Skip to main content

Court of protection article

This article in The Independent looks at some of the problems with the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. The systemic problems with this process are exacerbated by the Cheshire West decision in the court of appeal. Sam Smith, Lucy Series and Anna Raccoon (not her real name) have written some useful pieces about this. We are closer still to publishing the draft Family Justice Bill.


Lucy Series said…
I'm not sure what happened to my previous comment, so I'll try again.

I - along with many people working with the DoLS - share John Hemmings concerns that the DoLS do not provide robust Article 5 safeguards against arbitrary detention. I agree that part of the problem is that supervisory bodies are not always as independent as might be desired, given that often they have both commissioned the care that amounts to detention and are then asked to scrutinise those decisions. However, there are many elements of Hemming's analysis I find perplexing.

The article implies that a rise in the number of DoLS applications is something to be concerned about - when in fact the inverse is true. The reality is that involuntary placement which amounts to detention often happens without any legal safeguards at all. A rise in the number of DoLS applications means that more people are recognising detention when it is occurring, and people are getting some protection (albeit imperfect). The much, much, more concerning thing is that the number of applications began to tail off earlier this year, quite possibly in response to the Cheshire ruling which gave managing authorities and supervisory bodies much more scope to decline to recognise that a person is detained.

Hemming also complains that 'The Court of Protection suffers from the over judicialisation of what is essentially a therapeutic decision'. I'm not sure why this is a therapeutic decision? Certainly hospital treatment might be, but placement in a care home is a complex issue involving many social, not merely medical, considerations.

Some, like Hemming, have complained that the CoP over-scrutinises welfare cases and prefer a mental health tribunal style system. But they haven't demonstrated that such a system could work, and wouldn't also get bogged down in complex issues around safeguarding, mental capacity, best interests.

Neither does Hemming raise one of the most significant problems with the DoLS - which is the worryingly low number with result in appeals. The biggest problem isn't too much judicial scrutiny but too little - hardly any cases end up in court.

And the complaint that the COP is too secretive followed by a preference for a mental health tribunal style system is a strange one. How many MH tribunals are held in public, as Hemming would prefer? I will refer him to this statistic from the pages of this newspaper:
'Of the more than 100,000 mental health tribunals conducted over the past seven years there were just 10 applications for an open hearing. Only one application was previously granted and it was withdrawn, meaning Mr Haines will be the first.'
John Hemming said…
Therapeutic in terms of maintaining health is basically a decision as to what is best for the person concerned. This is not a decision as to the legal parameters and not suited to a court hearing. It is best done in a case conference type environment.

The mistake is not having sufficient independence and using the court for "best interests" decision making.

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…