journalist’s right to private and family life with her source

Posted on May 2, 2014 by suesspiciousminds

A very interesting decision by the President sitting in the Court of Protection in Re G (an adult) 2014

 

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCOP/2014/1361.html

 

This is the 3rd judgment in relation to this 94 year old woman in the last two months. I’m going to try here, not to get too far into the controversy (I’m sure the comments will descend into that, but let’s TRY to focus on the principles and issues in THIS judgment)

THIS judgment relates to the application by the Daily Mail news group (ALN) to be joined as a party to the Court of Protection proceedings, to have an input into the questions to be posed to the expert, and ultimately to have the chance to cross-examine everyone. That’s a unique application, and the reasoning behind the decision is therefore interesting.

We do need SOME historical context though, so we need to know that the decisions being made by the Court of Protection are controversial, that G is 95 and that C her live-in carer is very actively campaigning about the controversial decisions and unfairness, part of that campaign includes involving the Press (the ubiquituous Mr Booker, and this time Ms Reid of the  Mail on Sunday). G has talked to those journalists, and at times been very keen to tell her story, at other times it is said that she finds the press involvement intrusive.  The Press want to report on the injustice that G and C may have suffered, and want to report as much as possible. In the second judgment, Cobb J ruled that there were doubts about G’s capacity to talk to the Press and that there needed to be an assessment of that and in effect a cease-fire on the Press talking to G until it could be established whether she (a) had capacity to do that and (b) if not, would it be in her best interests to do so.

 

If you want to skip to the chorus, it is HEARING THREE heading

 

Hearing one

The first judgment, 26th February 2014   was decided by Russell J.  http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCOP/2014/485.html

That case was brought by the Local Authority, who had become concerned about the influence that C (the carer) was having over G, and particularly that G was being influenced to change her will to the benefit of C.  (These allegations are all disputed by G)

This is the judge’s summary

 

  • In this case the local authority were under a duty to investigate the circumstances of an old and frail lady following reports regarding the behaviour of C and F and their influence over G, her home and her financial affairs and with respect to her personal safety from multiple sources including private citizens and professionals, from agencies providing care support and from a lawyer engaged by C to act for G (to change her will in C’s favour). The complaints came from G too; although she would later retract them. The obstruction met by the social worker when she tried to carry out her duties led to the attendance of the police more than once.

 

 

 

  • The local authority had no alternative but to visit on numerous occasions and to attempt to see G on her own. Anything else would have been a dereliction of their duty to her as a vulnerable person about whom they had received complaints about possible financial predation. Local authority staff must be permitted to carry out their duty to investigate reports relating to safeguarding unhindered.

 

 

 

  • The court has decided for reasons set out in full below that G lacks capacity under the provisions of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and that further investigation needs to be carried out to decide how her best interests will be met and her comfort and safety assured. Her wishes and feelings will be taken into account at every stage as will her desire to remain in her own home. It is the court’s intention that every measure that can be put in place to secure her in her own home is put place. There is an equal need to ensure that she is not overborne or bullied and that she can lead her life as she wants it led.

 

 

 

  • All the expert evidence put before the court was of the opinion that G was a vulnerable person who lacked the capacity to conduct this litigation and to decide on her financial affairs and the disposition of her property without the assistance of an independent professional appointed by the court. There was disagreement as to the reason for the lack of capacity; the court decided, on the balance of probabilities, that it was due to a impairment of G’s mind or brain.

 

 

That judgment made reference to the press reporting of the case to that point, and that the press were present in Court

 

At the outset of the hearing it was drawn to my attention that there had been a very short article on Sunday in the press which, thankfully, did not name G. I have held these proceedings in open court but have restricted the publication of the names of the parties, and at this stage, of the local authority and the expert witnesses. This will be subject to review. I have done so to protect the privacy of G who is old, frail and vulnerable. She has repeatedly told me she wants no further intrusion in her life. The purpose of this order is to protect her privacy and to protect her from intrusion. As the case was heard in open court I have to make an order restricting publication of identification of G and the other parties to put that protection in place. Members of the public and the media were present in court through out the hearing.

 

G had a degree of dementia. She was assessed by an Independent Social Worker  (underlining mine)

 

 

  • Mr Gillman-Smith, the independent social worker (ISW) was instructed to carry out an assessment of capacity and the nature of any lack of capacity such as by undue influence. Mr Gillman-Smith was asked to prepare a report in which he was to ascertain the true wishes and feelings of G in respect of her care arrangements; her living arrangements and her property and affairs. He was asked to consider nine questions the last being whether any lack of capacity was due to G not meeting the criteria of the MCA or because of undue influence. Orders had been made prior to his instruction that C and AF leave the property and allow the assessments to be carried out.

 

 

 

  • On this occasion G had an advocate present in the person of D (D attended these proceedings and sat in court) who left and allowed Mr Gillman-Smith to interview G alone. G had difficulties in remembering her relatives; she could not remember the name or her relationship to her relative in the Netherlands. She was quite forthcoming about C and F describing C as bossy and herself as like the fly in the spider’s web, “and the spider eats you up.” C she indicated to be the spider.

 

 

 

  • G was at best ambivalent about C; as she said “she works well” but that she threatened to walk out and then F would look after her if G did not do what C was asking; she does house work “but what is in her mind?” G described her as a wolf in sheep’s clothing. She also said this of church members. C would not let her sleep during the day; she said C physically shakes her sometimes; dresses her and then undresses her replacing her clothes with the same ones. She said she was rough with her; She repeated that she was shaken and like the fly in the spider’s web. She repeated the belief that the court proceedings had been brought by H.

 

 

There was also an expert, Dr Lowenstein, who reported.  Again, underlining mine for emphasis

 

 

  • The evidence of Dr Lowenstein was undermined by his having no instructions; he said in his oral evidence that he deduced them from what was said to him by C. G herself was brought to see him in his place of work by C. How his report came into being is a matter of concern, it appears to have been instigated by C, who paid for it; where she got the funds to pay for it is not known. C was given Dr Lowenstein’s name by a third party active in family rights campaigns.

 

 

 

  • When Dr Lowenstein saw G she was over two hours late and had been travelling for some time, he then interviewed her in the presence of C for some 3 hours. Dr Lowenstein had no knowledge of the background to the case at all except that there were court proceedings and that C and G were saying she, G, did not lack capacity. He was introduced to C as G’s niece. When he discovered during his evidence that this was not the case and their relationship was not lengthy he was very surprised. Dr Lowenstein took no notes of what was said to him by C prior to his interviewing G and preparing his report and he could not remember what was said. He said that he fashioned his instructions from those given to Dr Barker and set out in his report.

 

 

 

  • His evidence was further undermined when it became clear that he had not, as he said, read and assimilated the documents disclosed to him by C (without leave of the court ) namely the social worker’s statement, the report of the ISW and Dr Barker’s report for, had he done so, he could not have failed to pick up that G, C and F are unrelated and have known each other for a relatively short time. He would have been better aware of the extent of the concerns about C’s influence and control over G. As it was, he accepted that it would have been better for him to interview G on her own, without anyone being present. This is a matter of good practice, a point that Dr Lowenstein accepted, conceding that it was all the more necessary when he realised that the close family relationship as it had been presented to him was false.

 

 

 

  • Dr Lowenstein brought with him some of the results of tests he carried out with G; tests which indicated some low results indicating a lack of ability to think in abstraction and decision making. He did not accept the need to think in abstraction to reach decisions but did accept that in order to make decisions one had to retain information and that there was evidence that G was not able to do so. I do not accept this evidence it is part of the essence of reaching complex decisions that one is able to think in the abstract.

 

 

 

  • Dr Lowenstein lacked the requisite experience and expertise to make the assessment of capacity in an old person as he has had minimal experience in working with the elderly, has had no training in applying the provisions of the MCA and very little experience in its forensic application, this being his second case. He is a very experienced psychologist in the field of young people, adolescents and children but has no expertise in the elderly. In the tests results he showed the court G consistently had very low scores but he frequently repeated that G was “good for a person of 94”; any tests in respect of capacity are not modified by age and must be objective. If, as appeared to be the case, he felt sympathy for her and did not wish to say that she lacked capacity that is understandable but it is not the rigorous or analytical approach required of the expert witness. When questioned about capacity he seemed to confuse the capacity to express oneself, particularly as to likes and dislikes, with the capacity to make decisions.

 

[The Court of course, did not HAVE to consider Dr Lowenstein’s evidence at all, since it had been obtained without leave of the Court, but they did so]

 

Russell J’s conclusions on G’s capacity were these

 

  • In respect of financial matters there is evidence that G is unaware of her financial situation, of her income and expenditure. While there is good reason to believe from what she herself has told others, that this information is being kept from her and that she is fearful of C should she try to regain control, there is also evidence that she has difficulties in retaining information and formulating decisions as described by Dr Barker [46]. Both he and Mr Gillman-Smith considered the influence and controlling behaviour of C and F to make decision making even more difficult for G; it is obvious to this court from what she has said that she is at times almost paralysed by the threats regarding her removal to a care-home or to have F take over her personal and intimate care.

 

 

 

  • The impairment of G’s brain has affected her ability to retain information relevant to the decisions she has to make, as described by Dr Barker. She has difficulty in understanding the necessary information and to use and weigh the information. G could not remember the details of her will, and did not know the name of the advocate present when she saw Dr Barker or why he was there, despite having told Dr Barker his name the previous week. G referred to C and F as H and R (the previous carers) and expressed paranoid ideas about social services and previous friends from the church saying they were after what they could get from her.

 

 

 

  • There is evidence that G understands some of the information relevant to decision making, for example she well understands that she is frail and needs assistance with her personal care and house-work to be able to remain in her home and that C provides that care. At the same time G is either unaware of or unable to remember details of C’s and F’s backgrounds; she could not, for example, say how old they were. She also understands that C and F have taken control of her finances and has complained about being shouted at and physically shaken but she is unable to use the information to make a decision about her own welfare and care and allows them to remain in her home. This information about C and F living with her or not is relevant for the purposes of s3 (4) as it includes the reasonably foreseeable consequences of deciding one way or another or failing to make the decision. The decision as to contact with others and whether or not she should see other people falls into this same category. She does not foresee that to allow visitors would have benefits including oversight of her care and treatment at the hands of others. I accept that the influence and controlling behaviour of C and F described by the witnesses and in the documentary evidence before the court will have further compromised the ability of G to make decisions and understand what is happening to her.

 

 

 

  • I have found, on the balance of probabilities, that G lacks capacity under sections 2 and 3 of the MCA 2005 and accordingly this case falls under the jurisdiction of the Court of Protection. I do not consider it necessary to rule on any application under the inherent jurisdiction.

 

 

A request was made for an order that C not exercise any of her powers under the Lasting Power of Attorney to manage G’s affairs and finances, and the Court agreed with this.

 

[Everything that the Judge decided is very hotly contested by those lobbying on C’s behalf, and indeed the journalists who have spoken to G, but the judgment was not appealed]

 

Hearing two

 

This was before Cobb J on 26th March 2014   http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCOP/2014/959.html

 

This hearing was particularly about whether G had the capacity to give interviews to journalists or be interviewed with a view to stories being reported.  G remained living in her own home, with C as her carer (the only real change from the previous hearing was that C was no longer in a position to manage G’s finances)

Cobb J begins by remarking that members of the Press are present and that they are welcomed. He does pass comment on the reporting of the Russell J decision

 

  • I should like to emphasise that I recognise that access to the press and freedom of parties to litigation to communicate with the press engages powerfully the competing rights under Article 8 and Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights. There is, in my judgment, a legitimate public interest in the reporting of proceedings in the Court of Protection concerning our vulnerable, elderly and incapacitous. There is a separate legitimate public interest in the court protecting the vulnerable, elderly, and the incapacitous from public invasion into their lives. These are, in stark terms, the competing considerations at play.

 

 

 

 

  • Of note, but not specifically influential in my decision-making today, is the fact that some of the press reporting of these proceedings thus far, as is apparent from the three reports which I have read, does not provide a balanced account of this case, nor does it faithfully or accurately, in my judgment, reflect the substance of Russell J’s judgment or the evidence heard by the court. That is highly regrettable.

 

Cobb J felt that the issue of whether G had capacity, and if not, whether it was in her best interests to talk to the Press required some specialised assessment and evidence

 

  • Having heard these submissions, I invited all counsel to consider whether the first question which I should in fact be considering in this case on these issues is whether G has capacity to communicate directly with the press now. Given the press interest (it is, after all, here both in the form of a court reporter and as an interested party, represented) the sooner there is a capacity assessment available on that issue the better. After an adjournment for parties to take instructions, the London Borough of Redbridge indicated that it accepted this approach and refined its position to seeking an adjournment of today’s application in order to commission a further issue-specific capacity assessment by Dr. Barker. It was said that this could be completed within two weeks; it proposed that the matter should then be relisted for consideration. It invited me to make interim orders, as holding orders, in the meantime.

 

 

 

 

  • This approach was supported by the Official Solicitor in all respects.

 

 

 

 

  • Those orders were opposed by C, who asserted that there was no proper basis on which I could or should go down this route. F associated himself on this issue (as on all issues) with C.

 

 

 

 

  • It is self-evident that the question of G’s capacity to engage with members of the press (with a view to sharing her story publicly) has to be assessed properly and expertly before the court could reach any informed view as to whether it is in G’s best interests that she should in fact do so. In those circumstances, I propose to accede to the application to adjourn the Local Authority’s application for substantive relief in this respect, and shall re-list this application on the first available date, which is 2nd May 2014, before Russell J. I shall give the Local Authority leave to instruct Dr. Barker to undertake the capacity assessment specifically directed to the question of whether or not G has the capacity to communicate, and engage, with members of the press, with all the implications of so doing.

 

 

 Having made the decision to get expert evidence from Dr Barker on those issues, the only issue remaining was what should happen in the interim – should the Press be talking to G, or should those legitimate journalistic desires to get the story be put on hold until the Court could decide whether G had capacity to make that decision for herself?

 

  • I have “reason to believe” that G does indeed lack the capacity in relation to decisions concerning communications with the press.

 

 

 

 

  • There is no doubt that in relation to section 48(b) the question of her discussions or communications with the press is indeed a matter (perhaps unprecedented) on which the Court of Protection can be invited to exercise its powers under the 2005 Act.

 

 

 

 

  • As to section 48(c), I have to do my best to weigh up on the evidence available to me whether it is in G’s best interests that I should make such an order.

 

 

 

 

  • On the one hand, there is evidence before the court that G indeed wishes to communicate with the press. That evidence is provided not only by G herself, but also by Ms Reid, a journalist who has now met with G on one occasion at her home. Furthermore, in a discussion with Miss Moore, G is reported to have said that she was “happy” that the article written by Ms Reid had indeed been written: “… it let them know what they do to the elderly“.

 

 

 

 

  • Of course, at present the press is circumscribed in what they can report of what G says about the proceedings. In my judgment there is indeed a powerful case for permitting G to communicate with the press at will, the court being reassured (pending the specific capacity assessment) that at present there are justified limits on what the press can report of this process and of matters germane to G’s private and family life.

 

 

 

 

  • On the other hand, it is clear from the attendance notes helpfully provided by Miss Moore that at other times G has expressed less than positive views about the involvement of the press in her life. She has said: “The newspaper trying to say I am crazy when I am not crazy…” She has gone on to say, when asked about the article in the Daily Mail: “I don’t know how happy I would be about that. I don’t want anybody from the press. They put what they like. They put in details that are not correct.” She also told me that she valued her privacy.

 

 

 

 

  • There is evidence, but I make no finding about it, that G is being used as the instrument of others to pursue publicity in relation to her particular situation, and that she is not exercising her free-will at all. I specifically reference the fact that she has, in discussions with Miss Moore, graphically described herself as the fly “in the spider’s web … the fly cannot get out of the spider’s web“. She has confirmed elsewhere and to others that C is “the spider“.

