Court Report: 10/09/2020 @ The Family Court at Guildford (Heard Remotely)
Followers of the ‘Open Justice Court of Protection Project’ will be aware that they do an excellent job in promoting public observation in what The Telegraph once called “the most secretive court in Britain”.
The project publishes a daily list on their website highlighting so-called ‘Featured Hearings’ and encourage members of the public (including one hopes court room mice) to access and observe proceedings.
Since the Covid-19 pandemic started I understand that COP hearings have taken place remotely through either the Cloud Video Platform (“CVP”) or through telephone conferencing services such as BT Meet Me.
It’s against this background that I’m able to sit in my living room, with a cup of coffee, and remotely attend Case #13429042 before District Judge King.
The request to attend was made by e-mail to Reading County Court at 11.30am who confirmed in a subsequent phone call that they had forwarded my request onto the person concerned at Guildford. I received the call at 14.00 and was asked to provide my name and confirm to District Judge King that I was aware of the reporting restrictions that existed in this case. Indeed I am.
The judge informed the virtual court that there were three non-party participants and reassuringly that “observers are most welcome”.
The actual hearing seemed to be relative straight forward and only lasted about 20 minutes although the judge did comment that when more than a couple of participants are involved the use of video conferencing made it much easier to keep track of who was saying what.
By way of an anonymised summery this hearing concerned a 19-year-old man who I shall call Mr “PW”. The court is told that he was taken into care as a child and that his care order had expired upon his 18th birthday.
The court is told that his parents thought he should live with his father. The local authority disagreed and thought he should live in a supported living to receive specialist care. This disagreement gave rise to these proceedings.
The local authority’s position, later confirmed by a court appointed expert in 2019, was that PW lacked the mental capacity to make decisions including among other things where he should live.
Today’s hearing was a request by the local authority that the court grant an order authorising the continuation of the deprivation of his liberty by requiring he continues to live at a designated specialist care home. The Local Authority considered that the move to this care home had gone well subject to minor issues including development of an activity and education plan.
The order also included directions about the contact PW could have with his family.
The parties will reconvene at a subsequent hearing in December 2020 to review the care arrangements and to see how PW has settled in.
The exact date will be e-mailed to the parties after the hearing as the judge advised that she needed to use her phone to contact the listing office – a difficult task when on a teleconference.
All in all I was quite reassured at the courts approach. Adequate safeguards seemed to have been put in place to prevent the Local Authority acting too harshly and to give the parents an opportunity to have their comments heard. A review date of December seemed sensible too. I wish PW all the best and hope he settles in well.
I’m grateful to Celia Kitzinger (@KitzingerCelia) the Co-Director of the @OpenJusticeCOP project for her diligent effort in advertising these hearings. Their website has a guide for first-time observers of the Court of Protection which was most useful.
Mouse in the Court 