve the use of reasonable restraint before, during and subsequent to surgery as is necessary to safeguard and protect her, including sedation. Further, I authorise the deprivation of her liberty insofar as it is necessary to perform the procedure."	2015‑12‑22 20:17:58	2015 cases, Best interests, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
Re FT [2015] EWCOP 49, [2015] MHLO 120 — "This is an application for reconsideration of an order made by an authorised court officer appointing two of FT's daughters as his deputies for property and affairs. ... In my judgment, the factor of magnetic importance in this case is that FT named MA and PB to be the executors of his last will ... Accordingly, pursuant to rule 89(5), I affirm the order made on 2 September 2014 appointing the respondents [MA and PB] jointly and severally to act as FT's deputies for property and affairs. ... Costs ... I am singularly unimpressed with the applicants' conduct. Having made the application, they failed to follow it through. ... This is a case in which a departure from the general rule is justified. ... [T]he fact that [DC's] husband is in receipt of ESA and that she has claimed an exemption from the fees, doesn't grant her immunity from an order for costs being made against her. I intend to make an order that the costs are to be assessed on the standard basis and paid by DC, ST and TT in equal shares, and that the deputies are authorised to make an interest-free loan to the applicants from KT's funds to pay the costs, and that the loan will be repayable by the applicants from their respective shares of FT's estate on his death."	2015‑12‑22 20:13:50	2015 cases, COP costs cases, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
Health Service Executive of Ireland v CNWL [2015] EWCOP 48, [2015] MHLO 119 — "Must an adult who is the subject of an application under Schedule 3 to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to recognise and enforce an order of a foreign court that deprives the adult of his or her liberty be joined as a party to the application?"	2015‑12‑21 23:58:58	2015 cases, Deprivation of liberty, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
Ross v A [2015] EWCOP 46, [2015] MHLO 118 — "This is an application by a professional deputy for an order authorising him to apply approximately £17,000 a year from A's damages award towards the payment of her brother's school fees. ... In my judgment, it is in A's best interests for the court to authorise the deputy to pay B's school fees (past, present and future) from her funds ... This judgment is tailored to A's circumstances and should not be construed as an imprimatur for the payment of siblings' school fees from damages awards in other cases."	2015‑12‑21 23:49:50	2015 cases, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
Dorset County Council v PL [2015] EWCOP 44, [2015] MHLO 117 — "The Applicant council seeks declarations that: (a) it is in PL’s best interests to move to ‘OL’, a care home in Lincolnshire, after a period of transition; and (b) it is in PL’s best interests to have restricted and supervised contact with his mother AL at an off-site location. ... The issues for the court to determine were where PL should live, more particularly OL or CC and with whom he should have contact, again more particularly whether contact with AL should be restricted and supervised and take place at an off-site location."	2015‑12‑21 23:38:24	2015 cases, Best interests, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
GN v Newland [2015] EWCOP 43, [2015] MHLO 116 — "This is an application for reconsideration of an order made on the papers by an authorised court officer ('ACO'). An ACO is not a judge of the Court of Protection, but a civil servant, who, in most cases, has considerable experience of the court's practice and procedure and is authorised to make a number of specified decisions on the non-contentious property and affairs side of the court's business. Over 90% of the applications to the court involve non-contentious property and financial matters, and can potentially be dealt with by an ACO. ... I dismiss GN's application to be appointed as his mother's deputy for three reasons. First, he is the bane of her life and she wants nothing to do with him. Secondly, he would be unable to act fairly and competently on her behalf because he has an interest in her property, which is adverse to hers, and on which he is unwilling to enter into any compromise. And thirdly, I am satisfied that, having regard to all the relevant circumstances, Julia Newland's appointment as her deputy for property and affairs is in CN's best interests. There is no one more suitable who is willing or able to act, and the purpose for which the appointment is required cannot be as effectively achieved in a way that is less restrictive of CN's rights and freedom of action."	2015‑12‑21 23:34:59	2015 cases, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
St George's Healthcare NHS Trust v P and Q [2015] EWCOP 42, [2015] MHLO 115 — "On 20 January 2015 the Health Trust responsible for his care made an application seeking declarations in this very serious medical case. They seek declarations: (i) That he lacks capacity (this is uncontentious); (ii) That it is not in his best interests to receive cardio pulmonary resuscitation (CPR) in the event of cardiac arrest (this is also now uncontentious); and (iii) As to whether it is lawful to continue to provide renal replacement therapy (RRT), the Trust wish to discontinue life sustaining treatment with the inexorable and inevitable consequence that as a result P would quickly die. ... There is almost nothing to rebut the very strong presumption that it is in P's best interests to stay alive. I order and direct that the renal replacement therapy should continue. ... The application was launched, it might be thought, somewhat precipitously, before any SMART testing had been undertaken. ... Therefore in all cases where there is any question of doubt about diagnosis, in order to eliminate mistakes or potential tragedies it is essential that those assessments [such as SMART or WHIM] are carried out in good time so that the diagnosis is clear before the Court, then the Court can conduct its own enquiry and balance."	2015‑12‑21 23:31:30	2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function
Re OL [2015] EWCOP 41, [2015] MHLO 114 — "This is an application by the Public Guardian for the court to revoke a Lasting Power of Attorney ('LPA') for property and financial affairs because the attorneys have used their power carelessly and irresponsibly. I am satisfied that the attorneys have behaved in a way that contravenes their authority or is not in the donor's best interests. ... Their failure to keep accounts of the transactions carried out on the donor's behalf or to produce any record of her income and expenditure would alone be sufficient to warrant the revocation of their appointment. However, in this case both attorneys, and in particular DA, have compounded their culpability by taking colossal advantage of their position and obtaining personal benefits far in excess of the limited power that attorneys have to make gifts of the donor's property under section 12 of the Mental Capacity Act. DA has also failed to keep the donor's money and property interests separate from her own interests in respect of the property she owns in South Norwood. ... I propose to appoint a panel deputy and authorise them to take such steps as are necessary or expedient to restore OL's estate so far as possible to the position in which it would have been before the attorneys began acting so recklessly and irresponsibly. In view of the attorneys' conduct, I consider that a departure from the general rule as to costs in property and affairs proceedings is justified and shall make no order as to costs."	2015‑12‑21 23:23:11	2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, LPA cases - revocation, No summary, Transcript
London Borough of Southwark v P [2015] EWCOP 40, [2015] MHLO 113 — "This is an application made both in the Court of Protection and for a Forced Marriage Protection order in the High Court (Family Division). ... I am of the view that the quickest way to deal with this is for me to list the matter for a further one day hearing shortly after the date on which the capacity report is completed. ... I consider that the existing orders should be discharged on the basis of an undertaking by the parents, R and A, that they are not to facilitate, allow or otherwise permit P to undergo any ceremony or purported ceremony of marriage, civil partnership, betrothal or engagement; or from entering into any arrangement in relation to the engagement or matrimony, whether by civil or religious ceremony, of P whether within English jurisdiction or outside it. They are also to undertake not to instruct, encourage or suggest to any other person to do so. They are to undertake not to take him to Bangladesh prior to the next hearing. On that basis I will discharge the forced marriage protection injunction."	2015‑12‑21 23:19:00	2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Sex and marriage cases, Transcript
Bournemouth Borough Council v PS [2015] EWCOP 39, [2015] MHLO 112 — "In this case I have to decide (i) whether the package of care provided to BS ('Ben') is in his best interests; (ii) whether that package amounts to a deprivation of liberty within the terms of Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights 1950; and (iii) what contact Ben should have to his mother, the first respondent. ... In the circumstances, in what I suppose will be one of the last orders of its kind to be made, I directed that Ben be discharged as a party. I was wholly satisfied that his voice has been fully heard through the IMCA Katie Turner. Further, in relation to the question of deprivation of liberty, all relevant submissions have been fully put on both sides of the argument by counsel for the applicant and the first respondent. There was no dispute between the applicant and the first respondent concerning issues (i) and (iii). The argument was centrally about the question of deprivation of liberty. ... I cannot say that I know that Ben is being detained by the state when I look at his position. Far from it. I agree with Mr Mullins that he is not. First, he is not under continuous supervision. He is afforded appreciable privacy. Second, he is free to leave. Were he to do so his carers would seek to persuade him to return but such persuasion would not cross the line into coercion. The deprivation of liberty line would only be crossed if and when the police exercised powers under the Mental Health Act. Were that to happen then a range of reviews and safeguards would become operative. But up to that point Ben is a free man. In my judgment, on the specific facts in play here, the acid test is not met. Ben is not living in a cage, gilded or otherwise. ... I do not criticise this local authority in the slightest for bringing this case. In the light of the decision of the Supreme Court local authorities have to err on the side of caution and bring every case, however borderline, before the court. For if they do not, and a case is later found to be one of deprivation of liberty, there may be heavy damages claims (and lawyers' costs) to pay. I remain of the view that the matter needs to be urgently reconsidered by the Supreme Court."	2015‑12‑21 23:10:54	2015 cases, Deprivation of liberty, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
Re P [2015] EWCOP 37, [2015] MHLO 111 — "This is an application by the Public Guardian for an order revoking an Enduring Power of Attorney ('EPA') on the grounds that, having regard to all the circumstances, H is unsuitable to be his wife's attorney. ... Therefore, having regard to all the circumstances, I am satisfied that H is unsuitable to be P's attorney and I shall by order revoke the EPA. I shall also make a separate order appointing S and D jointly and severally to be P's deputies for property and affairs."	2015‑12‑21 23:04:05	2015 cases, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other EPA cases, Transcript
Re X [2015] EWCOP 36, [2015] MHLO 110 — "These proceedings are concerned with X, a young man of 25 who currently lives in a care home. They began as an application by his mother, AY (who is his appointed welfare deputy and has acted throughout without the benefit of legal representation), in respect of his prescribed medication. X was subsequently detained under the Mental Health Act and the issues before the Court were redefined to address AY's concerns as to X's physical health (in particular, the condition of his bowels) and whether the treatment she supported, in the form of dietary exclusion and supplements, fell within the powers of the Mental Health Act or the authority of her deputyship. In the course of proceedings, X has been discharged from detention under the Mental Health Act and the parties have been able to agree a community placement for him, where he is now settled. The issues which remain for the determination of the Court relate to his best interests in relation to diet and whether the welfare deputyship (which is currently suspended) should be restored or discharged. In determining those issues, the Court is asked to reach a series of findings of fact."	2015‑12‑21 23:01:17	2015 cases, Best interests, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
R (Dyer) v Welsh Ministers [2015] EWHC 3712 (Admin), [2015] MHLO 109 — "In this claim, the Claimant challenges an alleged failure by the public authorities responsible for the National Health Service in Wales to discharge the duty imposed upon them by section 3(1) of the National Health Service (Wales) Act 2006 to provide hospital accommodation 'throughout Wales, to such extent as they consider necessary to meet all reasonable requirements'. In particular, she contends that the duty has been breached because no decision has been taken by any authority as to either (i) the 'reasonable requirements' of women in Wales with ASD and LD for secure in-patient assessment and treatment; or (ii) the level of provision necessary to meet the reasonable requirements found to exist. Indeed, the relevant authorities have not only failed to make those decisions, it is said that they have failed to collate the information required to make them; and so they are not even in a position to make properly informed (and, therefore, lawful) decisions. That is the legal basis of the claim. However, the concern of the Claimant and her family underlying the claim is more personal and practical in nature. The last time the Claimant required compulsory detention on account of her mental condition was in August 2014 when, because there was no appropriate and available facility in Wales, she was sent to a hospital in Brighton where she was detained for some weeks. ... However, this court can intervene only if a decision-making authority has acted unlawfully. For the reasons I have given, none of the Defendants has done so in this case."	2015‑12‑21 22:52:10	2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, MHLR summary, Miscellaneous cases, No summary, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript, Judgment available on Bailii