 

 

 

 

  • There is a concern that while Ms Reid has indicated to me that she has made but one visit to G’s home, others may have visited or repeatedly phoned G. G told Miss Moore, on her most recent visit yesterday:

 

 

 

“She said reporters are always at her home or phoning her“.

 

That said, she added:

 

“She said she wants people to know what is happening to her and that it has gone all around the world already.“

 

And

 

“I asked her if she remembered the name of anyone she had spoken to. She said she did not.“

 

  • I bear in mind, when considering G’s best interests in this regard, that there is now clearly signalled a likely application by Associated Newspapers to relax the Reporting Restriction Order. The press will argue for a wider ability to report on G and her situation.

 

 

 

 

  • It seems to me that, weighing these matters one against the other, it is not in G’s best interests for her to be able or permitted to communicate with the press at this stage; she has expressed at least ambivalent feelings, it appears, about the engagement of the media. I am further concerned that any private information which G vouchsafes to a journalist at this stage may, of course, be exposed to more public examination in the event that the Reporting Restriction Order is subsequently varied or discharged. Until the court can take a clearer view about G’s capacity to make such relationships with the press it is, in my judgment, clearly in G’s best interests that I should make an interim order that she should not make such communications. It follows that the injunctive order sought by the London Borough of Redbridge, shall be granted (in paragraph 3 of the draft order as earlier recited) until 2nd May.

 

 

  • I shall require Dr. Barker carefully, as he has in the past, to perform the functionality test in relation to this difficult question, inviting him to consider the implications for G’s decision-making, on the basis alternatively that (a) the Reporting Restriction Order remains in place, and/or (b) the Reporting Restriction Order is varied or discharged. Plainly, G is provided with not insubstantial protection from invasion into her private and family life for as long as the Reporting Restriction Order is in place. But that protection may be dismantled if the court, undertaking the competing Article 8 and 10 review, reaches the conclusion that the Reporting Restriction Order cannot or should not stand in its present form

 

 

 

Readers may also be interested in the paragraphs dealing with C taking G to protest at Parliament.

The other issue was that C was resistant to social workers visiting G

 

  • I am satisfied on what I have read that it is indeed necessary for G to be monitored as to her welfare in her home at present. I wish to make clear that there is no evidence whatsoever but that the home is well-maintained, comfortable, and that G has adequate food and nutrition. But, as I have indicated in my judgment (and as is clear from the judgment of Russell J), there is considerable scope for the view that C, and to a lesser extent F, are not just failing to meet G’s needs but are actually abusing her within her home. C and F, it should be noted, strenuously deny this. Monitoring in those circumstances in the interim period is, in my judgment, vital. I do not believe that the neighbourhood team proposed by Ms Hewson would adequately or appropriately discharge the function of monitoring as I envisage it should be delivered. I was advised that the neighbourhood team:

 

 

 

“were not in a position to act as a substitute for Social Services … she” [that is a representative PCSO from the Redbridge Neighbourhood Team] “…did not think they had the resources to commit to twice-weekly visits … the Neighbourhood Team did not want to get drawn into court proceedings but would agree to resume visits to [G’s home] on an ad hoc basis … the team could not commit to a weekly visit but would ‘pop in every so often and have a chat with G for ten minutes’.”

 

 

  • For those reasons it is self-evident that the Neighbourhood Team could not discharge the responsibility which I regard as important in order to safeguard G’s welfare within the home.

 

 

 

 

  • I therefore propose to accede to the application of this Local Authority which will require C and F to facilitate visits by the London Borough of Redbridge social workers, going forward.

 

 

Again, this is all hotly contested, but the judgment has not been appealed

 

Hearing Three

 

This one was before the President, on 1st May 2014  http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCOP/2014/1361.html

Apologies in advance, some of this is going to have to get technical.

There were two issues raised

1. Was Ms Reid, journalist for the  Mail on Sunday, in any trouble?  And latterly, did she have an article 8 right to private and family life that allowed her to visit G and have a say in her life?

 

2. Should Associated Newspapers Limited ( the Mail) be joined as a party to the proceedings, as per their application, and could they have an input into the questions to be put to Dr Barker following Cobb J’s judgment above?

 

The first is thankfully pretty short. Cobb J of course said that until the next hearing when Dr Barker’s report was available, journalists should not interview G, that it was not in G’s interests to talk to the Press and that “until further order C be forbidden, whether by herself or instructing or encouraging others, from taking G or involving G in any public protests, demonstrations or meeting with the press relating to any aspect of these proceedings … “

What happened, allegedly, after that judgment was given, was that Sue Reid from the Daily Mail spoke with G and in effect said that she was not allowed to interview her anymore, but would visit her as a friend. (I say alleged, because of course the Court has not made any findings or heard any evidence, and this assertion might be complete nonsense. One has to be fair.  All I can see is that from THIS judgment, the President does not say that the allegation is denied. It could well have been, but it just did not get recorded in the judgment. So it is an allegation only.

 

  • On 2 April 2014, solicitors acting for the Official Solicitor wrote a letter to ANL which, after referring to Cobb J’s judgment, continued as follows:

 

 

“After the hearing Ms Reid was heard outside court telling G that as the judge had stopped Ms Reid contacting her, Ms Reid would have to make social visits to G instead. Clearly this would be completely inappropriate in view of the judgment of Cobb J. The court heard that Ms Reid has only met with G at her home on one occasion and we assume that this was for the purpose of publishing her article dated 20 February 2014. We are not sure why Ms Reid would seek to make social visits to G

We write to clarify that Ms Reid will not seek to circumvent the Order of Cobb J by making social visits to G. Please respond urgently confirming that Ms Reid will not attempt to visit G before this matter returns to Court on 2 May 2014.”

ANL replied on 3 April 2014. Its response prompted the Official Solicitor’s solicitors to write again on 8 April 2014:

“We write further to your letter dated 3 April 2014. The Official Solicitor remains concerned about your client’s proposed actions and note that you have not provided an assurance that Miss Reid will not seek to visit G before the matter is again before the Court on 2 May 2014. We refer you specifically to paragraph 40 of the Judgment of Mr Justice Cobb dated 26 March 2014.

We enclose a sealed copy of the Order of Mr Justice Cobb dated 26 March 2014. In view of this please can you confirm whether your client has made any social visits to G since the hearing on 26 March 2014 and whether she intends to make any visits in the future?”

In the interests of fairness, I shall report that whether those allegations were true or not did not trouble the President, since even if they were true, he didn’t think they raised any concern that should worry the Court.

  • As I remarked during the hearing, I do not understand the basis upon which these letters were written. The complaints they contain are made by reference to Cobb J’s judgment. But nothing that Ms Reid was alleged to have done amounted to a breach of anything contained in Cobb J’s order. If the basis of complaint was that Ms Reid’s conduct was somehow rendered improper by the terms of the declarations which Cobb J had made, there is in law no foundation for any such contention: see A v A Health Authority, In re J (A Child), R (S) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] EWHC 18 (Fam/Admin), [2002] Fam 213, paras 118-122. The frailty of the argument, whatever it be, is demonstrated by the revealing use of such phrases as “completely inappropriate” and “seek to circumvent”. The approach set out in the letters is somewhat reminiscent of the approach on which I had occasion to comment in E (by her litigation friend the Official Solicitor) v Channel Four; News International Ltd and St Helens Borough Council [2005] EWHC 1144 (Fam), [2005] 2 FLR 913, paras 115-120.

 

So there you go, whether Ms Reid had said this or not, it would have been fine if she had said it, and it would have been fine if she had in fact gone to visit G as a friend.  [I might myself have had a different view as to the true purpose of those visits, but what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander – the Judge has said it, nobody has appealed it, so the issue is settled]

 

On the secondary issue, whether Ms Reid had article 8 rights in relation to G

I deal finally with the separate argument based on Ms Reid’s asserted Article 8 rights. There are, in my judgment, two short answers to this. In the first place, there is no application by Ms Reid; the application is by ANL. Secondly, and more fundamentally, for reasons I have already explained, it makes no difference whether the argument is put on the basis of Article 10 or Article 8. Neither provides any foundation for the grant of relief of the kind being sought by Mr Wolanski.

 

[In a case that is already peppered with D and G, and F and H, the Judge explained all of the article 8 issues by use of X andY, which makes it hard going. In effect what he says is that G can have an article 8 right that she wants to spend time with Sue Reid, but if G doesn’t want to spend time with Sue Reid (or lacks capacity and the Court have to rule on her best interests) then Sue Reid doesn’t have an article 8 right to access to G. It is more complex than that, I’ve reduced it to a manageable form because there are real people reading this blog]

 

The big stuff then – should ANL be made a party?  Having already dragged X and Y into the alphabet soup, we broaden out by introducing here S (the subject – here G) and J (the journalist, here Sue Reid).

  • Where no relief going beyond the existing reporting restriction order is being sought against ANL, the issues are quite different. There is, for example, no application for any order restraining ANL from publishing any information it has already received from either G or her carers. Nor, despite some of the rhetoric deployed by ANL, is there anything in Cobb J’s order or in the relief now being sought by the local authority which bears upon ANL’s freedom to report any court proceedings. From ANL’s perspective, leaving the existing reporting restriction order on one side, this is, as Mr Millar correctly submits, not an ‘imparting’ case, it is at best a ‘receiving’ case. And, as he goes on to submit, the problem which therefore stands in ANL’s way is the Leander principle.

 

 

 

  • The starting point is that if S, as a competent adult, declines to disclose information to J – if S, as it were, shuts the door in J’s face – then that is that. S is deciding not to allow J into S’s ‘inner circle’. S’s right to be left alone by the media, if that is what S wishes, is a right which, as I have already explained, is protected by Article 8 (see Re Roddy) and it trumps any rights J may have, whether under Article 8 or Article 10. J cannot demand that S talks to him and, as Leander shows, J’s reliance on Article 10 will avail him nothing. From this it must follow that S’s refusal to talk to or impart information to J cannot give rise to any justiciable issue as between J and S.

 

  • But what if, as here, S – in the present case, G – arguably lacks capacity? At this point I can usefully go to the analysis in E (by her litigation friend the Official Solicitor) v Channel Four; News International Ltd and St Helens Borough Council [2005] EWHC 1144 (Fam), [2005] 2 FLR 913, paras 57-59.

 

 

 

  • In that case, the Official Solicitor, as Pamela’s (E’s) litigation friend, sought an injunction to restrain the broadcasting of a film featuring Pamela which Pamela wished to be broadcast. I summarised the proper approach as follows (para 59):

 

 

“in a case such as this there are in principle three questions which have to be considered:

(i) Does Pamela lack capacity? If yes, then

(ii) Is it in Pamela’s best interests that the film not be broadcast? If yes, then

(iii) Do Pamela’s interests under Art 8, and the public interest in the protection of the privacy of the vulnerable and incapable, outweigh the private and public interests in freedom of expression under Art 10.”

 

  • The first question for the court goes to capacity. There are two reasons for this: first, because the Court of Protection has jurisdiction only in relation to those who lack capacity; second, and more fundamental, because if S does have capacity then the decision as to whether or not to impart information to J (or, if the information has already been imparted by S to J, the decision by S as to whether or not to bring proceedings against J) is exclusively a matter for S.

 

 

 

  • Assuming that S lacks capacity the next question for the court is whether or not it is in S’s best interests to impart the information to J (or, if that has already happened, whether or not S’s best interests require that an injunction is granted against J). This is because best interests is the test by which the Court of Protection or, as in E, the High Court exercising its inherent jurisdiction, takes on behalf of S the decision which, lacking capacity, S is unable to take himself.

 

 

 

  • Pausing at this point in the analysis, and for essentially the same reasons as in relation to Article 8, it follows in my judgment that the identification by the Court of Protection of S’s best interests does not give rise to any justiciable issue as between J and S. Nor is there any justiciable issue as between J and S in relation to the question of S’s capacity.

 

 

 

  • As Mr Millar puts it, and I agree, the reason for this is simple: before J’s right to receive information from S arises, S must, to use the language of Leander, “wish or be willing” to impart the information to J. Where S lacks capacity, what the court is doing when deciding whether or not it is in S’s best interests for the information to be imparted to J (or, if already imparted to J, whether or not it is in S’s best interests for it to be imparted by J to others), is doing what, if S had capacity, S would be doing in deciding whether or not to impart the information to J (or, as the case may be, in deciding whether or not to seek an injunction to restrain J imparting it to others). As Mr Millar points out, J would have no right or interest in relation to such a decision by S, if S had capacity. Why, he asks rhetorically, should it make any difference that, because S lacks capacity, the very same decision is being taken on behalf of S by the court. I agree. Nor can J have any right or interest in the prior decision by the court as to whether or not S lacks capacity. Ms Burnham characterises the capacity issue as a “gateway” to giving effect to what she says is J’s right to receive information from S if she were willing to impart it. So it may be, but the argument breaks down, both on the Leander point and because it overlooks the true nature of what is happening when the court decides on behalf of S where S’s best interests lie.

 

 

 

  • Of course, the court’s best interests decision in relation to S is not necessarily determinative. If the court decides that it in S’s best interests for information to be imparted to J (or, if that has already happened, that S’s best interests do not require the grant of an injunction) then that is the end of the matter. There is no conflict between S’s best interests and J’s rights. If, however, there is a conflict between S’s best interests as determined by the court and J’s rights as protected by Article 10, the court moves on to the third and final stage of the inquiry. But at this stage S’s best interests are not determinative. There is a balancing exercise. The court is no longer exercising its protective jurisdiction in relation to S but rather its ordinary jurisdiction under the Convention as between claimant and defendant. Accordingly it has to balance the competing interests: S’s interest under Article 8 (as ascertained by the court), and therefore her right under Article 8 to keep her private life private, and J’s rights under Article 10. And at this stage, if relief is being sought against J (or against the world at large), J’s Article 10 rights are directly implicated. So J will be entitled to be heard in opposition to the order being sought.

 

 

 

[That’s very considered and dense stuff – basically the Judge is saying that people get party status to litigate if there is a conflict between them and the other parties that gives right to an argument that the Court has power to resolve and needs to resolve. There isn’t that here.  ANL have legitimate interest in any application for Reporting Restriction Order or injunctions against them or their staff, but they don’t have a legitimate interest in the argument between G, C and the Local Authority.  They might be interested IN IT, but that’s not the same thing]

 

  • ANL’s first application is to be joined as a party. Mr Millar and Ms Davidson submit that the application is misconceived. I agree.

 

 

 

  • In the first place, and as I have already explained, the relief being sought by the local authority gives rise to no justiciable issue as between ANL and G, or between ANL and anyone else. So there is no reason for ANL to be joined.

 

 

 

  • Secondly, and following on from this, ANL cannot bring itself within either CoPR 2007 rule 75(1), upon which Mr Wolanski relies, or within rule 73(2). Rule 73(2) permits the court to order a person to be joined as a party “if it considers that it is desirable to do so for the purposes of dealing with the application”, and rule 75(1) permits “any person with a sufficient interest [to] apply to the court to be joined as a party to the proceedings.” Mr Wolanski’s application was put forward on the footing that ANL has a “sufficient interest” within the meaning of rule 75(1). In my judgment it does not.

 

 

 

  • The meaning of these provisions was considered by Bodey J in Re SK (By his Litigation Friend, the Official Solicitor) [2012] EWHC 1990 (COP), [2012] COPLR 712, paras 41-43, a case relied upon by Ms Davidson, in a passage that requires to be read in full. For present purposes I need refer only to Bodey J’s statement (para 41) that “sufficient interest” in rule 75(1) “should be interpreted to mean “a sufficient interest in the proceedings” as distinct from some commercial interest of the applicant’s own” and that “an applicant for joinder who or which does not have an interest in the ascertainment of the incapacitated person’s best interests is unlikely to be a “person with sufficient interest””, that (para 42) the “clear import” of the wording of rule 73(2) is that “the joinder of such an applicant would be to enable the court better to deal with the substantive application”, and that (para 43) the word “desirable” “necessarily imports a judicial discretion as regards balancing the pros and cons of the particular joinder sought in the particular circumstances of the case.” I respectfully agree with that approach. In my judgment, ANL does not, in the relevant sense, have a “sufficient interest”. Nor is its joinder “desirable.”

