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

Standards Board and Ken Livingstone

The link is to the case where Ken Livingstone appealed the decision of the Adjudication Panel for England.

The Standards Board and associated Adjudication Panel have done a lot of damage to democracy in the UK. The courts are, however, bringing them into more sanity.

The point about Ken Livingstone's case is that it was high profile and he also could afford to appeal. The Standard Board has a problem in that those subject to its enquiries face substantial costs that they cannot claim back.

This is an issue that needs further work.

In essence the Judge found that what he said brought him into disrepute, but not the office of Mayor. We do need the machinery of the SBE and APE to concentrate on things that matter rather than people being rude to each other.

Problems with Outlook Express - emails lost dbx corruption

In the light of the enthusiasm shown for my post relating to the OCX control that must not be named (and probably Microsoft's most embarrassing error of recent years) I thought I would write someting about Outlook Express.

Outlook Express is the email client that comes as part of windows. I use it myself, although I have my emails filtered through a spam filter of my own devising written in java. It takes email off a number of servers using POP3 (Post Office Protocol TCP Port 110) and sends it using SMTP (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol port 25).

I have recently spent a few hours dealing with the problem that arises when .dbx files get corrupted during compacting.

Outlook Express (OE) stores the emails (and other things) in files with the suffix .dbx. Each folder has its own .dbx file. They are stored in hidden directories. This makes it harder to deal with things when OE goes wrong.

It is very important to back up your stored *.dbx files as otherwise if you have a disk crash/stol…

Statement re False Allegations Campaign

Many people will know that my family and I have been subject to a campaign of false allegations by Esther Baker for the past 4 1/2 years. Yesterday there was a court judgment Baker v Hemming [2019] EWHC 2950 (QB) which formally confirmed that the allegations were false. Esther Baker, who had brought a libel claim against me, dropped her defence of Truth to my counter-claim and was taken by the judge as no longer trying to prove her allegations. Due to Baker's various breaches of court rules and orders, she has been barred from further repeating her allegations even in the court proceedings. Further claim of mine in libel against Baker are ongoing. There is a good summary in the Daily Mail here.

This demonstrates the challenge in fighting false allegations in today's Britain. A substantial campaign was built up to promote allegations which had no substance to them. Various Labour MPs and in pa…