Health Service Executive of Ireland v PA [2015] EWCOP 38, [2015] MHLO 107 — "I turn to the specific orders in these three cases. In each case, I conclude that the individual – PA, PB and PC – is an adult within the meaning of paragraph 4 of the Schedule. I conclude that each is habitually resident in the Republic of Ireland. Having considered the orders of the Irish Court, and the provisions in each order that amount to "protective measures" within the meaning of Schedule 3, (including, in each case, the provision that each individual shall be placed and detained at St Andrew's and the various ancillary orders to facilitate and support the placement and detention), I conclude that there are no grounds for refusing to recognise the measures under paragraph 19(3) or (4). I conclude in each case that the individual was given a proper opportunity to be heard for the purposes of paragraph 19(3)(b); that in each case the individual – PA, PB and PC – satisfies the criteria for detention under Article 5(1)(e), namely the Winterwerp criteria; that the orders of the Irish Court demonstrate that each will be afforded a regular right of review of his or her detention so as to comply with the ongoing requirements of Article 5(4); that as a result recognising and enforcing the orders will not contravene the ECHR; that the measures in each case are not inconsistent with any other mandatory provision of the law of England and Wales; and that the measures cannot be said to be manifestly contrary to public policy. I shall therefore make the orders declaring that the protective measures in the said orders shall be recognised in England and Wales and enforced in this jurisdiction."	2015‑12‑18 23:03:04	2015 cases, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Other capacity cases, Transcript
AM v Partnerships in Care Ltd [2015] UKUT 659 (AAC), [2015] MHLO 106 — The First-tier Tribunal, on the basis of their finding that the patient had committed two rapes, refused to discharge because sexual understanding and treatment work had not been undertaken. The Upper Tribunal held: (1) The tribunal had made a mistake of fact which undermined its conclusion as to the rapes, which was a fundamental error in the light of which the tribunal’s decision not to discharge could not stand. (2) The tribunal’s decision was made in error of law because of its failure to take into account relevant considerations. It had not scrutinised the evidence carefully or addressed features of the evidence which may cast doubt on the allegations; rather, the reasons gave the impression that, having found that AM lacked credibility generally, the tribunal simply and illogically accepted that the rape allegations were true because they were viewed as credible at the time. (3) A decision as to risk must involve findings of fact, not merely suspicion that an act was done which would be indicative of risk. Although the discharge criteria involve mixed questions of fact and judgement or evaluation, the judgement or evaluation of what is likely to occur must be based on fact. The next tribunal may consider that there are relevant facts other than the alleged rapes.	2015‑12‑17 23:08:13	2015 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, MHLR summary, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions, Judgment missing from Bailii
Re RS (Forced Marriage Protection Order) [2015] EWHC 3534 (Fam), [2015] MHLO 105 — "The identified questions for this hearing are whether: (i) RS had mental capacity to marry at the date of his marriage to W; and if not; (ii) whether the court should exercise its power under the inherent jurisdiction to declare that the marriage is not recognised as valid in England and Wales as a precursor to the initiation of formal proceedings to annul the marriage."	2015‑12‑10 12:43:13	2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Sex and marriage cases, Transcript
Winspear v City Hospitals Sunderland NHSFT [2015] EWHC 3250 (QB), [2015] MHLO 104 — (1) The core principle of prior consultation before a DNACPR decision is put into place on the case file applies in cases both of capacity and absence of capacity. If it is both practicable and appropriate to consult before doing so then, in the absence of some other compelling reason against consultation, it would be procedurally flawed to proceed without consultation. It would not meet the requirements of MCA 2005 s4(7); it would accordingly not be in accordance with the law. It would be an interference with Article 8(1) that is not justified under Article 8(2). (2) The claimant (patient's mother) sought damages both personally and as personal representative. The judge was not persuaded that she has any personal claim for damages, and decided that a declaration reflecting the procedural breach of Article 8 was sufficient.	2015‑11‑29 22:00:53	2015 cases, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Other capacity cases, Transcript
* Conditional discharge and DOL MM v WL Clinic [2015] UKUT 644 (AAC) — (1) For the purposes of Article 5, a restricted patient with the capacity to do so can give a valid and effective consent to conditions of a conditional discharge that when implemented will, on an objective assessment, create a deprivation of liberty. (2) In determining whether to discharge conditionally, the tribunal has to consider whether the consent is freely given and (as raised in KC at [134-139]) consider any practical problems arising from the ability to withdraw consent. (3) MM's case was remitted to the First-tier Tribunal with a direction that it apply the decisions in KC and this case. (Caution: see Court of Appeal decision.)	2015‑11‑26 20:58:29	2015 cases, Cases, Deprivation of liberty, Judgment available on Bailii, MHLR summary, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Powers, Upper Tribunal decisions, Judgment available on Bailii, 2015 cases
M v Mrs N [2015] EWCOP 76, [2015] MHLO 102 — It was in the best interests of N, who was in a minimally-conscious state, not to continue to receive clinically assisted nutrition and hydration. The judge concluded that: "Ultimately, I have concluded that her wishes, so thoughtfully presented by her family, coupled with the intrusive nature of the treatment and its minimal potential to achieve any medical objective, rebut any presumption of continuing to promote life. Quite simply, I have come to the conclusion that it would be disrespectful to Mrs. N to preserve her further in a manner I think she would regard as grotesque."	2015‑11‑23 21:41:29	2015 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Medical treatment cases, Transcript
R (Howard League for Penal Reform) v Lord Chancellor [2015] EWCA Civ 819, [2015] MHLO 101 — This was an appeal against the refusal of permission to apply for judicial review of changes introduced to criminal legal aid for prison law by the Criminal Legal Aid (General) (Amendment) Regulations 2013. (1) The 'lack of consultation' challenge was unarguable. (2) The appellants also challenged the removal of criminal legal aid funding in seven principal areas of prison law (including pre-tariff reviews and return to open condition cases before the Parole Board) on the basis that they either impact upon the liberty of the prisoner or they engage his or her Article 8 Convention rights in a way that is systemically unfair. The Court of Appeal accepted that it was arguable that, without appropriate assistance, the system could carry an unacceptable risk of unlawful decision making in relation to those with mental health, learning or other difficulties which effectively deprive them of the ability effectively to participate in the relevant decisions.	2015‑11‑14 22:04:40	2015 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Transcript
R v Brown (formerly Latham) [2015] EWCA Crim 1328, [2015] MHLO 100 — "The central ground of appeal is that the appellant's conviction is unsafe because the ruling of the judge – viz. that the appellant's conferences at court with his lawyers were to take place in the presence of two nurses from Rampton Hospital – breached his right at common law to consult privately with his lawyers and under Article 6(3)(c) European Convention on Human Rights to "defend himself through legal assistance of his own choosing" (with the concomitant right to private discussions with his lawyers). ... In our judgment, by way of an additional common law qualification or exception to the inviolable nature of legal professional privilege, and in what is likely to be an extremely narrow band of cases, it will be appropriate to impose a requirement that particular individuals can be present at discussions between an individual and his lawyers if there is a real possibility that the meeting is to be misused for a purpose, or in a manner, that involves impropriety amounting to an abuse of the privilege that justifies interference. This case exemplifies the rare circumstances in which it will be necessary to take this step."	2015‑11‑14 21:31:37	2015 cases, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, MHLR summary, Other criminal law cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript, Judgment available on Bailii
R (Drammeh) v SSHD [2015] EWHC 2984 (Admin), [2015] MHLO 99 — "This is a claim for judicial review of (i) the Defendant's decision of 6 February 2015 (confirmed after further consideration on 16 June 2015) refusing to accept the Claimant's representations as a fresh asylum and human rights claim, and (ii) the lawfulness of the Claimant's detention under immigration powers from 21 November 2014 to 17 April 2015. The Claimant is a foreign criminal with an appalling immigration history, who is liable to deportation in consequence of having been sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment for being concerned in the supply of class A drugs. He has been diagnosed with schizo-affective disorder, which appears to be well-controlled provided that he takes his anti-psychotic medication. Having exhausted his rights of appeal against the refusal of a very belated claim for asylum, he has done everything within his power to avoid being deported."	2015‑11‑14 20:28:52	2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Repatriation cases, Transcript
XZ v The Public Guardian [2015] EWCOP 35, [2015] MHLO 98 — "This is an application regarding the effectiveness of some provisions contained in a Lasting Power of Attorney ('LPA') for property and financial affairs. It is not a type of application for which permission would normally be given for a judgment to be published. However, paragraph 16 of the Practice Guidance (Transparency in the Court Of Protection) [2014] EWHC B2 (COP), [2014] MHLO 5, says that "permission to publish a judgment should always be given whenever the judge concludes that publication would be in the public interest." I can't imagine that the general public would have the slightest interest in this judgment, but its publication may be of interest to professionals who specialise in this area of the law and draft LPAs on a regular basis, and also to people who are considering making an LPA themselves, and for this reason I shall permit its publication. ... XZ wants his attorneys to act only when he lacks capacity. In his LPA he has described in intricate detail the circumstances in which he can be identified as no longer having the capacity to make a relevant decision, whereupon his attorneys may make the decision on his behalf and in his best interests. ... XZ acknowledges that his LPA will be less effective because of these provisions but, nevertheless, he wishes them to remain as an integral part of the registered instrument for his own reassurance and peace of mind. Some people may think that this is unwise, but it is his will and preference and it should be treated with respect. The Public Guardian has no right to make a paternalistic judgment on his behalf and decide that it would be in his best interests for these provisions to be severed. ... The Public Guardian's function under paragraph 11 of Schedule 1 to the Act is limited to considering whether the conditions and restrictions are (a) ineffective as part of an LPA or (b) would prevent the instrument from operating as a valid LPA. ... I also order the Public Guardian to register the LPA."	2015‑11‑13 23:23:27	2015 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Other LPA cases, Transcript
L v NG [2015] EWCOP 34, [2015] MHLO 97 — Headnote from judgment: "Application by the sister of NG to be appointed as his deputy for property and affairs together with her sons – Even if NG lacked capacity to manage his property and affairs it was not in his best interests to appoint a deputy to manage his property and affairs." The main part of the decision is the following: "Section 16(4) of the Act provides that when deciding whether it is in the relevant person's interests to appoint a deputy, the court must have regard to section 4 (best interests) and the principle that a decision by the court is to be preferred to the appointment of a deputy to make a decision. The fact that a person generally lacks capacity to manage their property and affairs does not automatically mean that it is in their best interests to appoint a deputy to manage their property and affairs. The best interests requirements of section 4 require the court to consider the wishes, feelings, beliefs and values of the person concerned. One of the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 is that before the act is done, or the decision is made, regard must be had to whether the purpose for which it is needed can be as effectively achieved in a way that is less restrictive of the person's rights and freedom of action. On the evidence a deputyship order is either unnecessary or not in NG's best interests provided that a restriction is entered in the Land Registry requiring the court to authorise any dealings with his home. Any risks in respect of NG's other property and financial affairs which would be minimised by the appointment of a deputy are outweighed by the effect of such an order on his self-esteem, the resulting interference with his autonomy and the impact on family relationships. The sole purpose of the restriction is to act as a light touch safeguard. The court will only not authorise a proposed transaction if NG is being taken advantage of by a third party during a period of illness or is acting in a way that he will be likely to regret on recovering from a period of illness."	2015‑11‑13 23:14:12	2015 cases, Brief summary, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