 

 

 

  • Finally, even if ANL’s rights under Article 10 were to be engaged (as they plainly are in relation to the reporting restriction order), that would not give ANL a “sufficient interest” in the proceedings, as distinct from the discrete application within the proceedings, nor would it make it “desirable” to join ANL as a party to the proceedings. On the contrary, it would be highly undesirable for ANL to be joined, because as a party it would be entitled to access to all the documents in the proceedings unless some good reason could be shown why it should not, and the grounds for restricting a party’s access to the documents are very narrowly circumscribed: see RC v CC and another [2014] EWHC 131 (COP). Nor, as I have pointed out, would there be any need for ANL to be joined as a party. It would, as Mr Millar concedes, be entitled to be heard as an intervener.

 

 

 

  • I should add that this is an area of the law where there has been, initially in the Family Division and more recently also in the Court of Protection, very extensive forensic activity involving the media for at least the last twenty-five years. I am not aware of any case, nor were either Mr Millar or Mr Wolanski with their very great experience of such matters able to point me to any case, where a journalist or media organisation has been joined as a party to the proceedings, as distinct from being permitted to intervene. This is surely suggestive of a well-founded assumption that joinder is as unnecessary for the protection of the media as it is undesirable from the point of view of the child or incapacitated adult whose welfare is being considered by the court.

 

 

 

  • In the light of my decision in relation to ANL’s first application, its two other applications fall away. In the first place, if it is not to be joined as a party, what is the basis of its claim either to see Dr Barker’s full report or to ask him questions? There is none. Moreover, and as I have explained, Dr Barker’s report does not go to any justiciable issue as between ANL and G, or between ANL and anyone else. If some relief is sought against ANL, then the application will have to be assessed on its merits, having regard to whatever evidence is relied upon, whether in support of or in opposition to the application. That is the point at which ANL’s Article 10 rights are engaged. And at that point ANL will be able to contest the application, whether by challenging the evidence relied on by the applicant or by adducing its own evidence.

 

 

 

  • I should add this, in relation to the insinuation by ANL that it should be joined as a party or allowed to intervene in relation to the issues of G’s capacity and best interests because otherwise relevant arguments may not be adequately put before the court. There is no basis for this. Quite apart from the rejection by those to whom this comment appears to be directed of any factual foundation for what is being said, this cannot be a ground for being allowed to participate in the proceedings. Either ANL has some basis for being joined as a party or it does not. If it does, all well and good. If it does not, then it is a mere interloper, an officious busybody seeking to intrude in matters that are of no proper concern to it, seemingly on the basis that it can argue someone else’s case better or more effectively than they can themselves. Moreover, if it is to be said that the Official Solicitor is, in some way, not acting appropriately in G’s best interests, then the remedy is an application for his removal as her litigation friend, not the intrusion into the proceedings of a self-appointed spokesman for G.

 

 

 

(I will conclude by saying that whilst I too think that the ANL application was misconcieved in law, I can see why in practice they made it.  IF their story is (and it pretty much is) that the Court of Protection is a wicked terrible body, interfering with people’s freedoms and ignoring what dear old G wants, then I can see why they think that the Court of Protection DECIDING whether G should talk to the Press is something of a conflict of interest.  Imagine for a moment that it had been Maria Miller’s decision and it had been solely up to her whether any of the Press were allowed to report her expenses scandal. As the ANL think that the expert is going to be set up to say “Don’t let G talk to the Press, it isn’t good for her” they wanted to have an input into what he was asked and to have the chance to cross-examine him if that’s what he said.  That somewhat ignores the fact that C is already a party and is able to have that input and cross-examine Dr Barker, but I can honestly see why the Mail made this application from an emotional and journalistic perspective.   They couldn’t have got a judge who was more keen on transparency and openness though, so if they couldn’t persuade the President, it was a hopeless application)

I will add that I think that Sue Reid genuinely believes that what is happening here is an outrage and a miscarriage of justice, and that she is reporting what C and G are saying to them with absolute sincerity.  It is absolutely right that she follow her journalistic instincts and that if there is something rotten in the State of Denmark that this be exposed.

 

 

 

 

29 Comments

Posted in adult social care, case law, court of protection, transparency and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Blood transfusion and Jehovah’s Witnesses part 2

Posted on May 1, 2014 by suesspiciousminds

 

Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS trust and RC 2014

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCOP/2014/1317.html

 

 

This one came before the Court of Protection earlier this year, and I wrote about it here

 

https://suesspiciousminds.com/2014/04/14/ethical-dilemmas-and-blood-transfusions/

 

Where Holman J was sympathetic to the hospitals decision not to impose blood transfusions on someone who did not want them, even though there was an argument that they COULD impose them under s63 of the Mental Health Act, but decided he needed the patient to be represented through the Official Solicitor and to hear full argument before deciding the case.

 

It is important to remember throughout that the Trust were minded to follow RC’s wishes and not administer blood transfusions (even life-saving ones) against his will, but because of the risk that this could contribute to his death, they wanted to seek a declaration from the Court of Protection / High Court that it was acceptable to do this.

 

 

[Peculiarly, this judgment never once mentions that earlier judgment, but it would be astronomically surprising if Nottinghamshire had two different Jehovah’s Witnesses who were self-harming and refusing blood transfusions and the doctors sought a declaration that they wanted to respect his wishes even though it might result in his death, so I think it is the same case]

 

Mostyn J gives a very thoughtful judgment, and draws on some important jurisprudence and philosophy

 

8. In principle, every citizen who is of age and of sound mind has the right to harm or (since 1961) to kill himself. This is an expression of the principle of the purpose of power found in the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1793) and in John Stuart Mill’s essay On Liberty (1859) where he stated at pp14 – 15:

“That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant . . . Over himself, over his body and mind, the individual is sovereign”[1]

9. Thus Judge LJ in St George’s Healthcare NHS Trust v S [1969] Fam 28, 43 stated:

“Even when his or her own life depends on receiving medical treatment, an adult of sound mind is entitled to refuse it.”

10. This right applies equally to detained citizens. In Home Secretary v Robb [1995] 1 FLR 412 Thorpe J stated:

“…every person’s body is inviolate and proof against any form of physical molestation …. The right of the defendant to determine his future is plain. That right is not diminished by his status as a detained prisoner”

 

 

 

However, there are three sets of circumstances in which a person’s autonomy over their own body can come into question and where the State might override their decisions

 

 

13. There are three circumstances where adult citizens may have treatment or other measures imposed on them without their consent.

i) Adults lacking capacity who pursue a self-destructive course may have treatment forced upon them in their best interests pursuant to the terms of the MCA.

ii) Similarly, adults who have capacity but who can be categorised as “vulnerable” and who as a consequence of their vulnerability have been robbed of the ability to give a true consent to a certain course of action, may also have treatment or other measures imposed on them in their best interests pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court (see DL v A Local Authority [2012] 3 WLR 1439, and Re SA (Vulnerable adult with capacity: marriage) [2006] 1 FLR 867).

iii) Under the Mental Health Act 1983 (“MHA”) a detained patient may have treatment imposed on him or her pursuant to section 63 which provides, so far as is relevant to this case:

“The consent of a patient shall not be required for any medical treatment given to him for the mental disorder from which he is suffering, … if the treatment is given by or under the direction of the approved clinician in charge of the treatment”

At first blush section 63 strikes one as an illiberal provision, given that it applies to all detained mentally ill patients who may well not lack capacity (as here). However, it can be well justified when one reflects that the treatment in question may be needed not merely for the protection of the patient but also for the prevention of harm to others, given the violent eruptions to which mental illness can give rise

 

 

On the first of those, the Judge very carefully considered the capacity issue and determined that RC had capacity to decide to refuse blood transfusions and the fact that his decision was centred on religious beliefs did not diminish his capacity

 

33 A fundamental principle under section 1(2) MCA is that capacity is to be assumed unless it is established, on the balance of probabilities, to be lacking. The effect of section 2 and section 3 MCA is that a person will lack the capacity to make a decision if, by reason of mental disorder, they are unable to understand, or retain, or use or weigh up the information relevant to that decision, or to communicate their decision. In this case Mr Francis QC correctly argues that the only the possible question relates to whether RC is able to weigh information in the balance. In his report Dr Latham says:

“His ability to weigh the risks of refusing blood against his religious beliefs is difficult to describe because his religious beliefs effectively create, in his mind (and others) an absolute prohibition on blood products and so there is relatively little “weighing” when it comes to this decision.”

34 This aspect of the test of capacity must be applied very cautiously and carefully when religious beliefs are in play. In his essay John Stuart Mill speaks of the prohibition in Islam on the eating of pork. He describes how Muslims regard the practice with “unaffected disgust”; it is “an instinctive antipathy”. There can be no circumstances where a Muslim could “weigh” the merit of eating pork. It is simply beyond the pale. So too, it would appear, when it comes to Jehovah’s Witnesses and blood transfusions. But it would be an extreme example of the application of the law of unintended consequences were an iron tenet of an accepted religion to give rise to questions of capacity under the MCA.

35 I therefore place little emphasis on the fact that a tenet of RC’s religious faith prevents him from weighing the advantages of a blood transfusion should his medical circumstances indicate that one is necessary.

36 I am completely satisfied on the evidence and so declare that RC has full capacity to refuse the administration of blood products.

 

 

That rules out the possibility that the Court could declare under the MCA that the treatment was in RC’s best interests, because RC has capacity to say no.

 

 

Mostyn J agreed that the Trust were right to have sought the guidance of the Court before finalising a decision about whether to impose blood transfusion treatment under s63 of the Mental Health Act

 

21 In my judgment where the approved clinician makes a decision not to impose treatment under section 63, and where the consequences of that decision may prove to be life-threatening, then the NHS trust in question would be well advised, as it has here, to apply to the High Court for declaratory relief. The hearing will necessarily involve a “full merits review” of the initial decision. It would be truly bizarre if such a full merits review were held where a positive decision was made under section 63, but not where there was a negative one, especially where one considers that the negative decision may have far more momentous consequences (i.e. death) than the positive one.

 

 

Was this, as a matter of fact and law, a s63 case in any event? Mostyn J eventually concludes that it is, and that the Trust COULD theoretically administer the blood transfusions against RC’s wishes

 

27 Both the treating clinician, Dr S, and the independent forensic psychiatrist Dr Latham made written reports, attended a meeting (by telephone) and gave oral evidence to me. They were almost unanimous. They agreed that:

i) RC suffers from a mental illness namely antisocial and emotionally unstable personality disorders. This is a disturbance of the functioning of the mind, which is one of the classic definitions of mental disorder.

ii) However, he has full capacity to refuse blood products. His refusal derives almost exclusively from his religious faith. Further, he had full capacity to enter into the advance decision on 4 April 2014. Further still, his decision to adopt the religion of the Jehovah’s Witnesses was made with full capacity.

iii) So far as RC’s capacity to harm himself is concerned on occasions he does so with full capacity. However, on other occasions, particularly at times of severe emotional distress, it is likely that he does so without the capacity to choose to self-harm.

iv) RC harms himself with the intention of distracting himself from distressing thoughts and feelings. He does so without really thinking about the consequences and dangers. However his view is that it is his body and therefore his choice to damage it.

28 Where they disagreed was whether the administration of a blood transfusion amounted to treatment which prevented the worsening of a symptom or manifestation of RC’s mental disorder. Dr S was of the opinion that it plainly was. Dr Latham disagreed. He wrote in his report

“In my opinion, it is crucial that any “treatment” for mental disorder provided under the direction of an approved clinician is recognised as a treatment for mental disorder in psychiatric terms and is given [as] a direct consequence of the symptom or manifestation of the mental disorder. In this regard, the treatment of force-feeding for eating disorders could be recognised as a “treatment” but I think it is highly unlikely that a blood transfusion could be. This in my view, might provide a way to “draw a line” so as to ensure proper protection of people’s right to refuse treatment where they have capacity to do so.

In conclusion, any treatment with a blood transfusion is not, in my opinion a treatment for mental disorder, nor is it treatment for a symptom of that mental disorder. It is a treatment for a physical consequence of a symptom of the mental disorder; hypovolaemic shock or life-threatening anaemia. This consequence is not wholly as a result of the self harm but contributed to by his treatment with warfarin. The treatment with warfarin is unrelated to his mental disorder.”

29 Miss Watson, who represents RC, adopts this reasoning and states that it is in fact consistent with the authorities. Miss Dolan, who represents the NHS trust, and Mr Francis QC who acts as advocate to the court, disagree and suggest that a proper interpretation of the authorities must lead to a conclusion that Dr S is right and that a blood transfusion would plainly amount to treatment of a symptom or manifestation of the underlying mental disorder.

30 If I were confined to the literal words of sections 63 and 145(4) I think I would agree with Dr Latham and Miss Watson. However, the authorities have supplied a definition which is some distance from the meaning of the literal words. In St George’s Healthcare NHS Trust v S at 747F Judge LJ stated that “section 63 of the Act may apply to the treatment of any condition which is integral to the mental disorder”.

On reflection I am in agreement with Mr Francis QC’s analysis. It cannot be disputed that the act of self harming, the slashing open of the brachial artery, is a symptom or manifestation of the underlying personality disorder. Therefore to treat the wound in any way is to treat the manifestation or symptom of the underlying disorder. So, indisputably, to suture the wound would be squarely within section 63. As would be the administration of a course of antibiotics to prevent infection. A consequence of bleeding from the wound is that haemoglobin levels are lowered. While it is strictly true, as Dr Latham says, that “low haemoglobin is not wholly a manifestation or symptom of personality disorder”, it is my view that to treat the low haemoglobin by a blood transfusion is just as much a treatment of a symptom or manifestation of the disorder as is to stitch up the wound or to administer antibiotics

 

 

In this case, where the hospital did not intend to go against the patient’s wishes, that decision may not have too much importance, but it has wider implications for other patients. If a mentally ill person is self-harming and bleeding, then s63 of the MHA can be used, the Court have ruled, to administer a blood transfusion.   [Although see the next portion of the article to see that this is very substantially qualified]

 

 

The next question was, having established that the Trust COULD do this under s63, SHOULD they?

 

 

41 Finally I turn to the declaration which is sought pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court concerning the decision of Dr S not to invoke the powers under section 63 MHA. In her first witness statement at paragraph 8 she stated

“I have some ethical difficulty in using the MHA to override a capacitious patient’s wishes based on religious wishes and I would not choose to use my MHA powers to override his advanced (sic) decision”

42 In my judgment, conducting, as I must, a full merits review, I conclude that the decision made by Dr S is completely correct. In my judgment it would be an abuse of power in such circumstances even to think about imposing a blood transfusion on RC having regard to my findings that he presently has capacity to refuse blood products and, were such capacity to disappear for any reason, the advance decision would be operative. To impose a blood transfusion would be a denial of a most basic freedom. I therefore declare that the decision of Dr S is lawful and that it is lawful for those responsible for the medical care of RC to withhold all and any treatment which is transfusion into him of blood or primary blood components (red cells, white cells, plasma or platelets) notwithstanding the existence of powers under section 63 MHA.

 

 

That would seem then to be that s63 MHA could be used to administer a blood transfusion to a patient who was refusing it, but where that patient has capacity to refuse it and gives reasons, it would be wrong to impose it on them, and acceptable for the hospital to withhold that treatment.

 

The distinction, I suppose, being a patient who says “I don’t want any treatment” and one who expresses a decision to refuse blood transfusions. It is a little bit tricky to square this decision (which I think is right) with the Brady decision to impose force-feeding under s63 on Ian Brady (which I personally think was wrong).

