Ben McCormack

@GillLoomesQuinn @OpenJusticeCoP Yes I see what you mean. But so many of these descriptors are so vague. This one was quite specific, I thought…

@benmccormack2 @OpenJusticeCoP Your own description is a good one though!

Another listing with a descriptor that contains potentially unclear information. s37/41 of the Mental Health Act is the mechanism by which someone charged with committing a crime can be detained in hospital. Here, he court will consider P's living arrangements in the community

@OpenJusticeCoP Not my case by the way, I don't know anything about it. But I have had many similar before the CoP.

@OpenJusticeCoP Not sure that the descriptor is inaccurate! A patient detained under s37/41 can be conditionally discharged (so not be in hospital) and the CoP can nonetheless retain a role to determine issues in his/her life. I actually think this descriptor is better than most...

@OpenJusticeCoP the 11am case (JH) is now actually on for two hours, as I think the 12pm one has come out

Two s.21A hearings you can ask to observe in Worcester, via MS teams. s.21A means a protected party is objecting to being deprived of their liberty. Email the court to ask for the link.

@OpenJusticeCoP @HMCTSgovuk ...rather than operating to prevent anyone knowing P's name in the first place.

@OpenJusticeCoP @HMCTSgovuk I'm not sure I agree with this. Why shouldn't a transparency order bear the name of the person it refers to? It makes it more readily understandable. P's name will be stated in court too so any observer would know if from there. The TO simply prevents publication of the name...

Dear @HMCTSgovuk Please don't send us Transparency Orders preventing us from naming P with P's name as the filename. It gives P's name unnecessary exposure. I don't know if there's an actual rule saying doing do it - but on behalf of all the P's of this world, please don't!

@jimrobottom Coltrane v Day [2003] EWCA Civ 342 (aka the battle of the jazz legends…but actually about cheques and rent arrears payments)

What are the greatest ever case names? I think my all time favourites are WWF v WWF Christmas v Christmas and a new discovery today Casanova v The Queen (1865-67) L.R. 1 P.C. 268. Big romance case.

@callumrowlinson Agree. Looking forward to seeing some of those shorts out at Manchester XC League this year

A truly elite kit. Will not be told otherwise. 🇯🇵 🩳

"There are inquests taking place where there are state bodies represented and families are going into those forums traumatised, bereaved, confused…that is an injustice we see across England and Wales on a Daily basis." @AnnaMorrisGClaw #HillsboroughLaw @HumanRightsCtte

@jimrobottom @KirstenSjovoll do fill this in if you haven't already... link.webropol.com/s/NAO-consulta…

@KirstenSjovoll Ha ha yeah I was going to do a post about that. Scary experience

Did my bit for the Government to keep down inflation last week by being paid Exceptional Funding rates for representing the family at an inquest, which have not been raised 1p in 10 years 💪

@ShippersUnbound @RobDotHutton 'run the country'

@RobDotHutton Is it a problem that judges run the country not elected politicians?

new #courtofprotection case here about capacity, brain injury, frontal lobe paradox and agreeable disagreement between experts bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCOP…

@DocCMartin @KitzingerCelia both are quite a different proposition for the court to order than the kind of evidence we are (theoretically) talking about here though... not impossible but def quite difficult to persuade a court to make the parties pay for exp ev as to medication being provided by a Trust

@DocCMartin @KitzingerCelia less commonly the courts will order expert evidence as to best interests (ind social workers, nurses etc) where the balance is complex and the court thinks that such external advice might help it

“I’m quite satisfied there’s no evidence of any change in her capacity – and there wouldn’t have expected to be, given the diagnosis of ‘medically resistant schizophrenia’.” A dreadful, seemingly irreconcilable, impasse. Will another cap ass’t ever be considered, I’m wondering?

@DocCMartin @KitzingerCelia for that (if the decision is flawed or arguably so) then someone with standing to do so would need to bring a judicial review (the limits of which are beyond the scope of this tweet...)

@DocCMartin @KitzingerCelia ..because the CoP does not have a reviewing power over (say) the decision of a Trust to treat in this or that way; it can ask what's happening, work out what he factual situation is, discern the options etc. But having done that it can't force a public body to change its mind

@KitzingerCelia @DocCMartin yes I see - and note COPR 15 which specifically asks the court to consider whether it can get the evidence via s49 first and if it can then it won't be necessary to have expert evidence legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2017/1035…

@benmccormack2 @DocCMartin Thank you - that's very helpful Ben. Based on observing the hearing, I think you are probably right. Counsel for P made the point about the Trust not being a party + suggested using s.49 to accomplish a medication review (but P's mother rejected this).