Re HS [2015] EWCOP 33, [2015] MHLO 96 — "I have been asked to reconsider two orders I made on the papers. The first was an order dated 29 October 2014 revoking HS's Enduring Power of Attorney and the second was an order made on 10 December 2014 appointing Essex County Council to be HS's deputy for property and affairs."	2015‑11‑13 23:06:27	2015 cases, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
The Public Guardian v SR [2015] EWCOP 32, [2015] MHLO 96 — "This is an application by the Public Guardian for an order revoking a Lasting Power of Attorney ('LPA') for property and affairs and directing him to cancel its registration."	2015‑11‑13 23:02:49	2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, LPA cases - revocation, No summary, Transcript
A Local Health Board v AB [2015] EWCOP 31, [2015] MHLO 95 — "I conclude that: (a) AB lacks capacity to conduct these proceedings herself. (b) AB lacks capacity to make her own decisions about whether to consent to medical treatment for her cardiac condition including dental surgery. (c) Insofar as the jurisdiction of the court is excluded because of the operation of the MHA and MCA, the inherent jurisdiction should be exercised to grant a declaration that it is lawful and in AB's interests to have the proposed medical treatment administered by the Applicant to her. (d) The inherent jurisdiction should be exercised to grant a declaration that it is lawful and in her best interests for AB to be deprived of her liberty to travel to and to remain at the hospital for the proposed medical treatment but that such physical and/or chemical restraint as may be required to deliver the treatment shall bear in mind the need to maintain her dignity to the maximum extent reasonably possible." (Caution: in relation to paragraph [54], on the MCA eligibility test, see An NHS Trust v A [2015] EWCOP 71, [2015] MHLO 91.)	2015‑11‑13 23:00:17	2015 cases, Best interests, Deprivation of liberty, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
A Hospital NHS Trust v CD [2015] EWCOP 74, [2015] MHLO 94 — CD was willing to have the total abdominal hysterectomy, in order to remove two very large ovarian growths, which the medical experts recommended. (1) Mostyn J held that she lacked capacity in relation to this but that it was in her best interests to have the surgery. (2) The correct way to interpret the MCA ineligibity rules is as follows: "if the MHA regime whereby CD is compulsorily detained in a mental hospital imposes a specific requirement for dealing with the problem of the ovarian masses then CD is ineligible to be deprived of her liberty under the 2005 Act for the purposes of dealing with the problem by a different procedure under that Act. It doesn't (obviously) so she isn't ineligible." (3) In relation to deprivation of liberty the judge noted: "In KW & Ors v Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council [2015] EWCA Civ 1054^M at para 32 the Court of Appeal stated 'even if Cheshire West is wrong, there is nothing confusing about it'. It may seem that way from the lofty heights of the Court of Appeal; and of course the literal words of the Supreme Court's test are perfectly easy to understand. But for we hoplites who have to administer it at first instance the scope and ramifications of the test are, with respect, extremely confusing. As Mr Matthewson, instructed by the Official Solicitor for CD, rightly stated 'anyone who deals with this day by day knows this is confusing'. What of the situation where, as here, the protected person actively and fervently expresses the wish to undergo the procedure that is said to amount to a deprivation of liberty? What of the situation, as was the case in Bournemouth Borough Council v PS [2015] EWCOP 39, [2015] MHLO 112, where the protected person shows no inclination whatsoever to leave the home where he is cared for round the clock? What of the situation where the protected person is seriously disabled, perhaps bedridden, perhaps in a coma, and is thus physically incapable of exercising the freedom to leave? The answers I received from the Bar when discussing these scenarios belie the blithe suggestion that 'there is nothing confusing' about the test. I do not accept the criticism that my approach to these cases is 'distorted' by my 'passionate' and 'tenacious' belief that Cheshire West is wrong. Rather, it is a loyal approach which tries to apply literally and purposively the Supreme Court's test while at the same time pointing out how confusing and curious it is, to say nothing of the cost it causes to the public purse. The confusion surrounding the main test is mirrored by the confusion that the interface with the MHA gives rise to."	2015‑11‑13 22:53:01	2015 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Deprivation of liberty, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
Re AFR [2015] EWCOP 73, [2015] MHLO 93 — "This is an application by the Public Guardian to discharge two joint and several deputies for property and affairs on the grounds that they have behaved in a way that has contravened their authority or is not in their father's best interests."	2015‑11‑12 18:47:24	2015 cases, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
Re DWA [2015] EWCOP 72, [2015] MHLO 92 — "On 1 October 2014 I made an order on the papers revoking a Lasting Power of Attorney ('LPA') for property and financial affairs in respect of one of three attorneys because I was satisfied that the donor was incapable of revoking the appointment herself and that the attorney in question had behaved in a way that contravened her authority or was not in the donor's best interests. This is an application by the attorney whose appointment was revoked for me to reconsider that decision pursuant to rule 89 of the Court of Protection Rules 2007."	2015‑11‑12 18:45:20	2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, LPA cases - revocation, No summary, Transcript
An NHS Trust v A [2015] EWCOP 71, [2015] MHLO 91 — A patient detained under MHA 1983 s3 was not ineligible to be deprived of his liberty in a general hospital under the MCA 2005 for the purpose of physical treatment (and the previous case on this point, A Local Health Board v AB [2015] EWCOP 31, [2015] MHLO 95, should be read as if the judge accidentally omitted a negative and inadvertently and mistakenly stated the law wrongly).	2015‑11‑12 18:42:52	2015 cases, Brief summary, Deprivation of liberty, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
Re AMH [2015] EWCOP 70, [2015] MHLO 90 — "This is an application by the Public Guardian to revoke a Lasting Power of Attorney ('LPA') for property and financial affairs."	2015‑11‑12 18:23:55	2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, LPA cases - revocation, No summary, Transcript
Re H [2015] EWCOP 52, [2015] MHLO 89 — "There are two provisions in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 ('MCA') that seem to contradict each other. Section 16(4)(b) envisages that a deputyship appointment will be of limited duration, whereas section 19(5) facilitates an appointment that could last for decades. ... When it comes to the crunch, section 16(4)(b) trumps section 19(5) because it is a principle to which the court must have regard when deciding whether it in P's best interests to appoint a deputy, while section 19(5) is simply a discretion conferred upon the court, once it has decided to appoint a deputy."	2015‑10‑31 21:06:39	2015 cases, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
Re KW [2015] EWCOP 53, [2015] MHLO 88 — "DW objects to the deprivation of liberty and made the application to the Court of Protection on 5th December 2014 pursuant to Section 21A of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to challenge the purpose of the standard authorisation. The application was made on the following grounds: (a) LCC failed to make an application to the Court of Protection (despite the recommendations of the Ombudsman). (b) LCC failed to take reasonable steps to plan a move for KW to a more suitable placement, closer to her family and KW has suffered distress as a result. (c) It is not in KW's best interests to be deprived of her liberty at R H therefore one of the qualifying requirements of Schedule 1A is not satisfied."	2015‑10‑31 21:03:27	2015 cases, Deprivation of liberty, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
P v Surrey County Council [2015] EWCOP 54, [2015] MHLO 87 — "The issues for me to determine are these: (i) Was P's detention at the care home between 5 September 2014 and 23 December 2014 lawful or was it in breach of Article 5 and/or Article 8? (ii) If P's detention during that period was unlawful or in breach of Article 5, does a right to compensation or damages arise and, if so, how much? No claim for compensation or damages is in fact pursued. (iii) Was P's detention at the care home between 23 December 2014 and the date of cessation of detention lawful pursuant to a properly-made standard authorisation? If not, was it in breach of his Article 5 and/or Article 8 rights? (iv) Does a right to compensation or damages arise and, if so, how much? No claim for compensation or damages is in fact pursued."	2015‑10‑31 20:54:14	2015 cases, Deprivation of liberty, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
Re ARL [2015] EWCOP 55, [2015] MHLO 86 — "This is an application by the Public Guardian for the court to revoke a Lasting Power of Attorney ('LPA') for property and financial affairs."	2015‑10‑31 20:50:26	2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, LPA cases - revocation, No summary, Transcript
Re RS [2015] EWCOP 56, [2015] MHLO 85 — "The matters before the court proceed as a challenge to the standard authorisation pursuant to Section 21A of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. ... On 28th May ... capacity being the gateway to the jurisdiction of this court a report was ordered pursuant to Section 49 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 ... I am not prepared to vary or alter the principle behind the original order of 28th May. Finally, this is a difficult and recurring problem and brings into sharp focus the burden upon any Trust or NHS body to comply with such direction while at the same time maintaining the provision of its service to existing patients. The cost of the report is also funded by the Trust. There is no provision within Section 49 for the court to order payment of fees or expenses in that regard. These are matters that ultimately may have to be considered elsewhere."	2015‑10‑31 20:48:24	2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
Re SF [2015] EWCOP 68, [2015] MHLO 84 — "This is an application by the Public Guardian for the court to revoke an Enduring Power of Attorney ('EPA') and to direct him to cancel its registration."	2015‑10‑31 20:40:13	2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other EPA cases, Transcript
Re GMP [2015] EWCOP 67, [2015] MHLO 83 — "This is an objection to an application for the appointment of a deputy for property and affairs."	2015‑10‑31 20:38:34	2015 cases, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
Re RG [2015] EWCOP 66, [2015] MHLO 82 — "This is an application by Northamptonshire County Council for the court to revoke an Enduring Power of Attorney ('EPA') and to appoint a professional deputy to manage the donor's property and affairs in place of the attorney."	2015‑10‑31 20:36:37	2015 cases, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other EPA cases, Transcript
Aidiniantz v Riley [2015] EWCOP 65, [2015] MHLO 81 — "These proceedings in the Court of Protection are the latest setting for the poisonous feud between the children of Mrs Grace Aidiniantz. On this occasion, they dispute where their mother should live, who should care for her, who should see her, and whether her finances should be investigated."	2015‑10‑31 20:34:19	2015 cases, Best interests, COP costs cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
Re MLJ [2015] EWCOP 63, [2015] MHLO 80 — "This is a contested application for the appointment of an additional deputy to act jointly with the existing deputy for property and affairs."	2015‑10‑31 20:29:16	2015 cases, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
Re AJ [2015] EWCOP 62, [2015] MHLO 79 — "This is an application by the respondent for the court to reconsider two orders that were made on the papers. The first order discharged him as his daughter's deputy for property and affairs and the second order appointed a panel deputy to act in his place."	2015‑10‑31 20:27:01	2015 cases, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