 

Both involve the use or not of s63 for treatment which comes lawfully within the section, but this case involves more consideration of whether, having established that s63 COULD be used, it SHOULD be used

4 Comments

Posted in case law, court of protection and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Misuse of police protection – human rights claim

Posted on May 1, 2014 by suesspiciousminds

 

The High Court have ruled on a case involving the misuse of police protection in Re A-W & C (children) 2014

 

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2013/B41.html

 

 

Section 46 of the Children Act allows for a police officer to remove a child from a parent (i.e without an order) for a period of up to 72 hours.  [Most professionals call this removal under police protection a PPO , in echoes of an EPO, but it is not actually an Order].  The decision is made by a senior police officer, not the Court.

 

In this case, the removal under police protection happened DESPITE solicitors representing the mother alerting the Local Authority that they were seeking a declaration from the High Court that the use of those police protection powers would be unlawful.

 

When the High Court dealt with the interim care order hearing, the child having been removed shortly after birth by the police, they ordered that a mother and baby foster placement be found, to reunite the mother and baby.

 

It is alarming how something like this could occur, the Courts having made it extremely plain in both Langley v Liverpool 2005 and A v East Sussex 2010 that in almost every case where removal is sought, this should be by way of a Court’s decision, not the use of police protection. The words used in those cases were not vague, they are crystal clear

 

“It is also right to say, I think, that the separation of mother and child under an ICO in care proceedings is, for good reason, usually a judicial as opposed to an administrative decision. The court is the parent’s safeguard against arbitrary or inappropriate action by a local authority. Thus in the overwhelming majority of the cases, it will be for the judge or magistrates to make the decision. I can thus readily understand Her Honour Judge Finnerty’s view that both she and the Family Proceedings Court were, inappropriately, being presented with a fait accompli.
67.

“For the local authority to succeed in this appeal, therefore, the facts have to be regarded as wholly exceptional.”

The President goes on at paragraph 68, having dealt with some of the facts of that case:

  1. “In anything other than wholly exceptional circumstances, the rule must be that it is for the court to make the relevant decision unfettered by events which effectively curtail its powers. The question, therefore, is whether or not the current case can be said to be ‘wholly exceptional’.”

 

 

And even if nobody reads law, then the police ought to have regard to the Home Office circular which gives advice on the use of those powers

 

 

  1. Home Office Circular 17/2008, to which I have already made reference, helpfully provided to me by Mr Firbank. That Circular issues guidance to the police in the use of their powers under section 46. There had been earlier guidance both in 1991 and 2003 and I suspect that the 2008 guidance was issued after the Liverpool case to which I have made reference to reflect the law as it emerged from that case. Paragraph 3 of the guidance reads as follows:

“The provisions of the Act aim to strike the proper balance between the provision of speedy and effective help to children at risk and unwarranted interference in family life. The underlying principle of the Act is that the welfare of the child is paramount.”

The guidance goes on to say at paragraph 15:

“Police protection is an emergency power and should only be used when necessary, the principle being that wherever possible the decision to remove a child/children from a parent should be made by a court.”

It goes on to say at paragraph 16:

“All local authorities should have in place local arrangements (through their local Chief Executive and Clerks to the Justices) whereby out of hours applications for EPOs may be made speedily and without an excess of bureaucracy. Police protection powers should only be used when this is not possible.”

 

 

In this particular case, the Local Authority had concerns about the safety of the child at home (such concerns would have entitled them to commence Court proceedings and perhaps even to seek a plan of separation). The mother had got legal advice, was talking to the Local Authority, was not threatening to leave the hospital or go home – she did not agree section 20 voluntary accommodation in foster care, she wanted the opportunity to fight the Local Authority’s case in court.

 

Because the social worker and a police officer turned up at the hospital, mother’s representatives very quickly worked out that the child was going to be removed under police protection (i.e by administrative decision not a judicial one) and wrote to the Local Authority indicating that this would be unlawful and that they would be seeking a declaration from the High Court to this effect.

 

That didn’t dissuade the LA from their unlawful course of action, and the police duly removed the child.

 

By the time of the Human Rights claim, the LA had put their hands up to the breach of the mother’s human rights.

 

However

 

They would not concede any declaration that the local authority should have sought an emergency protection order pursuant to section 44 of the Children Act 1989 when they erroneously believed that a contested ICO could not take place. The police have made no concessions at all as to the process adopted by their officers on that day.

 

 

And therefore the Court had to deal with the matter and give judgment

 

This was the written evidence of the police officer about the decision to remove

 

 

I turn back to DC K’s document. This document is a Lancashire Constabulary pro forma document prepared, presumably, in compliance with the Home Office guidance that I have read. It sets out the identity of the officer taking the child into protection, that is DC K. It sets out the details of the child. It sets out her location when taken into police protection, namely neonatal ward RLI. The paragraph under the heading “Reasons for Taking Child into Protection” reads as follows:

“Baby is currently subject of a child protection plan (neglect). Parents under investigation on suspicion of physical assault towards older sibling.”

Those are the reasons as they are set out in their entirety on that form. The form goes on to record that the child was taken into police protection at 12.40 on Monday, 18th February and records the address to which she was taken. It seems to me from the evidence that the point at which the advice was taken, during the morning before attendance at hospital, was likely to be when that document was prepared.

 

 

You might be thinking that this is rather sketchy on the critical issue – why it was necessary to do the removal without going to Court. The Court agree with you.

I pause to say that the grounds set out in that document appear to me to be thin and poorly reasoned. The use of police protection was seen by DC K as necessary by reason of the mother’s lack of co-operation and failure to agree to section 20. That was referred to by both the social worker and DC K in evidence repeatedly as a mother refusing to work with or engage with the local authority. References were made in the written evidence of both witnesses to the mother’s solicitor’s demands as if those demands were in some way obstructive. That did not seem to me to be a proper approach to a young and vulnerable parent who was merely following her own legal advice properly given. In any event the social worker and two policewomen – I think there was also a student social worker there as well – met up at the hospital that morning. The social worker had invited the police to come and they had gone ready to use section 46 if necessary. There can have been absolutely no other purpose to the police officers attending on that day and this is confirmed by DC K’s statement (from G203 in the Court bundle):

“On Monday, 18th February 2013 Michelle Lee contacted me and said that the baby was ready for discharge but the parents are not agreeing to voluntary accommodation. I agreed I would attend the hospital to try and encourage the parents to engage with social services. I updated Inspector BL about the situation. Myself and DC L attended the neonatal to see the mother and father.”

It emerged during the evidence of the social worker that DC K was quite set upon asserting a need for separation to the social worker. I, frankly, do not understand why the efforts of the local authority were not directed at getting an urgent hearing to scrutinise the separation rather than at that stage enlisting the police to secure one as a backstop. I note again that the mother was not threatening to remove A from the hospital. Equally the hospital was reporting her care of A over the weekend as having been good. ML did have conversations with the local authority solicitor during the morning. She told me that she did not think a hearing on a contested ICO would be achievable until Wednesday or Thursday of that week and she did not consider it safe for mother to care for A until then. I think she was particularly concerned about overnight care. Privilege as to advice about why an EPO should not be used was not waived and I, therefore, do not know why that alternative, which would have afforded mother and father some voice in decision-making, if not the children’s guardian as well, was not considered. In fact, had that alternative been investigated it would have become clear that a contested ICO before me was possible that afternoon. The real significance for me, therefore, is not whether or not the local authority legal advice as to EPO would be preferable but as to whether any effort was made to investigate or re-investigate whether an application for an EPO or an ICO could take place.

  1. One of the problems in this case was that those at the hospital, the social worker and the police officer, did not keep themselves informed about when the earliest court hearing could take place. They were not asking their superiors to press for such a hearing. I consider that both finding out and pressing for an earlier hearing were reasonable expectations in respect of both the social worker and the police officer in executing their duties under their statutory responsibility. Quite apart from this, even if a contested ICO hearing were not possible until the Tuesday or Wednesday or Thursday there is an onerous burden upon a local authority to find alternative arrangements during the delay which would hold the balance of protection and which do not require separation.

 

 

 

The Court went on to remind the Local Authority about Re CA, and that s20 consent must be freely given, not “compulsion in disguise” and that having a police officer present during the discussions would have led to a legitimate complaint that the principles of s20 had been breached, even if mother had agreed.

 

 

This is bolstered by the existing caselaw

 

  1. The second is Surrey County Council –v- M, F & E [2012] EWHC [2400] a decision of Mrs. Justice Theis and at paragraph 60 she said this:-

“To use the section 20 procedure in circumstances where there was the overt threat of a police protection order if they did not agree, reinforced by the physical presence of uniformed police officers, was wholly inappropriate. By adopting this procedure the local authority sought to circumvent the test any court would have required them to meet if they sought to secure an order, either by way of an EPO or interim care order.”

 

 

It isn’t a genuine discussion about s20 consent if there is an explicit or implicit threat that the police will remove the child.

 

 

 

The police officer gave evidence (bear in mind that the police position was that the use of powers was lawful and not a breach of mother’s human rights, so the idea of giving evidence is to persuade the Judge of that)

 

 

  1. I heard oral evidence from DC K. I have already referred to her statement, but I have not yet read into this judgment the sentiments contained in that statement at the end, which I consider to be somewhat alarming. She says this:

“I can categorically state that I was in no doubt that a police protection order was absolutely essential in order to keep A safe. I came to that informed decision having paid great attention to the background of this family, in addition to my recent involvement with them. Basically if this child had been allowed to return home with the parents then I would have been neglecting my role as a police officer. I am a child protection officer and that is what I did on that day. My actions were not at the instigation of the local authority.”

She did not draw back from that stance during her oral evidence. She is obviously a very experienced officer. She demonstrated pride in the role she holds in child protection. Her demeanour is pleasant and sensitive and I can well imagine that she has an excellent manner with both the parents and the children she encounters in the course of her duties. However, I consider her approach on 18th February in taking A into police protection at the point in time that she did to have been fundamentally flawed. It was plain that she went to the hospital with the intention, were mother not to agree to accommodation, of taking the child into police protection.

  1. Euphemistic language was used during her evidence about encouraging parents to co-operate or engage with the local authority. However, it is plain that in DC K’s mind the co-operation could only take one form, namely agreement to section 20. When the mother, acting on her solicitor’s advice, refused to consent DC K encapsulated her was “We can’t just go up there and be blocked”. Later I repeated this in asking her questions myself and she seemed to think that the word “blocked” was one that I had used and not her. I am quite clear in my note that those were her words. She failed to weigh into the balance the fact that the parents were co-operating with the local authority in every regard except with regard to a separation pursuant to section 20. They were not threatening to remove A; they were responding to their own legal advice; they had cared for A well on the ward. Not only did DC K have a low threshold for the need for intervention, which to my mind did not arise at all unless or until the hospital was to insist upon discharge and at that point the parents sought to go home with A, but she also seemed to pay little or no heed that the S46 route into to the care of the local authority is the one to be least preferred, affording, as it does, no right of argument or judicial scrutiny.

I refer again to the document that she wrote, as I said probably in advance of attending the hospital, countersigned by her Inspector. It seems to me that it would be strongly arguable, that, even had the decision to go by section 46 occurred out of hours, the justification set out in that document is insufficient. I know that DC K in evidence advanced a lot of other reasons in addition to those set out in the document, but it is very important that the documents to be kept as records of when an authority is to take an action of such consequence as this one contain full reasons even if in summary and note form. She and Inspector BL both took as read that there could be no court hearing until later in the week and that an EPO was not an available route. I consider that both DC K and Inspector BL as the designated officer had a separate duty from the local authority to ensure, not only that separation and protection were absolutely necessary, but also that this route to it was absolutely necessary and that there was no prospect that a separation could be scrutinised or, if necessary, endorsed by a court. She should have been asking herself, “Why do I have to make this decision now?”. So, however impressive DC K was in terms of her commitment and her demeanour, her failure in exercising such a draconian power to establish that this route to protection was absolutely necessary was unimpressive

 

 

 

The Court made its decision about whether the police action had been unfair and a breach of human rights

 

 

The separation of a parent and child by any authority is a most serious act and it must be necessary and proportionate. The gravity and importance of that principle is all the more acute where that child is a newborn and magnified when the mother of that child is herself a child. Protection of the child, of course, is a foremost priority but protection does not require in every case an enforced separation. There are a whole range of remedies before enforced separation, which is the absolute last resort. Decisions as to whether that protection is necessary should be made by a court, and decisions as to what course is the least interventionist necessary should be made by a court. There was a duty, it seems to me, not just on the social worker but on the police themselves to look at the route into protection. DC K did acknowledge in her evidence that separation is always the last resort. It did not seem to me there was any real acknowledgement that section 46 as the route of that separation is also the route of last resort. As I have said, the local authority has made concessions. The police are completely unapologetic. DC K was absolutely convinced of the need for intervention but she is ill equipped to look at the form of protection needed. Her assumption was that the local authority plan for separation was the only route and she made no or no sufficient effort to find out whether a court was available to weigh up the alternatives. She was far too ready to assume responsibility and take the decision without acknowledging that it was for a court to determine what was necessary and proportionate. That type of decision making is quite understandable late at night, at weekends, at Bank Holidays, in the context of parents determined to not work with the local authority, demonstrating violence or threatening to snatch a child from where that child is considered to be safe. None of those things applied here.

 

 

 

The mother had not sought any financial compensation, wanting just the principle to be decided

 

 

  1. The relevant parts of those declarations read as follows:-

Lancashire County Council has acted incompatibly with the rights of CMC, as guaranteed by Article 6 and 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950 in that it:

•    Failed to complete its pre-birth assessment and that consequent pre-proceedings steps were not taken (article 6 and 8).

•    Failed to issue its application for a care order and an interim care order at the time of A’s birth to enable there to be consideration by the court of whether to exercise its powers prior to her discharge from hospital. (article 6 and 8).

 

 

 

 

 

 

  1. I note what was said by Mr Rothery in his submissions that it is the experience of the children’s guardian in this case that this is not an isolated incident of an over willingness to use section 46 in this area. If that is the case it is very much to be hoped that better practice will emerge from this hearing, hence I have taken some time and trouble to deliver that part of the judgment.

 

 

[I continue to hear about misuse of s46 powers from a variety of parts of the country, and I believe that the Guardian was right here]

 

The principles in this case really ought to go without saying, but it seems that the lessons from Liverpool and East Sussex still haven’t been learned.

 

 

If the police are exercising their power under s46, the fundamental question is not “Is this child at risk of harm” but “What are the reasons why a police officer should do this NOW, rather than a Court decide it?”

 

There are circumstances in which the use of s46 powers will be warranted (the shorthand that used to be used when I started was “life and limb” – i.e the harm or risk of harm was so great that waiting even an hour would be unthinkable), but the use of s46 is clearly still prevalent in the country as a speedy and efficacious way of removal before going to Court, and that is fundamentally wrong.

 

I would be amazed if the next mother this happened to was as sanguine as this one was about compensation.

8 Comments

Posted in case law and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Did Adam and Eve receive a fair trial?

Posted on April 30, 2014 by suesspiciousminds

 

Nonsense.

I came across a quotation from a very old criminal case a few weeks ago and it has been on my mind – I can’t turn up the reference today save that the Judge was Fortescue, will try to find it. Anyway, the thrust of it was that the Judge, in explaining the need for fairness and procedure in criminal proceedings brought in the reference of Adam and Eve, in effect saying that God did not immediately punish them for their original sin, but gave them a trial first.  If that’s so, then a criminal trial is either one of the first important things in human history (if you are a creationist) or something that is in one of our oldest pieces of literature (if you are not).

So, it has been on my mind as to whether or not they received a FAIR TRIAL.

Let’s start with the offence – was there an establishment of  a criminal offence, and warning of consequence of the offence?

 

Genesis chapter 2

And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

On that basis, Adam clearly knew that God did not want him to eat the fruit from the tree of knowledge  (in effect, that’s the equivalent of the Government enacting the Theft Act).  I would point out that shortly afterwards Eve is created, and the warning isn’t given again. So it is arguable that God did not communicate the Theft Act to Eve, relying on Adam to tell her. Given that they were the only people in the world, and that God’s entire conversations to that point with Adam were less than a page, it seems reasonable to assume that at some point Adam would have mentioned it to Eve, it being the only rule of the Garden of Eden.

