Skip to main content

Capacity to Litigate

The abuse of the provisions relating to the "capacity to instruct" a solicitor continues in the Family Division. It appears now that this is a special trick used by some social workers and legal departments to prevent people from fighting the system.

Comments

jacquig said…
I don't understand why you say this is a special trick? Lawyers have no professional choice when someone does not seem to have the competence to instruct. The client has to be assessed by a Psychiatrist - though sometimes a GP is accepted. It is right to say that if someone is deemed incompetent they are likely to lose the case - if too incapacitated to instruct the parent is unlikely to be able to parent. And most of the time if parents are at that level they really cannot safely parent unless they are properly supported - which they often are not and this is the shame which I would suggest needs addressing. It would help to know what sort of trick you are talking about.

Jacquig
john said…
This is, of course, the question as to whether or not someone is really incapable.
Andrew said…
I don't understand why you say this is a special trick?

I have seen first hand at least two people who are supposedly “incapacitated” yet they know exactly what the case is about & talk about the case with great insight, therefore can obviously instruct a solicitor, it really is not up to a psychologist to say otherwise “opinion” can’t trump “reality”, in fact in one of these cases the GP actually could not believe his patient had an official solicitor when she asked for a referral to a new psychologist & the GP wrote a letter to the court stating at the time this person was said to be “incapacitated”, I saw her & she was fully functioning & knew what the case was about

Lawyers have no professional choice when someone does not seem to have the competence to instruct. The client has to be assessed by a Psychiatrist - though sometimes a GP is accepted.

There is a question as to why anyone’s solicitor would want to undermine their client, the answer is simple “conflict of interest” many solicitors do work for both parents & local authorities, besides local authorities create custom for the solicitor even if they are representing the parent(s) at the said time, both the people I'm aware of in fact live in the same area, have the same solicitor, same social worker, same support worker & both claim & are quite clearly capable, I find that a bit odd to say the least.

It is right to say that if someone is deemed incompetent they are likely to lose the case - if too incapacitated to instruct the parent is unlikely to be able to parent. And most of the time if parents are at that level they really cannot safely parent unless they are properly supported

You make a great point & this is exactly what I suspected, parents who are considered “incapable to instruct a solicitor” will get no legal representation because they are considered by default to be too incapable to parent, this is why the official solicitor route is getting more & more popular between professionals, after all the parents are bound to fight back, but tell an Official Solicitor that the person is “incapable” & provided the certificate & you have won without any hassle & the parent is overridden regardless of their objections, after all they are just “incapable”.

I would really like to know the official figures of how many children the Official Solicitor does get back from the state, I suspect it would be an handful at best, at worse zero.
jacquig said…
When I say lawyers have no professional choice about whether to invite the OS to act I mean just that. If a lawyer has a concern about a parent's capacity to instruct our professional code of conduct obliges us to have that investigated and if a Psychiatrist agrees that the parent lacks capacity the OS must be invited to act. It is not done because of any wish to undermine the client's case although I accept that it often has that effect. Solicitors do not in fact generally take work from parents and the local authority but barristers do although personally I try to avoid working for and against the same local authority.
One of the things that could be looked at more carefully is the test which is used by Psychiatrists to determine whether someone is not competent to give instructions. It would also be useful to have some more guidelines for lawyers on what to do if someone is 'incompetent'. I will do a post on my own blog - bloody relations.
jacquig
john said…
Why the OS, why not a family friend. Masterman-LIster v Brutton is quite clear in any event.

There are lawyers that use advocates to assist parents who really do have learning difficulties - avoiding a "next friend". However, there are too many con tricks in this part of procedure.

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Homelessness vs Selling Books

Candidates in elections tend to find themselves very busy with lots of things to do.  It is, therefore, necessary to prioritise things to ensure that the important things are dealt with.

To me the issue of homelessness and rough sleeping is an important issue.  Therefore, when Birmingham's Faith Leaders group contacted me to ask me what I would propose and whether I would work with them to make things better I was pleased to respond with my views and indicate that I would work with them after the election.

The Faith Leaders Group (Bishops and other religious leaders in Birmingham) have now sent out their report.

Sadly, according to their report,  I was the only candidate for Yardley to respond.  The group in their report said:

"Particularly disappointing was the lack of response from some of those candidates seeking re-election as MP for their respective constituencies."
It is worth looking at the priorities of my opponent.
Interestingly today she has decided to be at th…

Millionaires and politics

The Labour Party spent most of the last election criticising me for being a successful businessman (aka millionaire). That is business in the private sector employing over 250 people. It is worth looking at the situation for the Labour Candidate now:

For the year 2016-7 Annual Income from Parliament74,962Specifically for her book51,250Other media income etc5,322.82Total declared income131,534.82

Traditionally anyone with an annual income of over £100,000 has been considered to be a millionaire. I did not use my position in parliament to increase my income.


I have been asked for sources for this. This BBC piece looks at how one should define rich. It was written in 2011 so the figures will be slightly out of date. There are perhaps 2 relevant pieces:
"In 1880 a rich person would have had £100,000 in assets or an income of £10,000 a year, he says. About a hundred people a year died leaving £100,000 and by 1910 this was 250 - "a microscopic fraction of the number of death…