Medway Council v M and T [2015] EWFC B164, [2015] MHLO 78 — "In this judgment, within ongoing care proceedings, I have determined the applications by T and Mother under the Human Rights Act for declarations and damages. I have set out below the alarming history of the unlawful accommodation of T by Medway Council for over 2 years, and my reasons for declarations to that effect and for the award of damages of £20,000 each to T and her Mother for breaches of their rights to respect for their family life under Article 8 and to fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. [The following are two paragraphs of the judgment which set out just part of the history.] [24] Instead, again, the Social Worker AT, accompanied by Mother's mental health Social Worker, visited Mother on 3.10.13 and purported to obtain a fresh s20 agreement which they were satisfied she understood and had capacity to make as Mother was able to repeat back to them that it was her consent to Medway Council, that it was voluntary and she accepted she could not care for T then. Medway Council has not been able to provide this document. To its credit, Medway Council does not now attempt to suggest that they obtained a valid s20 agreement from Mother. It is conceded that the August and October 'consents' should not have been relied upon. Clearly Mother should have been properly assessed for her decision-specific capacity, and been fully informed and supported. It is highly unlikely that she would have been assessed as having capacity given her low functioning in combination with her mental illness. [25] In the meantime on 10.9.13, the social work records reveal a note entered by DH, presumably then managing this case as it is headed "Manager's Decisions: Supervision". She wrongly describes T as having been placed in foster care as an "abandoned child when Mother was detained under the MHA". T was not abandoned. Detention in hospital for treatment under the Mental Health Act does not constitute and should never be treated as an abandonment by a parent of their child. DH, however, correctly goes on to say the following: "Mother has signed the Section 20 but Social Worker was concerned whether she fully understood the meaning of this", and with a mixed stab at an accurate understanding of the position wrote: "T cannot remain under Section 20 indefinitely and clear decision making should be made…", continuing under the heading "Actions" she includes this: "Attend a legal gateway meeting to discuss actions regarding long term care plan for child (permanency). The local authority do not have PR and cannot make decisions regarding child under Section 20 without consent from M". These last comments are of course correct, but again such a meeting did not occur and still no steps were taken to address the situation."	2015‑10‑30 23:13:26	2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, No summary, Transcript
Re P (Application for Secure Accommodation Order) [2015] EWHC 2971 (Fam), [2015] MHLO 77 — "In my judgment it is clear that the restrictions imposed by reg. 5(2) on making a secure accommodation order under s.25 in respect of a child over the age of 16 are limited to children who are accommodated as a matter of discretion under s.20(5) and do not extend to children who are accommodated as a matter of duty under s.20(3). Where a looked-after child aged between 16 and 18 is accommodated under s.20(3) of the Children Act 1989 the court has the power to make her the subject of a secure accommodation order under s.25. It follows, therefore, that in this circumstances of this case it is appropriate that the local authority's application for a secure accommodation order be adjourned generally with liberty to restore should circumstances arise in which it considers it appropriate to do so."	2015‑10‑30 22:58:10	2015 cases, Deprivation of liberty, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
* Inquests and state detention R (LF) v HM Senior Coroner for Inner South London [2015] EWHC 2990 (Admin) — "Maria died while in intensive care at King's College Hospital in London ... Plainly an inquest will be held; that is not in dispute. However, by a written decision ... the Defendant Senior Coroner rejected the argument that Maria was "in state detention" at the time of her death, within the meaning of ss. 7(2)(a) and 48(1) and (2) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 and therefore the inquest must be held with a jury. By way of judicial review, the Claimant challenges that conclusion and contends that in the circumstances the Coroner was bound to call a jury. The sole issue for the Court is whether the Claimant's challenge is well-founded."	2015‑10‑30 22:49:39	2015 cases, Cases, ICLR summary, Inquest cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2015 cases
CWM TAF University v F [2015] EWHC 2533 (Fam), [2015] MHLO 75 — "This application was issued ... for a declaration under s.15 of the Mental Capacity Act: Firstly, that F lacks capacity; secondly, to make decisions about her clinically assisted nutrition and hydration; and, thirdly, the central issue, that it is not in F's best interests for clinically assisted nutrition and hydration to be continued, that it is lawful and in her best interests for clinically assisted nutrition and hydration to be withdrawn."	2015‑10‑30 22:44:50	2015 cases, Best interests, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
Re AB (A child: deprivation of liberty) [2015] EWHC 3125 (Fam), [2015] MHLO 74 — "There is a large measure of agreement between the parties on the relevant factual matrix and the legal principles applicable to the issues I am asked to determine, namely: (1) Whether AB is deprived of his liberty at X. (2) If so, are the parents and/or the local authority entitled to consent to the same? (3) If not, whether the court will sanction the deprivation of liberty and, if so, under what provision, power or jurisdiction? (4) Whether it would be appropriate to give guidance on the approach to, and conduct of, similar cases."	2015‑10‑30 22:39:14	2015 cases, Deprivation of liberty, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
R (MM and DM) v SSWP (Costs) [2015] UKUT 566 (AAC), [2015] MHLO 73 — Tribunals Judiciary website summary: "When a case is transferred to the Upper Tribunal by the High Court in the exercise of its discretion, the Upper Tribunal will apply the approach to costs taken under CPR."	2015‑10‑30 22:30:40	2015 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
R (Letts) v The Lord Chancellor & Ors [2015] EWHC 402 (Admin), [2015] MHLO 72 — "This application for judicial review concerns the criteria applied by the Legal Aid Agency to determine whether relatives of a deceased should be granted legal aid for representation at an inquest into a death which has arisen in circumstances which might engage Article 2... What this case boiled down to was a consideration of how Article 2 applies to the suicide of mental health patients and an assessment of the (in)adequacy of the Guidance in reflecting the law. I have come to the conclusion that in one material respect the Guidance is inadequate and both incorporates an error of law and, also, provides a materially misleading impression of what the law is. ... [I]n the absence of a clear recognition that there is a category of case where the investigative duty arises quite irrespective of the existence of arguable breach by the State the Guidance is materially misleading and inaccurate."	2015‑10‑28 23:27:05	2015 cases, ICLR summary, Inquest cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
Rochdale MBC v KW [2015] EWCA Civ 1054, [2015] MHLO 71 — (1) The judge (in his second decision) had misinterpreted the consent order (on appeal from his first decision) when he said that the Court of Appeal had not decided that KW was being deprived of her liberty. Therefore, this second appeal would be allowed. (2) The judge was also wrong to say that the Court of Appeal had taken "a procedurally impermissible route" so that its decision was "ultra vires". An order of any court is binding until it is set aside or varied: it is futile and inappropriate for a judge to seek to undermine a binding order by complaining that it was ultra vires or wrong for any other reason. In any event, the consent order was made by a procedurally permissible route: the appeal court has a discretion to allow an appeal by consent on the papers without determining the merits at a hearing if it is satisfied that there are good and sufficient reasons for doing so. If the appeal court is satisfied that (i) the parties' consent to the allowing of the appeal is based on apparently competent legal advice, and (ii) the parties advance plausible reasons to show that the decision of the lower court was wrong, it is likely to make an order allowing the appeal on the papers and without determining the merits. (3) The Court of Appeal stated that the judge's disagreement with the Cheshire West decision was in danger of distorting his approach to these cases and, in light of the two successful appeals, the review should be conducted by a different judge.	2015‑10‑23 22:29:42	2015 cases, Deprivation of liberty, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function
* Reasons for closure of Blavo & Co Solicitors Blavo and Co Solicitors (SRA decision: closure) [2015] MHLO 70 — The SRA closed down Blavo & Co Solicitors and suspended John Blavo's practising certificate, giving the following reasons: (a) there is reason to suspect dishonesty of the part of a manager or employee of Blavo & Co Solicitors Limited; (b) there is reason to suspect dishonesty on the part of John Blavo in connection with his practice; (c) to protect the interests of clients of Blavo & Co Solicitors Limited.	2015‑10‑16 22:39:01	2015 cases, Cases, Judgment available offline, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, SRA decisions, 2015 cases
North Yorkshire County Council v MAG [2015] EWCOP 64, [2015] MHLO 69 — The Council sought a declaration that it was in MAG's best interests (a) to be deprived of his liberty and reside in his current placement, and (b) for the Corporate Director of Health and Adult services to enter into a tenancy agreement on MAG's behalf in relation to the current placement. (1) The reference in Re MN (An Adult) [2015] EWCA Civ 411 to the ability of the Court of Protection to explore the care plan put forward by a public authority and the inability of the Court to compel a public authority to agree to a care plan which it is not willing to implement does not apply when the issue is the right to liberty under Article 5. (2) The placement at which MAG had been deprived of his liberty for 9 years did not meet his needs (for instance, there was insufficient room to manoeuvre a wheelchair indoors, so he had to mobilise on his hands and knees causing physical problems including bursitis and a recurring fungal infection in his thigh) and the council had not taken the steps necessary to ensure that there was no breach of its obligations. The court therefore refused to continue an interim deprivation of liberty authorisation. [Caution: see subsequent Court of Appeal decision.]	2015‑10‑07 22:50:30	2015 cases, Brief summary, Deprivation of liberty, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
Re PAW [2015] EWCOP 57, [2015] MHLO 68 — "This is a contested application for the appointment of a deputy for property and affairs."	2015‑09‑30 20:59:29	2015 cases, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
DGP Law v DGHP [2015] EWCOP 58, [2015] MHLO 67 — "This is a reconsideration of a decision made on the papers on 16 February 2015 by District Judge Bellamy, who dismissed the respondents' objections to the applicant's application to be appointed as her mother's deputy for property and affairs."	2015‑09‑30 20:57:33	2015 cases, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
Re NRA [2015] EWCOP 59, [2015] MHLO 66 — "I have ten cases before me seeking welfare orders under s. 16(2)(a) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (the MCA). The welfare orders are sought to authorise the deprivation of liberty that, it is common ground, is being, or will be, created by the implementation of the regime of care, supervision, control and support (the care package) upon which the welfare orders are based. If it had been thought that the care packages did not result in a deprivation of liberty it is highly likely that the relevant public authorities would have relied on s. 5 of the MCA and no application to the Court of Protection would have been made. When the cases were transferred to me they were regarded as test cases on the directions that should be given for their determination and in particular on whether the subject of the proceedings (P) should be a party."	2015‑09‑30 20:53:15	2015 cases, Deprivation of liberty, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
* Amputation - religious beliefs Wye Valley NHS Trust v B [2015] EWCOP 60 — "The issue in this case is whether it is lawful for the doctors treating Mr B, a 73-year-old gentleman with a severely infected leg, to amputate his foot against his wishes in order to save his life. Without the operation, the inevitable outcome is that he will shortly die, quite possibly within a few days. If he has the operation, he may live for a few years. Mr B also has a long-standing mental illness that deprives him of the capacity to make the decision for himself. The operation can therefore only be lawfully performed if it is in his best interests. ... Having considered all of the evidence and the parties' submissions, I have reached the clear conclusion that an enforced amputation would not be in Mr B's best interests. Mr B has had a hard life. Through no fault of his own, he has suffered in his mental health for half a century. He is a sociable man who has experienced repeated losses so that he has become isolated. He has no next of kin. No one has ever visited him in hospital and no one ever will. Yet he is a proud man who sees no reason to prefer the views of others to his own. His religious beliefs are deeply meaningful to him and do not deserve to be described as delusions: they are his faith and they are an intrinsic part of who he is. I would not define Mr B by reference to his mental illness or his religious beliefs. Rather, his core quality is his "fierce independence", and it is this that is now, as he sees it, under attack."	2015‑09‑30 20:48:32	2015 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Medical treatment cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, 2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii
Re ME [2015] EWCOP 61, [2015] MHLO 64 — "This is an objection to an application for the appointment of a deputy for property and affairs."	2015‑09‑30 20:46:16	2015 cases, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