We now come to the offence itself

Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:

3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

(In addition, we establish here that Eve DID know that God had prohibited the eating of the fruit, so she can’t later claim ignorance of the law, which as we know is no excuse anyway)

At this point, we are aware that Adam and Eve knew that eating the fruit was unlawful, and that they ate it. One can hardly claim that you recklessly ate an apple from a tree, so although God wasn’t specific about mens rea for the offence, there seems to be both the act  of eating the apple and the intention to eat the apple.

The offence comes to light here, and God probes the couple as to what happened

And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.

9 And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?

10 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.

11 And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?

12 And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.

13 And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.

I’m not sure that I would classify that as a trial, so much as an interview. Both of them confess (Eve after Adam has already turned Queen’s Evidence on her)

If they HAD denied it, given that God was both prosecutor and Judge, what chance would they have got?  Remember that God is omnipotent and omnipresent, so he was also a witness to them eating the fruit at the time, and can also see the past and see the future. He would appear to be the perfect eye witness, and is also the Judge and the jury.  He clearly would not have reasonable doubt, given that He was an eye-witness.

I think that Adam and Eve would be doomed if they tried to defend the case.

One might argue that they did it, and we know that they did it, so does it matter that they had no real opportunity to defend themselves? Does it matter if a system absolutely ensures that the guilty are always punished (the corollary of God being a perfect witness is that the innocent would never be convicted by Him, because of his omniscence.  Perhaps it is only that our imperfect human minds are not omniscent that means that we NEED reasonable doubt and the chance for people to persuade a jury of those doubts)

The better line of defence here might be in relation to the agent provocateur, the serpent. At no point in the ‘trial’ is it revealed that the serpent was previously employed by God. And of course, as God as ominiscent, then He was there when the serpent tempted Eve and could have intervened, and He knew in advance that the serpent WOULD try to tempt Eve and gave no guidance.  Is there the possibility of an entrapment defence here?

Well, that is going to hinge on whether God is English or American  (other nationalities are possible, but come on, clearly God speaks in a similar voice to either David Niven (English) or Charlton Heston (American) )

In English law, entrapment is not a defence

R v Loosely

LORD HOFFMANN

My Lords,

    35. The question in both of these appeals is whether the English law concerning entrapment is compatible with the Convention right to a fair trial. In my opinion it is. I have had the advantage of reading in draft the reasons of Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead for reaching the same conclusion. I agree with them.

    English law on entrapment

    36. Entrapment occurs when an agent of the state – usually a law enforcement officer or a controlled informer – causes someone to commit an offence in order that he should be prosecuted. I shall in due course have to refine this description but for the moment it will do. In R v Latif [1996] 1 WLR 104, 112 Lord Steyn said that English law on the subject was now settled. It may be summarised as follows. First, entrapment is not a substantive defence in the sense of providing a ground upon which the accused is entitled to an acquittal. Secondly, the court has jurisdiction in a case of entrapment to stay the prosecution on the ground that the integrity of the criminal justice system would be compromised by allowing the state to punish someone whom the state itself has caused to transgress. Thirdly, although the court has a discretion under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to exclude evidence on the ground that its admission would have an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings, the exclusion of evidence is not an appropriate response to entrapment. The question is not whether the proceedings would be a fair determination of guilt but whether they should have been brought at all. I shall briefly enlarge upon these three points.

(a)     Not a defence

 

    37. The fact that the accused was entrapped is not inconsistent with his having broken the law. The entrapment will usually have achieved its object in causing him to do the prohibited act with the necessary guilty intent. So far as I know, the contrary view is held only in the Federal jurisdiction of the United States. It is unnecessary to discuss the cogent criticisms which have been made of this doctrine, notably by Frankfurter J in his dissenting judgment in Sherman v United States (1958) 356 US 369, because it has never had any support in authority or academic writing in this country. Indeed, the majority judgment of Rehnquist J in United States v Russell (1973) 411 US 423, 433, which describes the criticisms as “not devoid of appeal” suggests that its survival in the Federal jurisdiction owes more to stare decisis and its perceived constitutional and pragmatic advantages than to its intellectual coherence.

So in English law, the fact that the serpent, whose connection to the Prosecution / law enforcement agencies is uncertain but at least raises doubts, lures Eve into the offence is not a defence. It might be that if the circumstances are so repugnant to justice that the EVIDENCE obtained can’t be relied upon the prosecution might be stayed, but that would be God’s decision as the Judge.

It is God acting as Judge and jury and police and prosecutor which raises the biggest issues here. That would seem to give rise to a right of appeal, on the R v Sussex Justices point – “Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done”

The right of appeal doesn’t help though, since any appeal would (a) also be to God and (b) Him being omniscent, already knows the outcome of the appeal.

It is quite difficult to work out what a fair criminal justice system in which the only individuals in existence are God, the serpent, Adam and Eve; so one must be careful in criticising what was set up, but this arrangement where God sets the law, brings the charges, is a wtiness of fact, decides the case and delivers sentence seems lacking in the fundamental separation of powers.

Perhaps that explains why God  (who had told Adam and Eve that if they ate the fruit, they would die that same day) ends up giving a more lenient sentence than the death sentence originally specified.

Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;

19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

So, hunger, banishment from paradise, a life-cycle involving hard toil and then death rather than eternal life, and horrible pain in childbirth.  (That in itself raises an Equalities Act issue, in that Eve’s sentence for the same offence seems markedly more harsh than Adam’s. The serpent also gets a sentence, and there’s clearly no trial of the serpent, who is not asked anything – AND God had not established that incitement was an offence)

[The later sentence of merely banishment for Cain, for murdering at that time one quarter of the world’s population, seems somewhat out of kilter to the harsher sentence for eating an apple, but the Lord moves in mysterious ways]

12 Comments

Posted in stuff that isn't law at all and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Let’s find you a nice young man

Posted on April 30, 2014 by suesspiciousminds

The law on capacity and sexuality is developing swiftly at the moment, and throwing up some really difficult decisions.

In A Local Authority v TZ (no 2) 2014, the Court of Protection went on from its first judgment that the man, TZ, had the capacity to consent to sexual intercourse. TZ was homosexual, so one of the three principles (does the person understand the mechanics, the risk of STDs and the risk of pregnancy) doesn’t apply.

 

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/COP/2014/973.html

The issue that then arose was whether TZ had capacity to make safe choices about people he might chose to have sex with.

 

 

  • Accordingly, the questions arising here are:

 

 

 

(1) whether TZ has the capacity to make a decision whether or not an individual with whom he may wish to have sexual relations is safe, and, if not, 

(2) whether he has the capacity to make a decision as to the support he requires when having contact with an individual with whom he may wish to have sexual relations.

 

[I personally bear in mind that almost every parent ever would have wanted at some point and even for a brief flickering moment, the right to veto their child’s choice of boyfriend or girlfriend, but we have to let them make their own mistakes in life. There are certain people who like “bad boys”, sometimes they grow out of it, sometimes they don’t. Most teenagers would prefer someone that their parents disapproved of   –  John Bender in the Breakfast Club would be no parents choice for their child, but the parents choice of Brian isn’t going to fly. But this is a tricky situation – TZ clearly had some vulnerabilities. The Judge carefully reminded himself of the tension between being protective and giving people freedom to make what others might see as poor choices]

bender

 

John  Bender  (bad boy alert)

 

Parent's choice, lovely Brian

Parent’s choice, lovely Brian

  • In addressing the issues of capacity in this case, I bear in mind a number of other points of law.

 

 

 

  • Importantly, capacity is both issue-specific and time specific. A person may have capacity in respect of certain matters but not in relation to other matters. Equally, a person may have capacity at one time and not at another. The question is whether, at the date on which the court is considering capacity, the person lacks the capacity in issue.

 

 

 

  • Next, as Macur J (as she then was) observed in LBL v RYJ [2010] EWHC 2664 (Fam) (at paragraph 24), “it is not necessary for the person to comprehend every detail of the issue … it is not always necessary for a person to comprehend all peripheral detail .…” The question is whether the person under review can “comprehend and weigh the salient details relevant to the decision to be made” (ibid, paragraph 58).

 

 

 

  • Furthermore, in assessing the question of capacity, the court must consider all the relevant evidence. Clearly, the opinion of an independently-instructed expert will be likely to be of very considerable importance, but in addition the court in these cases will invariably have evidence from other professionals who have experience of treating and working with P, the subject of the proceedings, and sometimes from friends and family and indeed from P himself.. As Charles J observed (in the analogous context of care proceedings) in A County Council v KD and L [2005] EWHC 144 (Fam) [2005] 1 FLR 851 at paras 39 and 44, “it is important to remember (i) that the roles of the court and the expert are distinct and (ii) it is the court that is in the position to weigh the expert evidence against its findings on the other evidence… the judge must always remember that he or she is the person who makes the final decision”. Thus, when assessing the ability of a person to (a) understand the information relevant to the decision (b) retain that information, and (c) use or weigh that information as part of the process of making the decision, the court must consider all the evidence, not merely the views of the independent expert.

 

 

 

  • Finally, I reiterate the further point, to which I have alluded in earlier decisions, including PH v A Local Authority, Z Ltd and R [2011] EWHC 1704 (Fam) and CC v KK [2012] EWHC 2136 (COP). In a case involving a vulnerable adult, there is a risk that all professionals involved with treating and helping that person – including, of course, a judge in the Court of Protection – may feel drawn towards an outcome that is more protective of the adult and thus, in certain circumstances, fail to carry out an assessment of capacity that is detached and objective.

and later

 

 

  • In this context, as so often, the way forward is illuminated by observations of Munby J, as he then was, on this occasion in Re MM (An Adult) [2007] EWHC 2003 (Fam). In that case (decided under the inherent jurisdiction), the Court was concerned with the approach to be adopted in a case of a person who had capacity to consent to sexual relations but lacked the capacity to make decisions about contact with a long-term partner. In such circumstances, Munby J held that “the court … is entitled to intervene to protect a vulnerable adult from the risk of future harm – the risk of future abuse or future exploitation – so long as there is a real possibility, rather than a merely fanciful risk, of such harm. But the court must adopt a pragmatic, common sense and robust approach to the identification, evaluation and management of perceived risk” (paragraph 119).

 

 

 

  • The following much-quoted paragraph is particularly relevant:

 

 

“A great judge once said, ‘all life is an experiment’, adding that ‘every year if not every day we have to wager our salvation upon some prophecy based upon imperfect knowledge (see Holmes J in Abrams v United States (1919) 250 US 616 at 630). The fact is that all life involves risk, and the young, the elderly and the vulnerable, are exposed to additional risks and to risks they are less well equipped than others to cope with. But just as wise parents resist the temptation to keep their children metaphorically wrapped up in cotton wool, so too we must avoid the temptation always to put the physical health and safety of the elderly and the vulnerable before everything else. Often it will be appropriate to do so, but not always. Physical health and safety can sometimes be brought at too high a price in happiness and emotional welfare. The emphasis must be on sensible risk appraisal, not striving to avoid all risk, whatever the price, but instead seeking a proper balance and being willing to tolerate manageable or acceptable risks as the price appropriately to be paid in order to achieve some other good – in particular to achieve the vital good of the elderly or vulnerable person’s happiness. What good is it making someone safer if it merely makes them miserable?”

 

 

I won’t get heavily into the particular facts in the case, they are all set out in the judgment should you want to read them – there was quite a body of professional opinion that TZ lacked the skills to weigh up whether someone was a safe person to approach or have sex with.

 

The Court’s decision on capacity is set out below

 

  • I find on a balance of probabilities that TZ does not have the capacity to decide whether a person with whom he may wish to have sexual relations is safe. I base that finding on the detailed assessments of TZ carried out by JS and Dr X, both of whom have had an opportunity to assess him over a period of time. These assessments include extensive conversations with TZ in which he has himself acknowledged that he lacks this capacity. In particular, while he has the ability to understand and retain information, he lacks the ability to use or weigh up the information, including the ability to assess risk and, in the language of s. 3(4), to understand the reasonably foreseeable consequences of the decision. This is, in my judgment, a good example of the distinction identified in paragraph 4.30 of the Code of Practice between, on the one hand, unwise decisions, which a person has the right to make, and, on the other hand, decisions based on a lack of understanding of risks and the inability to weigh up the information concerning a decision.

 

 

 

  • I have also borne in mind s. 1(2) – that a person is not to be treated as unable to make a decision unless all practicable steps to help him to do so have been taken without success. Having regard to Dr X’s advice, however, I consider that there is no immediate prospect of extending TZ’s capacity via a programme of education. Such a programme must, of course, be an integral part of the best interests care plan which would be put in place as a result of a declaration of incapacity.

 

 

 

  • The evidence therefore establishes that he lacks the capacity to decide whether or not any individual with whom he may wish to have a sexual relationship is safe. As to the second capacity in issue, JS concluded in her report that he did have the capacity to make decisions regarding his care and support. In oral evidence, however, JS qualified this opinion, saying that TZ can understand why he needs support “if he is in the right frame of mind”, and that his capacity in this respect is variable. She said that sometimes he is more open about taking things on board than at other times. Dr X concluded that TZ lacked this capacity. He thought that TZ’s current compliance with support did not mean that he understands the need for that support and thought it quite likely that at some stage he would ask a support worker to leave.

 

 

 

  • Notwithstanding the view set out in JS’s written assessment, I conclude after close analysis that TZ does not have the capacity to decide what support he requires when having contact with an individual with whom he may wish to have sexual relations.

 

 

 

  • In reaching these conclusions as to capacity, I have reminded myself, again, of the need to avoid what could be called the vulnerable person’s protective imperative – that is to say, the dangers of being drawn towards an outcome that is more protective of the adult and thus fail to carry out an assessment of capacity that is detached and objective. I do not consider that I have fallen into that trap in this case.

 

 

But having established that TZ lacks that capacity, the Court then have to approach any declarations with a view to what is in TZ’s best interests

 

 

 

 

“First, P’s wishes and feelings will always be a significant factor to which the court must pay close regard …. Secondly, the weight to be attached to P’s wishes and feelings will always be case-specific and fact-specific …. Thirdly, in considering the weight and importance to be attached to P’s wishes and feelings, the court must … have regard to all the relevant circumstances … [which] will include … (a) the degrees of P’s incapacity … (b) the strength and consistency of the views being expressed by P; (c) the possible impact on P of knowledge that [his] wishes and feelings are not being given effect to … (d) the extent to which P’s wishes and feelings are, or are not, rational, sensible, responsible and, pragmatically capable of sensible implementation in the particular circumstances; and (e) crucially, the extent to which P’s wishes and feelings, if given effect to, can properly be accommodated within the court’s overall assessment of what is in [his] best interests.”

 

  • Mr. McKendrick further submits, rightly, that in applying the principle in s.1(6) and generally, the Court must have regard to TZ’s human rights, in particular his rights under article 8 of ECHR to respect for private and family life. As the European Court of Human Rights observed in Niemitz v Germany (1993) 16 EHRR 97 at para 29, “private life” includes, inter alia, the right to establish relationships with other human beings. This has been reiterated on a number of occasions, see for example Pretty v UK (2002) EHRR 1 at paragraph 61 and in Evans v UK (2008) 46 EHRR 34 at paragraph 71. There is a positive obligation on the state to take measures to ensure that his private life is respected, and the European Court has stated that “these obligations may involve the adoption of measures designed to secure respect for private life even in the sphere of the relations of individuals between themselves”: Botta v Italy (1998) 26 EHRR 241 paragraph 33.

 

 

 

  • These principles plainly apply when considering what steps should be taken to protect someone, such as TZ, who has the capacity to consent to sexual relations but lacks both the capacity to make a decision whether or not an individual with whom he may wish to have sexual relations is safe and the capacity to make a decision as to the support he requires when having contact with such an individual. In such circumstances, the state through the local authority is under a positive obligation to take steps to ensure that TZ is supported in having a sexual relationship should he wish to do so.