* CTO DOL condition PJ v A Local Health Board [2015] UKUT 480 (AAC) — The MHRT for Wales had rejected PJ's argument that his CTO should be discharged because its conditions unlawfully deprived him of his liberty. He appealed to the Upper Tribunal. (1) In deciding that PJ was not deprived of his liberty, the MHRT had erred in law in its application of the Cheshire West decision. (2) The MHRT also erred in law in concluding that the CTO framework must take precedence over any human rights issues. The tribunal must take into account whether the implementation of the conditions of a CTO will or may create a breach of Article 5 or any Convention right. If an issue remains to be decided on whether a breach exists or could be avoided (by authorisation or consent, or changing conditions), then generally the tribunal should adjourn to give an opportunity to make lawful the implementation of conditions. But if the treatment could not be provided without breach of Convention rights then the tribunal (whether by the statutory criteria or under its discretion) should discharge the CTO. (3) Guidance to tribunals was given under the following (paraphrased) headings: (a) whether implementation of the conditions will objectively amount to a deprivation of liberty; (b) whether the patient has capacity to consent; (c) if the patient has capacity, whether consent avoids a breach of Article 5; (d) if the patient lacks capacity, whether the objective deprivation of liberty can be authorised under the MCA; (e) if the patient lacks capacity, whether s64D can be relied upon to avoid an Article 5 breach; (f) how the conclusions on the above should help decide whether to adjourn, or discharge or uphold the CTO. (Caution: see Court of Appeal decision.)	2015‑09‑10 00:18:19	2015 cases, CTO cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Judgment available on MHLO, MHLR summary, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions, Judgment available on Bailii, 2015 cases
Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis v Ahsan [2015] EWHC 2354 (Admin), [2015] MHLO 62 — The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis applied for an order to impose notification requirements for a period of 15 years on Syed Talha Ahsan under the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008. The notification order would require him for that period to attend police stations to provide, and update, information about his living arrangements and to provide details about his travel plans, for which permission can be refused; breach of the requirements is punishable with imprisonment of up to 5 years. (1) Ahsan had been convicted in the United States of providing material assistance for the Taliban, while they were harbouring Osama bin Laden, through his involvement in a US-hosted website, but he argued that this did not constitute an act which "would have constituted an offence… if it had been done in any part of the United Kingdom…" because it was in fact done within the United Kingdom. The judge decided that (a) Parliament must have intended that the notification requirements should apply to terrorist conduct committed here which results in a conviction in a foreign court, even if it could have been prosecuted here but was not; (b) by inadvertence Parliament had failed to give effect to that purpose; (c) taking a purposive approach, even assuming that all elements of Mr Ahsan's offending occurred here, the offences he was convicted of in the US were corresponding foreign offences. (2) Ashan argued that the Commissioner had failed to take into account relevant considerations and therefore the exercise of discretion to make the application was unlawful. The judge decided that: (a) since there is a discretion, its exercise should be open to public law challenge; (b) only in exceptional circumstances would this be successful, because of the strong legislative steer that, where there has been a corresponding foreign conviction and the requisite sentence has been imposed, an application should be made; (c) the public law challenge should, to avoid wasting time and money, be heard within the 2008 Act proceedings rather than by separate judicial review proceedings; (d) failure to consider the sentencing remarks, his mental health, and the fact that Ahsan had not been prosecuted here, did not render the decision unlawful. (3) The notification requirements did not meet the minimum level of severity required for a successful Article 3 claim. (4) The interference with Ahsan's private and family life was not necessary and proportionate under Article 8: (a) this was an exceptional case where there was no significant future risk; (b) the medical evidence was that that the notification requirements were likely to have a severe adverse impact on Ahsan's mental health, and despite this likelihood the requirements would continue for 15 years with no review mechanism. (5) The application was therefore dismissed.	2015‑08‑23 22:33:37	2015 cases, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Transcript
* Ordinary residence R (Cornwall Council v SSH [2015] UKSC 46 — "PH has severe physical and learning disabilities and is without speech. He lacks capacity to decide for himself where to live. Since the age of four he has received accommodation and support at public expense. Until his majority in December 2004, he was living with foster parents in South Gloucestershire. Since then he has lived in two care homes in the Somerset area. There is no dispute about his entitlement to that support, initially under the Children Act 1989, and since his majority under the National Assistance Act 1948. The issue is: which authority should be responsible? This depends, under sections 24(1) and (5) of the 1948 Act, on, where immediately before his placement in Somerset, he was "ordinarily resident". There are three possible contenders: Wiltshire, as the authority for the area where he was living with his family when he first went into care, and which remained responsible for him under the 1948 Act; Cornwall, where his family have lived since 1991; or South Gloucestershire, where he lived with his foster parents from the age of four until his move to Somerset. ... Although none of the other authorities has argued that Wiltshire should be responsible, the court indicated at the beginning of the hearing that this possibility should not be excluded from consideration. ... In a case where the person concerned was at the relevant time living in accommodation in which he had been placed by a local authority under the 1989 Act, it would be artificial to ignore the nature of such a placement in that parallel statutory context. He was living for the time being in a place determined, not by his own settled intention, but by the responsible local authority solely for the purpose of fulfilling its statutory duties. In other words, it would be wrong to interpret section 24 of the 1948 Act so as to regard PH as having been ordinarily resident in South Gloucestershire by reason of a form of residence whose legal characteristics are to be found in the provisions of the 1989 Act. Since one of the characteristics of that placement is that it did not affect his ordinary residence under the statutory scheme, it would create an unnecessary and avoidable mismatch to treat the placement as having had that effect when it came to the transition in his care arrangements on his 18th birthday. On this analysis it follows that PH's placement in South Gloucestershire by Wiltshire is not to be regarded as bringing about a change in his ordinary residence. Throughout the period until he reached 18 he remained continuously where he was placed by Wiltshire, under an arrangement made and paid for by them. For fiscal and administrative purposes his ordinary residence continued to be in their area, regardless of where they determined that he should live. It may seem harsh to Wiltshire to have to retain indefinite responsibility for a person who left the area many years ago. But against that there are advantages for the subject in continuity of planning and financial responsibility. As between different authorities, an element of arbitrariness and "swings and roundabouts" may be unavoidable."	2015‑08‑07 23:06:04	2015 cases, Cases, Community care, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, MHLR summary, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment missing from Bailii, 2015 cases
SL v Ludlow Street Healthcare [2015] UKUT 398 (AAC) — The patient was living outside hospital on s17 leave but was required to attend hospital for fortnightly psychology sessions and a monthly ward round. He challenged the tribunal's decision that it remained appropriate for him to be liable to be detained in hospital under s3 for medical treatment. This was unsuccessful as the tribunal had applied the correct legal test and had applied it properly. The UT judge added that medical treatment includes rehabilitation under medical supervision, which meant that the s17 leave and the rehabilitation provided outside hospital, both of which operated under medical supervision, were themselves part of the treatment plan.	2015‑08‑07 22:27:01	2015 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
R (Samadi) v SSHD [2015] EWHC 1806 (Admin), [2015] MHLO 59 — "This is the hearing of the Claimant's claim for damages for what he argues was his unlawful immigration detention for 19 days from 14 May to 1 June 2012. In broad summary his case is that there were breaches of §55.10 of the Defendant's Enforcement Instructions and Guidance (the 'Guidance') which provides for two categories of potential detainees who will normally only be considered suitable for detention in very exceptional circumstances: (a) those suffering from serious mental illness which cannot be satisfactorily managed in detention, and (b) those where there is independent evidence that they have been tortured. It is the Claimant's case that he fell into both those categories; and that in any event the Defendant (c) wrongfully continued to detain him after it had become clear that his removal was no longer imminent."	2015‑08‑07 22:08:10	2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Repatriation cases, Transcript
* Hospital transfer R (YZ) v NHS Trust [2015] EWHC 2296 (Admin) — (1) YZ ceased to comply with clozapine treatment, and was referred by a medium secure unit (MSU) to Broadmoor hospital. After Broadmoor's Admission Panel decided that while off clozapine the risks justified a high secure setting, YZ became willing to restart clozapine but his new doctor at the MSU was unwilling to prescribe it. YZ appealed the Admission Panel decision and argued that new information meant the case should be reconsidered by the original panel, but Broadmoor decided there was no new information so the case was considered by the Admission Appeals Panel, which upheld the decision. (2) YZ's position was that he could restart clozapine in medium security, the relationship with staff at the MSU had broken down but he should be transferred to another MSU, and once treatment of his gender dysphoria commenced his mental state would probably improve. He argued that transfer to Broadmoor would breach the Code of Practice's least restriction principle and violate Articles 3 and 8. He sought judicial review of: (a) the decision not to prescribe clozapine; (b) the decision to transfer him to Broadmoor; (c) Broadmoor's decision to accept him; (d) the decision not to refer the case back to the original admissions panel. (3) Taking the grounds in turn, the court held that: (a) There was no clinician willing to prescribe clozapine, and the court "cannot and should not seek to decide what medical treatment is appropriate in these circumstances and declare an informed and justified decision unlawful". (b) The decision to transfer to Broadmoor was taken carefully and through the correct procedures, and no medium secure unit was willing to take the patient. (c) The decision to accept was a rational decision open to the admissions panel on the material before it. (d) The appeals panel decision was not susceptible to judicial review, and the process was rational and had not been challenged at the time. Permission was therefore refused.	2015‑08‑01 21:09:36	2015 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2015 cases
Case HM/0339/2015 [2015] MHLO 57 (UT) — After the case had been adjourned part-heard, the patient's withdrawal was agreed by a tribunal clerk. The panel judge spoke with a salaried tribunal judge, who then set aside the decision to consent to withdrawal, and the tribunal reconvened without discharging the patient. The salaried tribunal judge's decision was unlawful and the tribunal therefore had no jurisdiction to continue with the hearing. (Under the subsequent Practice Statement: Delegation of Functions to Staff and to Registrars on or after 27 April 2015 (27/4/15) the original decision would not have been made by a clerk.)	2015‑07‑26 23:29:14	2015 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, MHLR summary, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
Re EL: Public Guardian v CS [2015] EWCOP 30, [2015] MHLO 56 — "This is an application by the Public Guardian for an order revoking a Lasting Power of Attorney ('LPA') for property and financial affairs and directing him to cancel its registration."	2015‑07‑20 20:54:31	2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, LPA cases - revocation, No summary, Transcript
Re HC: Public Guardian v CC [2015] EWCOP 29, [2015] MHLO 55 — "This is an application by the Public Guardian for an order under section 16(8) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 revoking the appointment of a deputy because he has behaved in a way that contravenes the authority conferred on him by the court or is not in the best interests of the person for whom he acts as deputy."	2015‑07‑20 20:51:39	2015 cases, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
Re SM: Public Guardian v MO [2015] EWCOP 27, [2015] MHLO 54 — "This is an application by the Public Guardian for the revocation of a Lasting Power of Attorney ('LPA') for property and financial affairs."	2015‑07‑20 20:47:12	2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, LPA cases - revocation, No summary, Transcript
Re ED: Public Guardian v JD [2015] EWCOP 26, [2015] MHLO 53 — "This is an application by the Public Guardian to revoke an Enduring Power of Attorney."	2015‑07‑20 20:39:32	2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other EPA cases, Transcript
Re LC: Bedford Borough Council v Mrs C and Mr C [2015] EWCOP 25, [2015] MHLO 52 — "The proceedings concern Mrs C’s best interests in relation to residence and her contact with her husband and a deprivation of her liberty. ... There is also in existence a separate application by the local authority for a deputy for property and affairs to be appointed for her."	2015‑07‑20 20:26:13	2015 cases, Best interests, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
Newcastle City Council v PV [2015] EWCOP 22, [2015] MHLO 51 — "This judgment considers the role of the Court of Protection in connection with applications to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority ('CICA'). In particular, it looks at cases in which the CICA requires a trust to be created in order to exclude any possibility that the assailant may benefit from the compensation award. These cases arise almost exclusively in the context of domestic violence, where the assailant is a family member." [See appeal decision.]	2015‑07‑20 20:19:11	2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
The Mental Health Trust v DD [2015] EWCOP 4, [2015] MHLO 50 — "For the reasons set out above, I propose to declare: (i) pursuant to section 15 of the 2005 Act that DD lacks capacity to litigate in relation to the relevant issues; (ii) pursuant to section 15 of the 2005 Act that DD lacks capacity to make decisions in respect of contraception; (iii) pursuant to section 15 of the 2005 Act that it is lawful and in DD's best interests to undergo a therapeutic sterilisation and authorise the applicants' staff to do so, together with the provision of all ancillary care and treatment; Further, (iv) subject to certain safeguards (more fully set out in the care plan and reflected in the proposed draft order) being required, I propose to authorise the applicants to remove DD from her home and take steps to convey her to hospital for the purposes of the sterilisation procedure, and authorise the use of reasonable and proportionate measures to ensure that she is able to receive the said treatment even if any deprivation of liberty is caused by the same; (v) I authorise the applicants to take such necessary and proportionate steps to give effect to the best interests declarations above to include, forced entry and necessary restraint, and authorise that any interferences with DD's rights under Article 8 of the ECHR as being in her best interests."	2015‑07‑20 20:15:19	2015 cases, Best interests, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii
* Conditional discharge and DOL SSJ v KC [2015] UKUT 376 (AAC) — (1) A conditional discharge may include conditions which will, on an objective assessment, give rise to a deprivation of liberty, if that deprivation of liberty is authorised under the MCA. (2) (Obiter) The same conditions would be lawful for a patient with capacity who gives real consent since this would mean there is no Article 5 deprivation of liberty.	2015‑07‑15 22:54:29	2015 cases, Cases, Deprivation of liberty, Discharge conditions cases cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Judgment available on MHLO, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions, Judgment available on Bailii, 2015 cases
Re MOD (Deprivation of Liberty) [2015] EWCOP 47, [2015] MHLO 48 — Nine cases which had been issued under the Re X streamlined procedure were listed for directions before DJ Marin. (1) One case (ML) would require a best interests hearing so never really belonged in the Re X procedure, but orders under the Re X procedure would or would potentially have been made in the other cases. (2) The Court of Appeal in Re X had (obiter, and without referring to new rule 3A) decided that P should be a party in every deprivation of liberty case. (3) Party status would entail the need for a litigation friend but, except for an IMCA in one case (MOD), no-one suitable had been identified: (a) in most of these cases, the family may be said to have an adverse interest to the person concerned; (b) there must be a question in every case as to whether family members have the required expertise; (c) the Official Solicitor refused to act as his COP Health & Welfare team was already "fire-fighting" at an unsustainable level owing to budgetary constraints; (d) IMCAs in one borough refused to act without indemnity insurance, which it was hoped would be in place by the end of 2016. (4) The result was that none of these cases could proceed, and neither could hundreds and potentially thousands of others: the judge said he "cannot think of a more serious situation to have faced a court in recent legal history". (5) These cases were transferred to the Vice President of the COP (Charles J) to decide on the following issues: (a) whether P must be joined as a party in a case involving deprivation of liberty; (b) whether the appointment of a rule 3A representative is sufficient in a case involving deprivation of liberty; (c) if P must be joined as a party, in the absence of any suitable person to act as litigation friend, what should be done in circumstances where the Official Solicitor cannot accept an invitation to act; (d) whether a family member can act as litigation friend in circumstances where that family member has an interest in the outcome of the proceedings; (e) whether other deprivation of liberty cases not before the court on this occasion but which raise similar issues to this case should be stayed pending a determination of the issues recorded at paragraphs (a) to (d). (6) The Official Solicitor was ordered to file and serve a statement which would: (a) provide a full and evidence-based explanation of why he cannot cope with the number of deprivation of liberty applications in which he is invited to act as litigation friend; (b) explain in full detail providing evidence where appropriate as to which areas or processes cause him difficulty and why; (c) inform the court when he expects to be able to cope with deprivation of liberty cases and the likely time scale in which he can start work on a case; (d) provide any other information to the court what will assist the court to make decisions in this case regarding the position of the Official Solicitor. (7) The court refused to approve deprivations of liberty on an interim basis ..→	2015‑07‑12 21:32:07	2015 cases, Brief summary, Deprivation of liberty, Judgment available on Bailii, Judgment available on MHLO, Transcript
R (MT) v Oxford City Council [2015] EWHC 795 (Admin), [2015] MHLO 47 — The claimant's application via his deputy to the defendant as homeless was rejected on the basis that his lack of capacity to make such an application meant that there was no duty under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996. (1) The claimant's argument that Article 14 (with Article 8) meant the otherwise-binding House of Lords decision in Garlick should not be followed was unsuccessful. (2) In any event, it is not discriminatory to provide two different systems for provision of accommodation (the system potentially available to MT was at that time s21 National Assistance Act 1948).	2015‑06‑26 22:53:16	2015 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Other capacity cases, Transcript
Re A [2015] EWHC 1709 (Fam), [2015] MHLO 45 — "The Local Authority applies for a secure accommodation order in respect of her under s.25 of the Children Act 1989. The Local Authority's case is that A is a danger to herself and others, and that she is no longer containable in any form of ordinary residential unit. ... Put in lay language, the expert consensus of CAMHS is that A's problems, although recognised as being severe and extreme, are not of a mental health or psychiatric nature; but rather are of a behavioural nature. Therefore, admission to a Young Person's Psychiatric Unit for assessment and potential subsequent treatment is not currently 'on offer' as a way of dealing with A's problems. ... Conventionally, a specific placement is identified before a secure accommodation order is made. However, that is simply not possible here, and both the Local Authority and the Children's Guardian invite me to make the order in general terms, leaving it to the Local Authority, on consultation with the Children's Guardian, to place A at an appropriate unit as and when one is identified. ... A can be seen as falling between two stools. She is not amenable to a psychiatric disposal on the expert report available, but she is unable to be contained in ordinary residential homes. It is clearly unsatisfactory that no secure arrangements can readily be found for her, and that she remains currently at some measure of risk, howsoever hard the staff struggle to contain it, in the ordinary residential unit where she is placed. The Local Authority must, and will, therefore continue its efforts to find secure accommodation. They tell me that funding is not a problem in this case. The Local Authority will also be considering the possibility of obtaining an independent psychiatric report into her situation, which could then be shared with the local CAMHS team to see if it affected their current opinion."	2015‑06‑24 09:59:09	2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, No summary, Transcript
Re X (Court of Protection Practice) [2015] EWCA Civ 599, [2015] MHLO 44 — This case concerned the hearings arranged by Munby LJ, the President of the Court of Protection, in relation to devising a streamlined and minimally Article 5 compliant process for the anticipated higher numbers of court applications following Cheshire West. (1) Whether the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the Court of Protection depends on whether there was a "decision" (MCA 2005 s53), which must mean a decision determining an issue arising between parties (involving or about the person concerned) rather than decision made on a hypothetical basis. (2) The President's judgments contained no appealable "decision" as the relevant issues had not arisen in the appellants' cases. (2) (Obiter) In theory the person concerned need not always be a party to deprivation of liberty proceedings if his participation can reliably be secured by other means, but given the tools presently available in our domestic procedural law, the person concerned must always be a party, so the streamlined "Re X" procedure was not compliant with Article 5. (Detailed summary on case page.)	2015‑06‑17 19:08:12	2015 cases, Deprivation of liberty, Detailed summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function
AF v Nottinghamshire NHS Trust [2015] UKUT 216 (AAC), [2015] MHLO 43 — "There is nothing in the law that requires the social circumstances report to have been written by a social worker or CPN and not a nurse, or requiring that the nursing report and social circumstances reports must have different authors, and the tribunal therefore did not err in law in having those two reports before it. Nor was there any legal requirement on the report’s author to attend the hearing and so the tribunal did not err in law in allowing another nurse to attend and speak to that report. Further, the question of whether any deficits in the report (assuming there were such) led the tribunal to err in law must be judged on the facts of the individual case. In a case where the tribunal decided that the appellant had not got to the point of being able to be discharged and needed to remain under section, the relevance of any after-care package in place simply falls away. And the tribunal adequately explained why it was not adjourning."	2015‑06‑08 23:16:19	2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
KD v A Borough Council [2015] UKUT 251 (AAC), [2015] MHLO 42 — "Permission to bring this appeal was granted by the First-tier Tribunal (the FTT) because in the view of the judge it raises points upon which guidance is needed. Those points concern the relationship between the functions and powers of the FTT under the Mental Health Act 1983 (the MHA) and those of the Court of Protection, managing authorities and supervisory bodies under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (the MCA) and its Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DOLS). The most relevant provisions of the MHA in this case are those relating to guardianship." This judgment includes guidance under the headings "The approach to be taken by the parties and the FTT on an application to discharge a guardianship under s. 72 of the MHA on the basis that an alternative has the consequence that the guardianship is no longer necessary as it is not the least restrictive way of achieving what is in the patient’s best interests" and "A check list for FTT’s when an issue involving an argument that an alternative involving the application of the MCA is said to be the basis for a discharge of guardianship".	2015‑06‑08 21:43:37	2015 cases, 39 Essex Chambers summary, Deprivation of liberty, Judgment available on Bailii, Judgment available on MHLO, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions, Judgment available on Bailii
* Best interests and available options Re MN (An Adult) [2015] EWCA Civ 411 — "The function of the Court of Protection is to take, on behalf of adults who lack capacity, the decisions which, if they had capacity, they would take themselves. The Court of Protection has no more power, just because it is acting on behalf of an adult who lacks capacity, to obtain resources or facilities from a third party, whether a private individual or a public authority, than the adult if he had capacity would be able to obtain himself."	2015‑05‑24 21:01:44	2015 cases, Best interests, Cases, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2015 cases
LB Redbridge v G (No 6) [2015] EWCA Civ 446, [2015] MHLO 40 — The Official Solicitor unsuccessfully appealed against an order that Associated Newspapers Limited should pay (only) 30% of his costs. (1) The primary ground of appeal - that the COP Rules did not apply - was described by the Court of Appeal as "simply a device to suggest that the costs presumption should be reversed". (2) The alternative ground was that if the COP Rules did apply then the judge had erred in the exercise of his discretion in the proportionate costs order that he made. In relation to this the Court of Appeal held that (a) given that inaccurate letters from the OS (stating that that ANL were prevented from visiting G) had triggered ANL's application, and that the OS had not understood the public importance of the media's general role, a proportionate costs order was unsurprising; and (b) multiple representation where there is no significant difference between the arguments of parties on an application is to be discouraged by a limitation in costs.	2015‑05‑23 22:30:03	2015 cases, 39 Essex Chambers summary, Brief summary, COP costs cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function
* Disclosure of patient's medical information ABC v St George's Healthcare NHS Trust [2015] EWHC 1394 (QB) — The claimant's father had killed his wife, was detained under s37/41, and refused to allow the Trust to inform his pregnant daughter of his Huntingdon's disease diagnosis. She claimed that the failure to inform her: (a) was negligent and breached Article 8; and (b) had caused psychiatric damage, and (if her daughter also has the disease) additional expense which she would have avoided by an abortion. Her claim was struck out.	2015‑05‑23 21:52:22	2015 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Medical records cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2015 cases