 

 

 

  • In passing, it should be noted that this is consistent with the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, (ratified by the UK in 2009 although not yet incorporated into English law) and in particular article 23 which requires states to “take effective and appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against persons with in all matters relating to marriage, family, parenthood and relationships, on an equal basis with others”.

 

 

 

  • In addition, the state is under an obligation to take steps to protect TZ from harm.

 

How to apply those principles to TZ’s case

 

  • In the light of these principles and dicta, what steps should this court now take in TZ’s best interests?

 

 

 

  • On behalf of the Official Solicitor, Mr. McKendrick asserts that the challenge for the parties and the court is to develop a best interests framework which permits TZ sufficient autonomy of decision-making and respects his right to a private life whilst balancing the need to protect him from harm. He identifies three options: (1) take no best interests decision at this stage but react should TZ find himself in a situation when he is the subject of harm or at risk of harm; (2) require the applicant local authority to draft a care plan and submit it to the court for approval; (3) appoint a welfare deputy to make decisions on TZ’s behalf. Neither party is advocating for the first option. Both parties agree that the court should direct the local authority to file a care plan. The issues are, first, as to the contents of that plan and, secondly, whether a welfare deputy should be appointed.

 

 

 

  • The local authority has filed a draft care support plan. The Official Solicitor has made a number of observations about that plan. There is considerable common ground between the two parties, but some differences remain.

 

 

 

  • What follows are some proposals by the court for the sort of measures that should be included in the plan. Decision-making for incapacitated adults should, as far as possible, be a collaborative exercise. The observations as to the contents of the plan should be seen as part of that process.

 

 

 

  • I propose that the plan should contain the following elements: (a) basic principles; (b) education and empowerment; (c) support; (d) intervention; (e) decision-making. Under this last heading, I shall consider the local authority’s application for the appointment of a deputy.

 

 

(a) Basic principles

 

  • The basis for the plan is uncontroversial and can be summarised as follows.

 

 

 

(1) TZ lives at H Home. In due course, he may move to a step-down facility and, in the long run, into supported living. 

(2) He will have available to him a number of hours of 1 : 1 support every week. Currently that is fixed at 32 hours.

(3) He has capacity to consent to and enter into sexual relations. He has the right to establish relationships with other human beings and wishes to meet other men with whom he may have sexual relations.

(4) He lacks the capacity to make a decision whether or not an individual with whom he may wish to have sexual relations is safe and the capacity to make a decision as to the support he requires when having contact with such an individual.

(5) The local authority and the Court are under a positive obligation to ensure that he is supported in having a sexual relationship should he wish to do so, but also to ensure, as far as possible, that he is kept safe from harm.

(6) The purpose of the plan is therefore to identify the support to be provided to assist him in developing a sexual relationship without exposing him to a risk of harm.

 

You can see, hopefully, that the overall goal of the plan is to keep TZ safe whilst teaching him the skills he will need to keep himself safe – he is not prevented from forming relationships with other men, nor indeed from having sex with them; it is more that he is to be assisted in making those decisions.

 

Getting down to brass tacks though, what are professionals supposed to do if TZ meets someone he is attracted to?

 

 

  • Mr McKendrick submits, and I agree, that TZ must have some “space” to make decisions for himself, even if this involves making mistakes, to assist him to learn (as far as he can) from the consequences of those decisions. Mr Dooley indicated that the local authority agreed that learning through experience is critical for TZ.

 

 

 

  • Mr McKendrick further submits, and I accept, that, should TZ meet a stranger, he is entitled to have private time with that person and support staff should intervene only if there is an identified risk of that person being abusive towards TZ. I agree with the Official Solicitor that the local authority and its support staff cannot interview or ‘vet’ anyone with whom TZ wishes to communicate and cannot assume that everyone he speaks to is likely to present a risk of abuse. Mr Dooley stated that the local authority’s position is that, if there is a problem in these circumstances, there will need to be a risk assessment to determine whether intervention is required. Having identified that intervention is required, the next step would be to consider the least restrictive intervention necessary to ensure that TZ is safe.

 

 

 

  • In the event that TZ decides he wishes to spend the night with someone, the care plan must provide that a private space can be made available. H Home has now indicated that he will be permitted to have a visitor to stay subject to the proviso that any visitor would have to be subject to safeguarding checks to protect other residents. A similar provision would be made in the event that TZ moved to a step-down facility.

 

 

 

  • If TZ meets someone and develops a relationship, or if he says he wishes to leave H Home and cohabit with another person, a specific capacity assessment will be required to determine whether he has the capacity to make a decision about contact with that person. If the outcome is that he has capacity, the sexual relationship should be facilitated, unless it is concluded that there is a significant risk of harm. If the assessment concludes that he lacks that capacity, or that there is a likelihood that he will suffer significant harm as a result of a relationship, a further application will have to be made to the court. If the court accepts that he lacks capacity, a best interests decision will then be made. If the court concludes that he has capacity, but that he is at risk of harm, it may be that the court would resort to protective powers under its inherent jurisdiction as to vulnerable adults. At all stages, of course, TZ must be assisted to participate in the decision-making process.

 

 

It is not the role of the Local Authority to ‘vet’ TZ’s partners or potential partners, nor do they have a role of veto

 

 

  • the plan must clearly delineate the circumstances in which care workers may intervene to protect TZ and the steps they are entitled to take when intervening.

 

 

 

  • On behalf of the Official Solicitor, Mr McKendrick submits, and I accept, that it is not the role of the local authority staff to vet TZ’s sexual partners. They must not deny him private time with a proposed sexual partner simply because they consider that partner is unsuitable, unless there is a clearly identified risk that the proposed partner poses a real risk of abuse to TZ during their contact. As the Official Solicitor submits, the assessment of abuse must be rigorous and evidence-based, or, adopting the phrase used by Munby J in Re MM, (supra) “pragmatic, common sense and robust”. As the Official Solicitor points out, capacitous adults also run the risk of abuse and harm. The adults protecting TZ must be given the tools to assist him, because of his vulnerabilities, but they cannot act in his best interests by attempting to eliminate all risks of harm. (“What good is making someone safe if it merely makes them miserable?”)

 

 

 

  • As JS has set out in her draft support plan, if TZ says he wants to go off with someone he has just met, the care workers would try to dissuade him, reminding him of the staged approach to new relationships previously discussed and agreed. In the event that he refused to listen to support workers in those circumstances, and where there were concerns regarding the risk of harm, the care worker involved should immediately alert management, who would in turn ensure that legal representatives were informed. A decision would then be taken as to whether the police should be informed, and/or whether an application should be made to the Court of Protection.

 

There was a mental health case in the last year, where a Judge set down a seventeen point plan of things that ought to be considered by a hospital before deciding that a patient was so dangerous that he needed to be transferred to a safer hospital, and the Court of Appeal ended up observing that if you get a Judge to draw up a model, he or she invariably draws up a very judicial/lawyery one which attempts to dot every i, and cross every t, but reality doesn’t always allow for that.  I think that this is a damn good attempt to put a framework in place that tries to give TZ freedom and keep him safe and they are laudable aims – I am certain that I could not have done any better.  But it does bring up the mental picture of a man smiling at TZ in Starbucks and staff members thumbing through the judgment to initiate “Phase Four of the plan”

 

Do you suspect that the staff will be likely to be on low alert for a Brian, but be contemplating intervention for the bad-boy type?

 

2 Comments

Posted in case law, court of protection and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Presidential press conference

Posted on April 29, 2014 by suesspiciousminds

 

There’s quite a lot in here, and as we know, speeches and views and opinions seem to have a habit of making their way into judgments, so it might be an advance insight.

Click to access munby-press-conference-29042014.pdf

 

The one that has already made the news is the President suggesting that consideration be given to taking divorce (as in the dissolution of the marriage, not the financial issues) out of the hands of judges and giving it to Registrars. That one needs a post all on its own (probably tomorrow) – I tend to agree with quite a lot of what he says on this, and the need for proper remedies for people who are not married but have had long term relationships / periods of cohabitation.

 

Here are the other big talking points

 

1 . Not helpful to think about adversarial v inquisitorial, but as more and more cases involve litigants in person who would rather be represented, Judges are going to need to play a larger role in the conduct of proceedings

The President says that in cases where there are litigants in person, the Judges are going to have to be more inquisitorial in style, and that sitting Sphinx-like until judgment isn’t going to work. He doesn’t think we are likely to end up with a continental style inquisitorial system, but we are a long way removed from the traditional adversarial system already.

2. Doesn’t think that the cuts will adversely affect the reforms

In fact the thrust of what the President seems to be saying here are that the reforms are vital because of the cuts, and that drive towards efficiency, cost-effectiveness and reducing time taken before the Court will allow for the litigant in person cases, which he accepts take longer

 

3. Believes that there will be a tipping point for mediation, where when it is sold correctly as to the benefits, more and more people will want to take it up  [We are in an almost- crisis situation at the moment but once we get the message across it will be a very attractive option]

He was not keen on the idea of cost sanctions for failure to mediate or engage properly in mediation

 

4. Next stage of transparency will be greater access to court papers

As he rightly points out – if so much of a hearing is “Can I refer to to page B64, paragraph 6” then a journalist sitting in Court is not able to get any real sense of what is happening, what is being referred to. He says that there are going to be proposals about this in the very near future.  He also indicates that because of the way that case numbers are coded, anyone who tries to work them out can quickly decipher that a Case Number refers to a Private Law case in Sunderland, as opposed to a Public Law case in Wolverhampton   (He is wrong about the code for Brighton being BH though – for some reason I have never fathomed, it is UQ)

 

5. He is aware of the tension between what the Government say about adoption and what the Courts say

 

For me, this was the most interesting question, and indeed answer. It is clear that on the one hand, the Courts are implementing a “nothing else will do” philosophy on adoption, and on the other the Government has a pro-adoption agenda and is measuring Local Authorities on performance and threatening to remove these functions from Councils who don’t meet what the Government have in mind. What the President says, in effect, and much more politely than my shorthand summary, is that Parliament make the statutes, not Governments, and that if Parliament disagree with how the Courts are interpreting statute, then Parliament will need to change the statute. He acknowledges the tension (explicitly referencing that the Government have talked about local councils need to get away from the idea that adoption is the last resort) and says that on the ground, for Directors of Children’s Services, “it must be slightly difficult to know exactly what they should be doing given that tension”    (something of an understatement)

 

 

1 Comment

Posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Surrogacy arrangements made overseas

Posted on April 29, 2014 by suesspiciousminds

 

Re WT (A child) 2014

 

In a situation where a childless couple want a child, sometimes the search is cast very far and wide. At the early stage of the internet, there was outcry in Britain about the Kilshaws, a couple who purchased a baby on the internet from America. That led to the creation of legislation about overseas adoption and in turn surrogacy arrangements.

In this country, there are clear restrictions about surrogacy, and the amount that can be paid to a woman to have a baby on your behalf (it has to be expenses only) and as the High Court recently pointed out in JP v LP and Others 2014, there are criminal offences associated with any actions that are dealing with surrogacy on a commercial basis (even as an intermediary, or in that particular case as a solicitor charging for drawing up documents to make the arrangements as watertight as possible)

 

 

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2014/595.html

 

section 2 of the Surrogacy Arrangements Act 1985 which says :

2 Negotiating surrogacy arrangements on a commercial basis, etc.

(1)No person shall on a commercial basis do any of the following acts in the United Kingdom, that is—

(a) initiate or take part in any negotiations with a view to the making of a surrogacy arrangement,

(b) offer or agree to negotiate the making of a surrogacy arrangement, or

(c) compile any information with a view to its use in making, or negotiating the making of, surrogacy arrangements;

and no person shall in the United Kingdom knowingly cause another to do any of those acts on a commercial basis.

 

 

On a strict interpretation of that section, even doing the research about surrogacy and giving it to your client by way of advice can fall foul of that, if you then charge them for it s 2 (1) (c)   – it actually looks like not only is the solicitor committing an offence for charging, but the client also for asking them to do it and offering to pay for the advice…

[That might cause a problem with some of the guidance given by the High Court in this case that people contemplating overseas surrogacy should seek specialist advice first]

There are slightly more complicated provisions when the surrogacy is commissioned from a woman living in another country, and that is what Re WT is all about.

 

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2014/1303.html

 

In that case, two people sought through an agency – the Kiran infertility centre (which immediately  rang a not entirely positive-sounding bell with me… more later) to commission a woman in India to have a baby on their behalf.

 

The baby was conceived by using the male’s gametes artificially inseminating the woman in India (the use of gametes or an egg or embryo is from one of the commissioning couple what makes it surrogacy rather than an adoption that is paid for) . That woman is named SA in the judgment.

 

The couple paid the sum of $28.000 dollars to the Kiran infertility centre. The biological mother, SA, received 350,000 rupees   (the judgment never actually does the currency calculation, so I will. The woman received roughly $5,800 dollars, leaving the clinic with $22,200. )

 

The couple then made an application for a parental order in the UK, this being what would make them both legally the parents of this child.

 

As the Court carefully point out, such an application HAS to be made within 6 months of the child’s birth – the Court has no power to extend that time-limit. If it isn’t made in time, the Court can’t consider the application.

 

In order for the Court to make the parental order, one of the issues that they need to consider is the consent of the mother – that has to be given at a period after the first six weeks of the child’s life (as an insurance that the decision is not being made at an emotionally vulnerable time, when hormones are having a significant sway on emotions and decision-making)

 

The clinic were less than helpful in getting the evidence about the mother’s consent

The parental order application is dated 14 March 2013. I have dealt with the four directions hearings prior to the final hearing on 4 March 2014. The main concerns I had on the information that was available when the matter first came before me can be summarised as follows:

(1) all the documents signed by SA were in English, including importantly the consent Form A101A. There was no information available as to whether she spoke English, was literate or had had the documents read through and interpreted for her;

(2) the applicants had not met SA and were unable to provide any information about her first language or her level of literacy;

(3) the enquiries they made with the clinic to seek clarity about the circumstances in which SA signed these documents were not responded to by the Clinic in a helpful or constructive way;

(4) the attempts to locate SA at the address on the documents were unsuccessful as the address given by the clinic for her covered a very large area;

 

Because of these issues, the couple sustained considerable additional costs in obtaining better evidence about the mother’s consent, and the judgment is critical of the clinic

The Clinic in this case has not always been helpful in the way it has responded to reasonable requests made on behalf of the applicants, often such requests were following specific directions made by this Court. They were given the opportunity to make representations to this Court but have not done so. Delay was caused as the Clinic insisted on being sent hard copies of the letters requesting information and consent from the applicants to do so. The Clinic makes the fair point that it is not in their interests not to help their clients obtain parental orders. Some of the documents signed by SA appeared to be in a standard form and contained provisions that were not accurate, or were not completed. For example, the ‘Agreement for Surrogacy’ signed on 29 December 2011 contained a provision which stated ‘I have worked out the financial terms and conditions of the surrogacy with the couple in writing and an appropriately authenticated copy of the agreement has been filed with the clinic, which the clinic will keep confidential’. The applicants said they had had no contact with SA in writing and were not aware of any agreement being filed with the Clinic prior to the Agreement for Surrogacy.

 

Eventually, the couple were able to provide the evidence that satisfied the Court that mother had given free and informed consent. The Court was also satisfied that the couple were able to offer the child a good and loving home and that making the parental order was the right thing to do.

 

The Court then looked at the payments – the Court has to retrospectively  authorise those payments under s54(8) when making the parental order.

As the judgment shows, the public policy reasons for this are strong – if the payment is too low, there is a risk that the mother is being exploited, if too high there is a risk that her decision has been swayed by financial considerations. It is also clear that the Court has jurisdiction to look at payments made to the foreign agency   (remember, if you were running a UK surrogacy agency, it would be illegal to charge money for ANY of your services)

Turning finally to the question of payments under s 54(8). Whilst the focus of the court’s consideration is on payments made directly or indirectly to the surrogate mother, it is clear from cases such as Re C [2013] EWHC 2408 (Fam), the payments made to commercial surrogacy agencies operating within the law of foreign jurisdictions require authorisation by the court, insofar as such payment cannot be considered to have been for expenses reasonably incurred.