H v USA [2015] EWHC 1066 (Admin), [2015] MHLO 37 — Extradition case with mental health factual background.	2015‑04‑29 21:35:39	2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Repatriation cases, Transcript
W City Council v Mrs L [2015] EWCOP 20, [2015] MHLO 35 — "This hearing concerns a 93-year old lady with a diagnosis of severe dementia, Alzheimer's disease. She lives in her own home, with care and safety arrangements set up for her between her adult daughters and the Local Authority. This simple scenario raises the following issues: (a) whether the care arrangements for the lady (Mrs L) constitute a deprivation of her liberty; (b) if so, then whether the State is responsible for such deprivation of liberty; and (c) if so, then whether such deprivation of liberty should be authorised by the court and what the arrangements for continuing authorisation should be."	2015‑04‑16 10:57:25	2015 cases, Deprivation of liberty, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
NM v Kent County Council [2015] UKUT 125 (AAC), [2015] MHLO 34 — NM was subject to both guardianship and a DOLS authorisation. His residence at a particular home was enforced and he was escorted while on leave. The First-tier tribunal decided that he "had the capacity to decide where to live but not the capacity to decide on the supervision that was required to keep him and any child he came into contact with safe", and that he would not remain in the home without being subject to the guardianship; it refused to discharge him. (1) An ideal set of reasons would identify the relevant legal differences between guardianship and DOLS and include findings of fact sufficient to show their significance to the legal criteria set out in s72(4). (2) Upper Tribunal Judge Jacobs accepted the council's position that the differences include: DOLS assumes that the person lacks capacity to make the relevant decisions in their best interests; DOLS cannot impose a requirement that the person reside at a particular address, whereas a guardian can; and DOLS cannot authorise anyone to give, or consent to, treatment for someone with a mental disorder. He also said that a limitation inherent in the DOLS regime was that, while it could prevent NM from leaving, it could not deal with the possibility that he may abscond. (3) In some (other) cases guardianship may not be necessary for the purposes of s72(4)(b) as DOLS may provide sufficiently for the person’s welfare and the protection of others. (4) The First-tier Tribunal's reasons on the statutory criteria (the key being that NM would not remain at the home without guardianship) and the relationship with DOLS (concerning return following absconsion) were in substance adequate to explain and justify its decision.	2015‑04‑10 20:09:05	2015 cases, Brief summary, Deprivation of liberty, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii
R v Marshall [2015] EWCA Crim 474, [2015] MHLO 32 — "On 12th March 2014 in the Crown Court at Newcastle upon Tyne the appellant pleaded guilty to an offence of violent disorder, contrary to section 2(1) of the Public Order Act 1986. On 12th August 2014 he was made subject to a hospital order, pursuant to section 37 of the Mental Health Act 1983, and a Football Banning Order for six years. With the leave of the single judge he appeals against sentence on the ground that a suspended sentence of imprisonment should have been imposed, not a hospital order. ... Having reviewed the updated psychiatric report, we are satisfied that the conditions for a hospital order under section 37 continue to be met, and it remains the most suitable disposal."	2015‑03‑31 22:41:36	2015 cases, Hospital order cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
Donna v Martin [2015] EWCOP 23, [2015] MHLO 31 — "This is an application under rule 89 of the Court of Protection Rules 2007 inviting me to reconsider an order I made on the papers on 27 November 2014. As this is a case in which there is a dispute as to who should act as a deputy, I am required ... to publish this judgment."	2015‑03‑29 18:24:01	2015 cases, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
Re CJ: Public Guardian v MP [2015] EWCOP 21, [2015] MHLO 30 — "This is a reconsideration of a decision made on the papers on 4 November 2104 by District Judge S. E. Rogers, who made an order: (a) revoking the respondent's appointment as his partner's deputy for property and affairs; and (b) inviting a panel deputy to apply to be appointed as deputy in his place. ... I am absolutely certain that there has been no dishonest misappropriation of CJ's funds by MP, but that's not the point. ... To turn a blind eye to MP's wilful refusal to comply with his duties would erode and undermine the safeguarding work carried out by the OPG's supervision and compliance teams, which cannot possibly be in the public interest. It would also ride roughshod over the court's obligations under international human rights law to ensure that the protective measures it makes contain appropriate and effective safeguards to prevent abuse: United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Article 12.4. ... Accordingly, I confirm District Judge Rogers' order revoking MP's appointment as deputy and inviting a panel deputy to apply to be appointed in his place."	2015‑03‑26 09:54:39	2015 cases, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
Baker v Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHSFT [2015] EWHC 609 (QB), [2015] MHLO 29 — "This action arises out of the tragic suicide of Philip Baker ... The claim is brought on behalf of his widow, Pauline Baker ... It is alleged that the treatment plan provided by Dr Kabacs on 29 September was inadequate and her decision on 26 October 2010 to discharge Mr Baker to the care of his general practitioner, caused him to take his own life."	2015‑03‑24 21:45:50	2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, No summary, Transcript
Re ID (Revocation of LPA) [2015] EWCOP 19, [2015] MHLO 28 — "This is an application by the Public Guardian for the revocation of a Lasting Power of Attorney."	2015‑03‑24 20:22:24	2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, LPA cases - revocation, No summary, Transcript
Re AW [2015] EWCOP 16, [2015] MHLO 27 — "These are competing applications by DB and DW to be appointed as AW's deputy for property and affairs."	2015‑03‑24 20:20:35	2015 cases, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
BG v MHTS [2015] CSIH 18, [2015] MHLO 26 — "This is an appeal by JG’s son from a decision of the sheriff principal of Lothian and Borders refusing his appeal against a decision of the Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland. The decision of the MHTS which he had appealed against was a decision to make a compulsory treatment order in relation to his mother."	2015‑03‑24 20:17:50	2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Scottish cases, Transcript
Re PL (Objection Hearing) [2015] EWCOP 14, [2015] MHLO 25 — "This is an objection by PL's daughters to his son's application to be appointed as his deputy for property and affairs."	2015‑03‑24 20:14:11	2015 cases, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
Rochdale MBC v KW [2015] EWCOP 13, [2015] MHLO 24 — (1) The Court of Appeal's decision to allow an appeal against the judge's earlier decision (that KW was not being deprived of her liberty at home) by consent, and without an oral hearing or judgment, was procedurally impermissible. (2) Although the Court of Appeal had set aside the decision, it had not actually declared that KW was deprived of her liberty: therefore, her status will be in limbo until the judge decides the matter at an oral 12-month review hearing. (3) The provisions for a review on the care plan becoming more restrictive would only be triggered if the changes amount to bodily restraint comparable to that which obtained in Cheshire West, as any restrictions short of that would amount to no more than arrangements for her care in her own home and would not amount to state detention. (4) The judge concluded that: "In this difficult and sensitive area, where people are being looked after in their own homes at the state's expense, the law is now in a state of serious confusion."	2015‑03‑24 20:09:36	2015 cases, Brief summary, Deprivation of liberty, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function
A Healthcare NHS Trust v P and Q [2015] EWCOP 15, [2015] MHLO 23 — "The Trust ... applied to the Court for a declaration in P's best interests firstly, not to escalate his care and secondly to discontinue some care, inevitably leading to his demise. ... At the same time they also applied for a reporting restriction order with accompanying documentation. When they sought to serve that material on the Press Association through the service known as CopyDirect, but now in fact called the Injunctions Alert Service, the second respondent objected to the disclosure of any identity either of P or of P's family. ... As a result I listed a hearing ... for the Court to consider four questions: (Generally) (1) Whether in applications for reporting restrictions orders the applicant, when notifying the Press of the application, is required to identify the parties and or P. (Specifically in this application) (2) Whether further hearings in these proceedings should be heard in public. (3) Whether there should be any reporting restrictions in relation to these proceedings and if so those restrictions. (4) Such further directions as seemed appropriate to the Court."	2015‑03‑24 19:35:57	2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
Re BN [2015] EWCOP 11, [2015] MHLO 22 — "This is an application under rule 89 of the Court of Protection Rules 2007 for me to reconsider an order I made on the papers. ... BN does not lack capacity to revoke the LPAs and, indeed, she has no wish to revoke them, so the court is powerless to intervene. ... CN acted in bad faith, was motivated by spite, and was unsuccessful. BN responded to the application by taking advice from her solicitors, who sensibly narrowed the matter down to a single issue. It would be unjust to expect BN to pay the legal costs she had to incur in order to resist such an unmeritorious application."	2015‑03‑24 17:34:53	2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, LPA cases - revocation, No summary, Transcript
Re DT: Public Guardian v IT [2015] EWCOP 10, [2015] MHLO 21 — "This is an application by the Public Guardian to revoke and cancel the registration of an Enduring Power of Attorney. It is unusual for me to dismiss an application by the Public Guardian, but on this occasion I am not satisfied that the order he is seeking: (a) is proportionate; (b) is less restrictive in terms of DT's rights and freedom of action; (c) respects DT's rights, will and preferences; (d) warrants public interference in his private and family life; or (e) is in his best interests."	2015‑03‑24 17:17:28	2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other EPA cases, Transcript
Re GW [2015] EWCOP 9, [2015] MHLO 20 — "This is an application by the Public Guardian to revoke a Lasting Power of Attorney for property and financial affairs because the attorney has behaved in a way that contravenes his authority and is not in the donor's best interests."	2015‑03‑24 16:59:53	2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, LPA cases - revocation, No summary, Transcript
YA v Central and NW London NHSFT [2015] UKUT 37 (AAC), [2015] MHLO 18 — This case concerned the appointment and duties of a legal representative appointed by the tribunal under rule 11(7). There is a distinction between the rule 11 test (capacity to ‘appoint a representative’) and capacity to conduct proceedings, but this is ‘theoretical rather than real’. The judge decided this as otherwise (given the wording of the rule 11 test) there would be cases where the tribunal could not make an appointment. The role of an appointed legal representative is akin to the role of the litigation friend in civil proceedings – ‘to provide that a patient has an effective role in the proceedings and his best interests are advanced and considered by them’. The representative should ‘advance all arguable points to test the bases for the detention in hospital’ unless he disagrees with the patient’s wishes, in which case he should ‘advance such arguments as [he] properly can in support of the patient’s expressed views…’. Having been appointed (and generally) if the representative forms the view that the patient does have capacity, he should inform the Tribunal and take instructions as normal, and act on those instructions.	2015‑02‑12 23:49:18	2015 cases, Detailed summary, Judgment available on Bailii, MHT capacity cases, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
* Deputyship and MHT AMA v Greater Manchester West MH NHSFT [2015] UKUT 36 (AAC) — A personal welfare deputy cannot appoint himself (or anyone else) as a representative unless the order appointing him expressly provides for this. This case related to the withdrawal of a tribunal application, and was followed up by Tribunal Policy: Withdrawals (23/2/15).	2015‑02‑12 23:42:15	2015 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Judgment available on MHLO, MHT capacity cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions, Judgment missing from Bailii, 2015 cases
* Sentencing guidance; MHT/PB delay R v LV; R (LV) v SSJ [2015] EWCA Crim 45, [2015] EWCA Civ 56 — "There are before the court: (1) Sitting as the Court of Appeal Criminal Division six cases where indeterminate sentences (either imprisonment for public protection (IPP) or a life sentence) had been passed between 1997 and 2008. Each specified a minimum term. In each case there was psychiatric evidence before the court with a view to a judge considering making a hospital order under MHA 1983 s37 as amended with a restriction under s41 of the same Act. The sentencing judge did not make such an order, but each was subsequently transferred to hospital under a transfer direction made by the Secretary of State under s47. (2) Sitting as the Court of Appeal Civil Division, a civil appeal in relation to a judicial review brought by the first of the appellants in the criminal appeals of the actions of the Secretary of State for Justice and the Parole Board relating to delay in the determination of her application for release from custody." In relation to the criminal aspect: in cases where medical evidence suggests mental disorder, the offending is partly or wholly attributable to that disorder, treatment is available and a hospital order may be appropriate, the court should consider (and, if appropriate, make) a s45A order before considering making a hospital order.	2015‑02‑12 23:21:36	2015 cases, Cases, Deprivation of liberty, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, MHLR summary, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Prison law cases, Sentence appeal cases, Judgment available on Bailii, 2015 cases
Re SB: Public Guardian v BB [2015] EWCOP 7 [2015] MHLO 15 — "This is an application to revoke a Lasting Power of Attorney for property and financial affairs because the attorneys have behaved in a way that contravenes their authority and is not in the donor's best interests. It is also a contested application as to who should be appointed as SB's deputy for property and affairs in place of the attorneys."	2015‑02‑12 23:07:50	2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, LPA cases - revocation, No summary, Transcript
Re EG: Public Guardian v GB [2015] EWCOP 6, [2015] MHLO 14 — "This is an application by the Public Guardian to revoke a Lasting Power of Attorney for property and financial affairs ('LPA') because the attorneys have behaved in a way that contravenes their authority and is not in the donor's best interests."	2015‑02‑12 23:05:52	2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, LPA cases - revocation, No summary, Transcript
R (Kent CC) v SSH [2015] EWCA Civ 81, [2015] MHLO 13 — "This case concerns the question of which of a number of local authorities should be responsible for funding the residential accommodation of a disabled adult pursuant to section 21 of the National Assistance Act 1948. In particular, it concerns the proper construction of section 24(5) which deems a person to be ordinarily resident in a local authority area when he is in fact ordinarily resident elsewhere."	2015‑02‑12 23:03:10	2015 cases, Community care, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
Bostridge v Oxleas NHS Foundation Trust [2015] EWCA Civ 79, [2015] MHLO 12 — "The single issue in this appeal is whether the appellant, a mentally disordered patient unlawfully detained in hospital for some 442 days, is entitled to substantial damages instead of the nominal damages awarded by the judge, in circumstances where he would anyway have been detained lawfully had the defendant NHS trust been aware of the unlawfulness. ... I would dismiss this appeal."	2015‑02‑12 22:58:20	2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript, Unlawful detention cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function
Re AJ (DOLS) [2015] EWCOP 5, [2015] MHLO 11 — "This case raises a number of issues about the provisions of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, and in particular the amendments that were introduced into that Act by the Mental Health Act 2007 concerning the procedures to be followed in cases of deprivation of liberty. The provisions under consideration include the selection and appointment of relevant person's representatives under Part 10 of Schedule A1 and independent mental capacity advocates under s.39D which have not, so far as I am aware, been considered in any previous judgment. More fundamentally, the case addresses the question of the extent of the duty on a local authority to ensure that a person who lacks capacity is able to challenge a deprivation of their liberty."	2015‑02‑12 22:48:15	2015 cases, Deprivation of liberty, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
MASM v MMAM [2015] EWCOP 3, [2015] MHLO 10 — (1) The issue: "The point the case raises is a short but important one: namely the legal status of declaratory orders in the Court of Protection and the consequences, if any, for deliberate defiance of them. ... Mr MASM and his son have plainly colluded to defeat the declaration made by this court. ... Two questions have fallen for consideration here in the light of this background: (i) What is the legal status of a declaration of best interests in the Court of Protection? (ii) Can a party who deliberately acts in defiance of a declaration be held to be in contempt of court?" (2) Decision: "Ultimately, a declaration of best interests connotes the superlative or extreme quality of welfare options. It by no means follows automatically that an alternative course of action to that determined in the Declaration, is contrary to an individual's welfare. There may, in simple terms, be a 'second best' option. For this reason, such a declaration cannot be of the same complexion as a Court Order. It lacks both the necessary clarity and fails to carry any element of mandatory imperative. I am ultimately not prepared to go as far as Mr McKendrick urges me to and elevate the remit of the Court of Protection, in its welfare decision making, to such a level that anything hampering the court in the exercise of its duty, or perpetrated in wanton defiance of its objectives is capable, without more, of being an interference with the administration of justice and therefore criminal contempt. Such an approach would it seems to me be entirely out of step with the development of our understanding of the importance of proper and fair process where the liberty of the individual is concerned. I would add that this has long been foreshadowed by the recognition that the necessary standard of proof in a application to commit is the criminal standard. Moreover, though my order of 20th February 2015 was expressed to have been made pursuant to section 16, it was drafted in declaratory terms. As such, for the reasons I have set out above, it cannot, in my judgement, trigger contempt proceedings. There cannot be 'defiance' of a 'declaration' nor can there be an 'enforcement' of one. A declaration is ultimately no more than a formal, explicit statement or announcement. That said I emphasise that Mr MASM, in fact acted, through the agency of his son, in a way which was cynically contrary to his mother's best interests. The course he took was not a 'second best' option but one entirely inimical to his mother's welfare, physically, mentally and emotionally. He has frustrated the objectives of the litigation but he is not, as I ultimately find, acting in defiance of an order and therefore is not exposed to contempt proceedings." (3) Guidance: "Such guidance as I can give can only be limited: (i) Many orders pursuant to Section 16 seem to me to be perfectly capable of being drafted in clear unequivocal and even, where appropriate, prescriptive language. This Section ..→	2015‑01‑31 20:37:41	2015 cases, Brief summary, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Other capacity cases, Transcript
Cambridgeshire County Council 13 016 935 [2015] MHLO 9 (LGO) — LGO's summary: "Complaint from a woman that the council moved her husband into a residential home against both his and her wishes. She says she was forced to accept this course of action and the council failed to properly consider her preference of care home. The Ombudsman upheld the complaint and found fault causing injustice. Recommendations: To remedy the injustice caused, we recommend the council (within three months of the date of our report): (1) apologise to the woman for the failures outlined in our report. This apology should accept responsibility for the faults, and acknowledge the impact these had on her. It should also include an assurance that the same faults will not happen again, and explain what steps have been taken to ensure this; (2) set a timetable for refresher training for social care staff on mental capacity assessments, best interests decisions, deprivation of liberty and the role of the Court of Protection and how to advise the public on their rights. This may involve the council reviewing the current status of residents who may be deprived of their liberty without proper authorisation; and (3) pay the woman £750 to recognise the distress caused by the failings identified and the time and trouble she has expended in making the complaint."	2015‑01‑31 20:25:19	2015 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, LGO decisions, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, Transcript
Border v Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust [2015] EWCA Civ 8, [2015] MHLO 8 — "This is an appeal against an order ... which ... dismissed the claimant's claim for damages for clinical negligence. Permission to appeal was granted on a single ground, which relates to the issue of the claimant's consent to a particular medical procedure, namely the insertion of a cannula into her left arm for the purpose of intravenous access. ... A finding of absence of consent to the insertion of the cannula leads inexorably in this case to a finding of breach of duty in inserting it. The duty to obtain the patient's consent to treatment is a fundamental tenet of medical practice and is inherent in the case-law concerning the duty to take reasonable steps to warn a patient of the risks of treatment so that the patient can make an informed decision about whether to consent to it ... I would dispose of the appeal by (i) granting a declaration that Dr Prenter was in breach of his duty of care by inserting the cannula without the claimant's consent and (ii) remitting the matter to Judge Moloney to determine the outstanding issue of causation and, if liability is thereby established, to reach a final determination with regard to damages."	2015‑01‑31 20:14:53	2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, No summary, Transcript
Re RG: Public Guardian v PB [2015] EWCOP 2, [2015] MHLO 6 — "This is an application for the court to reconsider an order made on the papers, partially revoking an enduring power of attorney."	2015‑01‑30 10:00:31	2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other EPA cases, Transcript
R v Wells [2015] EWCA Crim 2, [2015] MHLO 5 — "In each appeal and application before the court, the defendant has been found unfit to plead: that is to say, based on medical evidence, the court has found that one or more of the following criteria is satisfied namely that he or she does not have the ability to plead to the indictment, to understand the course of the proceedings, to instruct a lawyer, to challenge a juror, to understand the evidence. ... Where a defendant's disability impacts on his/her ability to take part in a trial but he/she is not otherwise affected by a psychiatric condition such as renders what is said in interview unreliable (whether or not the delusional traits are apparent on the face of the interview), there is no reason why the jury should not hear them albeit with an appropriate warning. When considering the extent to which evidence of the interview should be admitted, it remains relevant to consider all the circumstances."	2015‑01‑30 09:41:02	2015 cases, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, MHLR summary, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript, Unfitness and insanity cases, Judgment available on Bailii
Jimoh Adun of Nieko Solicitors (SRA decision: closure) [2015] MHLO 4 (SRA) — The SRA decided to intervene because Jimoh Adun had abandoned his practice at Nieko Solicitors, and it was necessary to protect the interests of clients (former or potential) and any beneficiaries of any trust of which he is or was a trustee. The SRA was unable to gain access on 8/12/14 but gained access three days later with a court order.	2015‑01‑29 15:58:06	2015 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available offline, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, No transcript, SRA decisions
LB Hillingdon v PS [2015] MHLO 3 (COP) — Faced with an impasse about contact between PS and M, Hillingdon asked the court to determine what was in PS's best interests. Permission was required under MCA 2005 s50 and CS objected to the grant of permission. The factors in s50 required for permission were satisfied. Also, the court could give effect to the rules in accordance with the overriding objective (dealing with the case justly, including having regard to proportionality). The judge gave the following directions: (a) M to be served with a copy of the application and joined as a party; (b) CS to be joined as party; (c) permission to the attorneys to intervene; (d) final hearing listed and provision made for statements to be filed; (e) Court of Protection Visitor to visit PS to ascertain his wishes and feelings and to gather information relevant to the issue of contact in the same way Cafcass would report in a children's case; (f) costs reserved.	2015‑01‑29 15:33:43	2015 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, Transcript
Essex County Council v RF [2015] EWCOP 1, [2015] MHLO 2 — (1) A final declaration was made that P lacked capacity to make decisions in relation to his residence and care arrangements, but retained capacity to make decisions in relation to contact with others. (2) In considering quantum for unlawful detention there is a difference between procedural breaches (which would have made no difference to P's living or care arrangements) and substantive breaches (where P would not have been detained if the authority had acted lawfully). (3) The judge approved the following compromise agreement: (a) a declaration that ECC unlawfully deprived P of his liberty for approximately 13 months; (b) £60,000 damages; (c) care home fees to be waived (around £23-25,000); (d) damages to be excluded from means testing for community care costs; (e) costs to be paid (may exceed £64,000). (4) The judge described the situation as follows: "It is hard to imagine a more depressing and inexcusable state of affairs. A defenceless 91 year old gentleman in the final years of his life was removed from his home of 50 years and detained in a locked dementia unit against his wishes. Had it not been for the alarm raised by his friend RF he may have been condemned to remain there for the remainder of his days. There can be no doubt that ECC's practice was substandard. They failed to recognise the weakness of their own case and the strength of the case against them. They appeared unprepared to countenance any view contrary to their own. They maintained their resolute opposition to P returning to his home until the last possible moment. In my judgment the conduct of ECC has been reprehensible. The very sad and disturbing consequences for P cannot be ignored."	2015‑01‑21 21:48:32	2015 cases, Brief summary, Deprivation of liberty, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
R (AMG) v SSHD [2015] EWHC 5 (Admin), [2015] MHLO 1 — Immigration case with mental health background.	2015‑01‑13 16:35:32	2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Repatriation cases, Transcript