The applicants have produced a part breakdown of the payments they made totalling almost $28,000. The breakdown given appears incomplete: $11,675 was paid when they registered with the clinic in May 2011 followed by 6 payments of $2,500 between March to October 2012. There are then some one off items listed as post birth administrative fees ($245), notary fee ($260), SA’s travel expenses ($350) and courier charges ($45). No other breakdown of how the sums paid to the Clinic is given, despite requests being made to the Clinic to do so. The Clinic’s unhelpful response to such a request is as follows ‘payments made to clinic for the entire surrogacy process are available with your clients’. If that was the case the request to the Clinic would not have been made.

The applicants had no direct dealing with SA. The only information they have regarding payments made to her are the documents signed by her that confirm she received 3,50,000 R’s. In a subsequent email from the clinic dated 3.1.14 they confirmed that SA was not required to pay the caretaker or Dr Sekhar out of the monies she received and SA in her meeting with the Ms Baria confirmed she received 3,50,000 Rs. This level of payment to the surrogate is the same as authorised in D & L [2012] EWHC 2631 (Fam) [2013] 1 WLR 3135 which concerned the same clinic.

When considering whether to authorise the payments made in this case the relevant principles are firmly established by the cases, starting with Re X and Y (Foreign Surrogacy) [2008] EWHC 3030 (Fam) [2009] 2WLR 1274 (paragraph 19 and 20) and the cases that have followed (in particular Re S (Parental Order) [2009] EWHC 2977 (Fam), Re L (Commercial Surrogacy) [2010] EWHC 3146 (Fam), [2011] 2WLR 1006 Re IJ (Foreign Surrogacy Agreement Parental Order) [2011] EWHC 921 (Fam) [2011] 2FLR 646 and Re X and Y (Parental Order: Retrospective Authorisation of Payments) [2011] EWHC 3147 (Fam)).

(1) the question whether a sum paid is disproportionate to “reasonable expenses” is a question of fact in each case. What the court will be considering is whether the sum is so low that it may unfairly exploit the surrogate mother, or so high that it may place undue pressure on her with the risk, in either scenario, that it may overbear her free will;

(2) the principles underpinning section 54 (8), which must be respected by the court, is that it is contrary to public policy to sanction excessive payments that effectively amount to buying children from overseas.

(3) however, as a result of the changes brought about by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Parental Orders) Regulations 2010, the decision whether to authorise payments retrospectively is a decision relating to a parental order and in making that decision, the court must regard the child’s welfare as the paramount consideration.

(4) as a consequence it is difficult to imagine a set of circumstances in which, by the time an application for a parental order comes to court, the welfare of any child, particularly a foreign child, would not be gravely compromised by a refusal to make the order: As a result: “it will only be in the clearest case of the abuse of public policy that the court will be able to withhold an order if otherwise welfare considerations support its making”, per Hedley J in Re L (Commercial Surrogacy) [2010] EWHC 3146 (Fam), [2011] 2WLR 1006, at paragraph 10.

(5) where the applicants for a parental order are acting in good faith and without ‘moral taint’ in their dealings with the surrogate mother, with no attempt to defraud the authorities, and the payments are not so disproportionate that the granting of parental orders would be an affront to public policy, it will ordinarily be appropriate for the court to exercise its discretion to give retrospective authorisation, having regard to the paramountcy of the child’s lifelong welfare.

I am entirely satisfied the applicants have acted at all times with good faith and without moral taint. They took great care to select the clinic they used, undertook extensive research and enquiries and also formed their own judgment when they visited the clinic. They have displayed independent judgment by not always following the advice of the Clinic, for example which FRRO to secure the exit permit from. There is no evidence to suggest they have been otherwise than honest and candid in all their dealings with the Indian and UK authorities and have complied with the directions of this court. The amounts paid to the Clinic were set by the Clinic in a jurisdiction where commercial surrogacy is not unlawful. The amount paid to SA was not negotiated by them, appears to have been fixed by the Clinic, is the same as a previously authorised payment approved by this Court and is not dissimilar from payments made in similar surrogacy arrangements in Indian clinics. There is no evidence to suggest SA did other than freely consent to the surrogacy arrangement.

In those circumstances the payments made other than for expenses reasonably incurred are authorised by the court

The Court are of course in a bit of a bind here, and that’s hinted at here. Where the Court think that the couple have behaved properly, but that the fees were too high, their only sanction is to refuse to retrospectively approve the payments. But the money has already been spent, so what good does that do? Ultimately, the Court have the power to not make the parental order if they feel that the couple have improperly “bought” the child, but in a case like this where one might feel that they have been ripped off, there’s nothing the Court is likely to be able to do for them.

 

[There’s also, for me, a grey area as to whether when considering whether the payments are so grossly disproportionate that they shouldn’t be allowed, as to whether the Court is looking solely at what the couple pay or what the biological mother receives, and compare that to the value of the money in both countries. It is possible, I don’t know, that $5,800 is not a grossly disproportionate amount here, but in another country that sum of money might compare extremely favourable to annual income]

 

And you will see from the reference to D and L (Minors Surrogacy) 2012 that I was right to recall Kiran Infertility Clinic

 

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2012/2631.html

 

In that one, the clinic didn’t get an address for the biological mother, causing huge problems in evidencing their consent. If you read my piece on that at the time,

 

https://suesspiciousminds.com/2012/10/01/be-my-be-my-baby/

 

you might remember this particularly telling feature

 

At that stage, they had still to receive any signed consent from the surrogate mother. They made further requests to the director of the clinic, to no avail. On 13 September, the first Applicant emailed a long letter to the director, setting a deadline for the production of the signed consent, and warning that if the documents were not supplied, they would make formal complaints to the authorities in India and the British High Commission. On 16th September, the Applicants received a DHL package, purportedly from the director of the clinic, containing a single sheet of paper on which was printed an obscene gesture

 

 

As I’m not charging anyone who reads this blog any money, I can give my advice about surrogacy without breaking the criminal law. My advice is, read these judgments and shop around before you decide which agency to use.

 

The Court go on to give some general advice to couples contemplating surrogacy with an overseas woman

 

As can be seen from what I have detailed above this application has not had an easy journey to the final hearing. Adopting the words of Hedley J in the first reported foreign surrogacy case heard over 5 years ago Re X&Y (ibid) paragraph 2 ‘..the path to parenthood has been less a journey along a primrose path, more a trek through a thorn forest.  The court shares their [the applicants] hope that their experiences may alert others to the difficulties inherent in this journey.’

Having dealt with a number of these cases, many of which involve unrepresented applicants, it may be helpful to highlight the areas that cause most difficulty in these cases:

(1) Those who embark on surrogacy arrangements abroad need to be alive to the pitfalls there can be with such an arrangement and it may be wise for commissioning parents to consider taking specialist advice at the earliest opportunity, both here and in the jurisdiction where the arrangement is entered into. To proceed in the absence of such advice can lead to significant emotional and financial hardship and further delay.

[As I commented at the outset, charging for such specialist advice is not as straightforward as one might hope]

(2) It is critical that an accurate documentary account of the various steps is kept by the commissioning parents so it can be available, if required, in support of a parental order application to assist in satisfying the relevant criteria under section 54. This is particularly relevant when considering any payments made and what, if any, are caught by the provisions of s 54(8). What is most helpful for the court is a schedule setting out the payments made and what they were for.

(3) A parental order application has to be made within six months of the child’s birth. There is no power vested in the court to extend that period. The recent decision of Mrs Justice Eleanor King in JP v LP and Others [2014] EWHC 595 (Fam), although in the context of a domestic surrogacy, is a timely reminder of the legal complexities if such an application is not made in time. Parental orders change parental status permanently, extinguishing the parental status of the surrogate mother entirely (and her husband, if applicable). Such orders confer legal parenthood and parental responsibility on both applicants for such an order.

(4) The requirement for the surrogate mother (and her husband if she is married) to give consent freely, unconditionally and with full understanding of what is involved is a fundamental part of the s 54 criteria. Depending on the circumstances the commissioning parents may need to consider meeting the legal fees for the surrogate mother, limited to taking advice on the consequences of a parental order being made. The cost of such advice is likely to be considered an expense reasonably incurred. In addition, it is clearly essential there is evidence to demonstrate (if required in the circumstances of the case) that any document signed by the surrogate mother is understood by her and, if necessary, translated into her first language before she signs it. Again, any costs incurred for this are likely to be considered an expense reasonably incurred.

(5) In this case the applicants were not able to meet the surrogate mother which in the Court’s experience is relatively unusual. If they had met her they may have been able to provide helpful information to the Court. In the event commissioning parents are not able to meet the surrogate mother they should seek to establish clear lines of communication with the surrogate mother, and ensure she is made aware during the pregnancy that she will need to give consent at least six week after the birth.

 

I wish this couple the very best of luck with their child, and it is a shame that so much additional cost and stress was caused to them in this process. They chose their UK lawyers very wisely in this case, in my humble opinion, and were in the best possible hands.

Comments Off on Surrogacy arrangements made overseas

Posted in case law and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Pah-pah-pah-poker face

Posted on April 28, 2014 by suesspiciousminds

Hakki v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions 2014

 

This case has some impact on family law, because it arises from the decision of the First Tier Tribunal that Mr Hakki (who was earning about £500 per day from being a ‘professional poker player’) ought to pay Child Support to his children. This was appealed by Mr Hakki on the basis that as a professional gambler, he was neither employed nor self-employed, and thus not within the Child Support Agency remit.   [and on the unspoken basis that he was not a man who had a highly developed sense of shame]

 

I like this case, because it gets into a very old piece of caselaw which also has a great name   Graham v Green 1925   (not to be confused with Bill v Oddie 1951 – the famous case which turned on whether the pop singer had invited him to “put your hands all over my body” or Tim Brooke v Taylor 2004)

 

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2014/530.html

 

 

The point is that in order for a person’s income to be relevant for Child Support purposes, it has to be either income received in employment, or taxable income from self-employment.

 

As you may know, the Courts have historically said that you can’t legally enforce gambling debts

 

[There is a very fine A J P Herbert legal essay explaining that as marriage in those days when cohabitation simply wasn’t done, was in effect a gamble using skill and judgment that you had picked someone who you might be compatible with, that all ancillary relief claims are in effect lost gambles, and thus gambling debts that should not be enforced by the Courts]

 

 

Graham v Green 1925 decided that it was impossible for a man who made his living from gambling to be considered to be self-employed or for his winnings to be considered as taxable income.

 

        A mere gambler was not taxable; that was what had been decided in   Graham v Green and no subsequent authority had departed from that decision of 1925. It might be fair to say that Rowlatt J’s dictum was only part of a general introduction to the law about Case 2 of Schedule D, but it was clear that he did not think a gambler could ever have such a degree of organisation as would enable his winnings to be profits or gains arising from any trade, profession or employment.

 

      Mr Graham was a person who from his own home in Amersham betted on horses at starting prices; that was his only means of livelihood apart from some interest from a bank deposit. The General Commissioners for the Burnham Division of Buckinghamshire decided that he was assessable to tax on his winnings. Mr Barrington-Ward KC submitted on his behalf that no business or system could be constructed out of betting at starting prices; there was no capital and no evidence of continuity but merely individual bets. A bookmaker was different because he bet on a system by adjusting the odds. He was therefore liable to income tax on profits made from betting. The Inland Revenue instructed the Solicitor-General (Sir Thomas Inskip) to defend the Commissioners’ decision. He submitted that betting was (as found) Mr Graham’s livelihood; it was not done casually for amusement; it was a vocation resulting in profits or gains, the vocation of a backer of horses.

 

The Judge in Graham v Green went on to suggest that a professional gambler, even one who did very well for himself, was not “susceptible to organisation” in a way that could properly categorise him as being self-employed. [underlining mine]

 

Rowlatt J then distinguished the case of the bookmaker who is (page 42)

“organising an effort in the same way that a person organises an effort if he sets out to buy himself things with a view to securing a profit by the difference in their capital value in individual cases.”

He then turned to the man who bets with the bookmaker and said:-

“These are mere bets. Each time he puts on his money at whatever may be the starting price. I do not think he could be said to organize his effort in the way as a bookmaker organizes his, for I do not think the subject matter from his point of view is susceptible of it. In effect all he is doing is just what a man does who is a skilful player at cards, who plays every day. He plays to-day, and he plays to-morrow, and he plays the next day, and he is skilful on each of the three days, more skilful on the whole than the people with whom he plays, and he wins. But it does not seem that one can find, in that case, any conception arising in which his individual operations are merged in the conception of a trade. I think all you can say of that man, in the fair use of the English language, is that he is addicted to betting. It is extremely difficult to express, but it seems to me that people would say he is addicted to betting, and could not say that his vocation is betting. The subject is involved in great difficulty of language, which I think represents great difficulty of thought. There is no tax on a habit. I do not think “habitual” or even “systematic” fully describes what is essential in the phrase “trade, adventure, employment, or vocation”. All I can say is that in my judgment the income which this gentleman succeeded in making is not profits or gains, and that the appeal must be allowed, with costs.”

 

Although this final paragraph concludes with a reference to Mr Graham himself, it is couched in terms of complete generality. It is clear that Rowlatt J thought that the effort of a gambler is not “susceptible to organisation” in the same way that a bookmaker organises his effort. If that is right an individual gambler, as such, cannot be taxable on his winnings. The fact that many gamblers may have (or think they have) a system which results in their winning more often than losing cannot constitute a sufficient degree of organisation to constitute a trade, profession or vocation.

This authority has now stood for many years and I would certainly not in 2014 wish to question it, even though it can be said that the Court of Appeal in Cooper v Stubbs [1925] 2 K.B. 723 left the matter open.

 

 

But of course, the world of the professional gambler in 1925 is slightly different to what it is today. If the way in which Mr Hakki ran his enterprise had that element of organisation , could his winnings be taxable and thus relevant for Child Support? And if not, might there be areas of Mr Hakki’s income that COULD in fact be categorised as being taxable, or self-employed?

 

For example, Mr Hakki has appeared on television programmes about poker, appeared in poker magazines and gives advice on his website about being a professional gambler. If he were to be earning from THIS, in addition to winning on the tables, the former might be taxable income, whilst the latter would not be.

 

 

 

Rowlatt J did not have to consider, however, a case of a gambler who could legitimately be said to be running a business. A poker player who appeared regularly on television advising people how to play poker and received a fee for so doing would no doubt be taxable in respect of his fees because he would be engaging in a trade or profession. If in the course of that business he also made winnings from other people participating in that programme, that might well be part of that business. Mr Bartlet-Jones suggested numerous hypothetical cases in which it might be said difficult to say precisely which side of an undoubtedly existing line each such hypothetical case might fall. I am therefore persuaded that it is possible to conceive a case in which a gambler’s winnings might be taxable.

Subsequent authorities show that such a case is indeed conceivable. In Down v Compston [1937] 2 All E.R. 475 a professional golfer was taxed on his professional earnings in the ordinary way. He also received winnings from bets on separate private games. These winnings were not taxable since his vocation as a professional golfer did not give rise to his winnings nor did he have an organisation constituting the business of betting on his private games of golf. In Burdge v Pyne [1969] 1 W.L.R. 364, by way of contrast, the taxpayer was the owner of a club which provided fruit machines, a card room and roulette. Mr Burdge was usually present and successfully played Three-Card Brag with members of the club. He (or a member of his family) always acted as dealer and he always won. These winnings were held to be part of his trading receipts and were taxable. The case was thus different from that of Mr Graham because there was a trade whereas Mr Graham “was not carrying on any trade at all”, see page 368A per Pennycuick J.

The question is therefore whether Mr Hakki had sufficient organisation in relation to his poker playing to constitute a trade in the sense that the word is used in the tax cases.

 

 

In this particular case, please bear in mind that both Mr Hakki and the Secretary of State were arguing that the income of Mr Hakki was not taxable, and thus not relevant for child support. That meant that Mr Hakki, although not impoverished, had no duty to support his children with his gambling income, and the Child Support Agency couldn’t touch him for it. You can understand why the Court of Appeal wanted to look at this with some rigour, as it doesn’t sit very comfortably when you look at it from the viewpoint of his children and the mother of those children.

 

But even with that in mind, the Court of Appeal were unable to conclude that Mr Hakki had the organisation in his enterprise to make it a taxable trade

 

 

On the facts found I do not consider that it can be said that Mr Hakki had a sufficient organisation in his poker playing to make it amount to a trade (or a business) let alone a profession or a vocation. Mr Bartlet-Jones relied on the findings (1) that Mr Hakki appeared on television for a few weeks, made the final programme and got a prize (2) that he had his own website and communicated his strategies for online poker (3) that his poker results over 7 or 8 years were published on two other poker websites, (4) that he chose his location (5) that he set a target sum to win after which he stopped and (6) that he selected the table which was most likely to pay him. Even in combination these findings do not to my mind amount to such organisation as to constitute a trade, profession or vocation. The last 3 factors must be common to many successful gamblers. Isolated appearances on television and having one’s own website are hardly, these days, evidence of organisation amounting to a trade or profession. There is just no element of what Rowlatt J called

“a subject matter which does bear fruit in the shape of profits or gains.”

There is no “element of fecundity”, merely frequent and successful playing at cards.

In these circumstances I am satisfied that, if the First Tier Tribunal had correctly directed themselves in law, they could not have found that Mr Hakki’s winnings at gambling were earnings from gainful employment within the MASC Regulations. There would have to be evidence of much more by way of organisation than found by the Tribunal before Mr Hakki could be said to be making earnings from any gainful employment. There was no such evidence in the present case and it is, indeed, the converse of Edwards v Bairstow [1956] A.C. 14 where the General Commissioners had decided that buying and profitably selling a spinning plant did not constitute an adventure in the nature of trade under Schedule D of the Income Tax 1918, when the only possible conclusion on the facts found was that it was such as adventure. In these circumstances the House of Lords held that the Commissioners’ inference that there was an adventure in the nature of trade had to be set aside. So here the only possible conclusion is that Mr Hakki was not gainfully employed as a self-employed earner.

 

 

 

Unless you are a poker-playing man with children he doesn’t want to support, I suspect you may be saying “Boo” here.

 

Me too.

 

 

The Court of Appeal do offer mother one final card to play (I will in turn suggest another )

 

One quite understands Judge Mesher’s anxiety to hold that Mr Hakki should make the appropriate contribution to his children’s upbringing when he is apparently quite able to make that contribution. Mr Buley pointed out that there may be a way to compel him to make such contribution by making a “departure direction” pursuant to sections 28A-28I of the Child Support Act 1991 as further elaborated by the Child Support (Departure Direction and Consequential Amendments) Regulations 1996. One ground for making a departure direction is:-

“where the Secretary of State is satisfied that the current assessment is based upon a level of income of the non-applicant which is substantially lower than the level of income required to support the overall lifestyle of that non-applicant” (see Regulation 25).

Once the Secretary of State gives effect to our decision setting aside the First Tier Tribunal’s assessment of Mr Hakki’s contribution to the support of Ms Blair’s children, it may be open to Ms Blair to apply for a departure direction on this or other grounds. This court cannot say whether such an application will succeed, only that the opportunity of making such an application appears to exist.

 

The other card that mother could possibly play is an application under Schedule One of the Children Act 1989, which is not asking for maintenance*, but for the children to share in the capital of a parent. If Mr Hakki has salted away some of his winnings, then this would be capital, and potentially capital that could be claimed against.

 

[*It is possible to apply for periodical payments under Schedule One, I might want to avoid that, in case the “income” arguments here arise again]

 

I believe, though would recommend getting specialist legal advice, that there have been Schedule One claims made against capital that arose from windfalls, such as lottery wins or inheritances, rather than capital that built up from an accumulation of taxable income. I can’t see anything within the Act that would fetter the Court’s ability to consider any capital that the father has based on how he happened to come by it.

 

I have made such applications in the past where a father’s level of wealth was such that the Child Support Agency cap was reached without being a meaningful contribution to the lifestyle that the children would have had if the father and unmarried mother had continued their relationship.

 

 

(The mother’s legal costs can be claimed in such an application following NMT v MOT 2006   [2007 2 FLR 925] )

 

Presumably, though it is hard to see the circumstances in which this would ever be litigated, if a man’s earnings arise predominantly from crime (such as making and selling crystal meth) then that would not be a taxable form of self-employment – it might be that the Court would find that there was a level of organisation   (although if the organisation is so bad that the mother of the drug lords children blows the whistle on him because he is too tight to pay any child maintenance, it isn’t much of an organisation)

 

 

Being the sort of loophole guy that I am by nature, I am pondering now whether one could do plastering for free, with the proviso that after the work is done, you then play poker with the person you did the plastering for. That person coincidentally being very bad at playing poker.

 

You don’t get paid for the plastering (which would be taxable income), you just WIN the same sort of amount that you would theoretically have charged by being lucky/skilful at poker (which would not be taxable income)

Or indeed, rather than charging people for legal advice, you give them the legal advice for free, and then play some poker with your new found friend for money.  

I STRENOUSLY ADVISE against attempting this. Seriously, don’t try it. I really don’t think that it would actually work in the real world. Unless you are Jimmy Carr, or a minor member of the Royal Family. Not even then, probably. DON’T DO IT.

 

4 Comments

Posted in case law and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

“Welfare of the child : Parental involvement”

Posted on April 28, 2014 by suesspiciousminds

There was quite a lot of debate about the wording of the new section 11 of the Children and Families Act 2014.

 

You may recall, in the distant mists of time, that the Family Justice Review were asked to consider whether we should incorporate into English and Welsh law the sort of provision that Australia introduced, of there being a starting point in law that it is good for children to spend time with both parents.

 

The Family Justice Review decided not to, but the Government decided that it did want to consult on whether something along those lines was desirable.

 

I wrote about the consultation nearly two years ago, here

 

https://suesspiciousminds.com/2012/06/13/co-op-good-with-kids/

 

 

There were four options consulted on (none of them being the presumption of equal time or shared time that the media reported on, and that the fathers’ rights lobby were asking for. I’ve tried in this article to not split it on pure gender lines – I think that all parents who don’t live with their children would like the Court to have in mind that spending a lot of time with both parents is better for a child than artificially restricting one parent’s time with their child)

 

  • Option 1 requires the court to work on the presumption that a child’s welfare is likely to be furthered through safe involvement with both parents – unless the evidence shows this not to be safe or in the child’s best interests
  • Option 2 would require the courts to have regard to a principle that a child’s welfare is likely to be furthered through involvement with both parents
  • Option 3 has the effect of a presumption by providing that the court’s starting point in making decisions about children’s care is that a child’s welfare is likely to be furthered through involvement with both parents
  • Option 4 inserts a new subsection immediately after the welfare checklist, setting out an additional factor which the court would need to consider.

 

The Government decided to go with option 1, but this got diluted further in the parliamentary process, until we ended up with this

 

Children and Families Act 2014

 

Section 11Welfare of the child: parental involvement

(1)Section 1 of the Children Act 1989 (welfare of the child) is amended as follows.

(2)After subsection (2) insert—

“(2A)A court, in the circumstances mentioned in subsection (4)(a) or (7), is as respects each parent within subsection (6)(a) to presume, unless the contrary is shown, that involvement of that parent in the life of the child concerned will further the child’s welfare.

(2B)In subsection (2A) “involvement” means involvement of some kind, either direct or indirect, but not any particular division of a child’s time.”

(3)After subsection (5) insert—

“(6)In subsection (2A) “parent” means parent of the child concerned; and, for the purposes of that subsection, a parent of the child concerned—

(a)is within this paragraph if that parent can be involved in the child’s life in a way that does not put the child at risk of suffering harm; and

(b)is to be treated as being within paragraph (a) unless there is some evidence before the court in the particular proceedings to suggest that involvement of that parent in the child’s life would put the child at risk of suffering harm whatever the form of the involvement.

(7)The circumstances referred to are that the court is considering whether to make an order under section 4(1)(c) or (2A) or 4ZA(1)(c) or (5) (parental responsibility of parent other than mother).”

 

 

[If you want a quick explanation – there’s a presumption that it is good for a child to have involvement with both parents (unless it would cause harm or risk of harm to the child), but that involvement can be ‘of some kind, direct or indirect, but not any particular division of a child’s time’.  

It is probably worse for non-resident parents than the current Act, which tended to be interpreted that direct contact for both parents is a good thing for the child, if it can be done safely]

 

I’m grateful to Noel Arnold for alerting me and others to the fact that these provisions are not yet in force, and indeed, aren’t in any of the commencement orders (that’s the thing that turns a part of the Act from words into actual law to be followed)

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/all?title=children%20and%20families%20act%202014

 

Those commencement orders roll out various parts of the Children and Families Act 2014 at various stages this year – 1st April, 22nd April, 13th May, 25th July, 1st September.

 

Clause 11 doesn’t appear in any of those, and the suspicion therefore is that it won’t be rolled out this year (My own suspicion is that it may not be rolled out at all, as happened with the “no fault divorce” provisions enacted in 1996)

 

 

It does appear a little odd to me that this fairly anodyne provision can’t be rolled out at the same time as the change of Residence and Contact to “Child Arrangements Orders” (Translation for Eastenders writing staff “They’ve changed Custody and Access to Child Arrangements Orders” )

 

I’m not sure what else would need to be done to make those provisions ready to go, and it suggests to me a measure of disquiet that the provisions are not really useful to anyone and would do more harm than good if released into the wild.

 

There’s a risk, in fact, that for a parent whose contact would be safe, but the parent who lives with a child is hostile to anything more than a birthday and christmas card, the s11 change might make this something that the Court could more easily countenance than the existing position that there ought to be direct contact. There’s statutory sanction for the fact that involvement can include ‘indirect’ contact.

 

They also seem to set up a situation in which parental responsibility should not be given to a parent (really only a father, since mothers get it automatically) if there’s a risk of harm. That risk of harm isn’t then balanced against the risk of harm if it were not done, or against the possible benefits to the child of doing so. Or if there’s a risk of harm flowing from the mother towards the child as well as from the father towards the child, so that there might be harm to the child either way.

 

Or indeed that the risk that would warrant not making a parental responsibility order or a Child Arrangement Order that provides for contact flows from that person at all. For example, if a mother wrongly believed that a father was a paedophile and the Court found that he wasn’t, but that having contact would cause the mother emotional distress and anxiety that would impact adversely on the child, the father’s request for contact could be classified as one that puts the child at risk, even though he has done nothing wrong.

 

There must be a degree of doubt whether rolling out a revised section 1 (via giving s11 Children and Families Act a commencement date) might undermine the existing body of caselaw which was determined under the current s1

 

For example,

 

“The Courts recognise the critical importance of the role of both parents in the lives of their children. The courts are not anti-father and pro-mother or vice versa… unless there are cogent reasons against it, the children of separated parents are entitled to know and have the love and society of both their parents. In particular the courts recognise the vital importance of the role of non-resident fathers in the lives of their children and only make orders terminating contact when there is no alternative”

Re O (A child :Contact :Withdrawal of Application) 2003 1 FLR 1258

 

Or

 

“It is almost always in the interests of a child whose parents are separated that he or she should have contact with the parent with whom the child is not living”

 

Re P (Contact: Supervision) 1996 2 FLR 314

 

Or

 

“No parent is perfect, but “good enough parents” should have a relationship with their children for their own benefit and even more in the best interests of the children. It is, therefore, most important that the attempt to promote contact between a child and the non-resident parent should not be abandoned until it is clear that the child will not benefit from continuing the attempt”

 

Re S (Contact: Promoting Relationship with Absent Parent) 2004 1 FRL 1279

 

Or

 

“Contact between parent and child is a fundamental element of family life and was almost always in the interest of the child… there is a positive obligation on the state and therefore upon the judge, to take measures to maintain or to restore contact”

 

Re C (A child : suspension of contact) 2011 2 FLR 912

 

I would be very reluctant to have any of those vital principles, which were determined under the old s1, weakened or put in doubt by a changed s1 with a slightly different emphasis.

 

[I am sure that some non-resident parents will feel that these principles didn’t seem to get much of a look-in when their own case was decided before a District Judge, but they are principles that can be relied on and pushed under the Court’s nose at the moment, and they are important ones]

 

I have to say that I greatly prefer the current section 1 of the Children Act 1989, which is just plain and simple that when deciding anything that affects a child, the Court’s paramount consideration must be the child’s welfare.

 

If and when s11 comes into force, all we have is an embroidering of that position which if anything makes it less clear and less meaningful. It certainly isn’t a victory for those lobbying for a fairer and more equal treatment for parents who don’t live with their children.

 

[I have to confess that it has never sat comfortably with me that portions of an Act go through parliamentary scrutiny and royal assent, and in effect get voted on by the House of Commons and the House of Lords and win that democratic approval, but ultimately become law on the decision of a single government minister to push the “Release the Clause” button or not. But here, I’d be happy for the button not to be pushed – I think that the clause makes things worse for non-resident parents, and they really didn’t need the deck stacked against them]

7 Comments

Posted in children and families act 2014, private law and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Vests

Posted on April 27, 2014 by suesspiciousminds

I am starting to come across cases in which rather than a police notebook or statement, the Court now has the benefit of seeing the video-footage recorded by the police vest-camera of an incident. The officers have a camera fitted to their vest, and everything that they do in the course of the working day is recorded and available for later scrutiny.

No doubt this is very helpful in cases with Brazilian electricians, or where there is doubt about whether or not someone had a gun, or heaven forbid whether a Government Minister included a class-based insult when swearing at police officers.

The benefit for court proceedings is plain – rather than relying on a recollection of an event that may or may not be accurately remembered or may be coloured by other issues, what actually happened is there for the Court to see. It might back up what the prosecution is saying, it may back up what the defence is saying. I was tempted to say “The camera never lies”, but we’ve seen too many doctored photographs to believe that any more.

There are potentially other benefits, as well as the direct forensic one – chiefly about trust and relationship between the public and the police. There’s no value in the police stretching the truth, or behaving in an improper way towards a suspect if the camera footage is going to be disclosed and seen later.

So, is there merit in trialling these vest cameras (the most high-tech ones being about the size of a credit card or identity card) for social workers?

There’s not a lot of transparency online about the costs of these cameras, since they are being produced by commercial bodies who don’t want to stick their pricing up on line and give their competitors an edge, so that would be the major hurdle. But you can tell from the price of camcorders and how much cheaper and smaller they have gotten over the last five years that it wouldn’t necessarily be prohibitive.

The camera would be worn for every meeting with the family, every assessment session, every visit. The family would be entitled to request to see any of these, and to make use of any of them in Court. Equally, the Judge could see any footage of an incident where there is a dispute. Rather than having to choose between two competing stories, the Court can see for themselves what actually happened.  It cuts both ways – if a social worker is exagerrating about the home conditions or being provocative, difficult or patronising, that will get seen – on the other hand, the Court could see exactly what was said and exactly how the house looked on the day in question. Much better chance of getting to the truth.

And just as with the police, the knowledge that everything is being filmed might reduce the occasions on which professionals are heavy-handed or stretch the truth.  Which in turn might improve the relationship between professionals and families – everyone knows that the facts can’t get twisted or have words put in their mouth, because the truth is there to be watched and inspected.

 

Is it something that is worth a try? Is it the sort of thing that would make more of a difference to how families are treated than micro-management of forms and documents?

 

The counter arguments might be that being filmed might inhibit people or make them self-conscious giving a more stilted performance in assessments, that the footage might be misused or misfiled or get lost (accidentally or deliberately), that the footage might find its way online, that children might be shown it or come across it. Those are things which would need careful thought.

 

16 Comments

Posted in Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.
← Older Posts
Newer Posts →