A County Council v LW
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Hayden |
| Judgment Date | 22 July 2020 |
| Neutral Citation | [2020] EWCOP 50 |
| Date | 22 July 2020 |
| Docket Number | Case No: 13462068 |
| Court | Court of Protection |
[2020] EWCOP 50
COURT OF PROTECTION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
THE HONOURABLE Mr Justice Hayden
Case No: 13462068
and
Ms Winsome Levy (instructed by Invicta Law) for the Applicant
Ms Fiona Paterson (instructed by Edwards Duthie Shamash on behalf of the Official Solicitor) for the 1 st Respondent
Mr Conrad Hallin (instructed by Head of Legal at the NHS and Social Care Partnership Trust) for the 2 nd Respondent
Hearing date: 22 nd July 2020
Approved Judgment
I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.
THE HONOURABLE Mr Justice Hayden
This judgment was delivered following a remote hearing conducted on a video conferencing platform and was attended by members of the public and the press. The judge has given leave for this version of the judgment to be published on condition that (irrespective of what is contained in the judgment) in any published version of the judgment the anonymity of the respondent and members of their family must be strictly preserved. All persons, including representatives of the media, must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so will be a contempt of court.
This application is brought by A Local Authority who are today represented by Miss Levy. At the centre of the application is LW, who is a 60-year-old lady living at the G Unit in Kent. It is troubling she has been there since July 2017 although for many months, perhaps as many as 12 months, the professional consensus is that it is not the best place for her. That is not to be in any way critical of those providing her care, but simply reflects the fact that the unit is not equipped to meet her needs at this stage in her life.
When she was admitted she was initially detained under the Mental Health Act 1983. At the time of her admission, she was in a truly parlous condition. She was described as “emaciated” and her personal hygiene was very neglected. The general practitioner who referred her to mental health services noted that members of the public had been concerned about her. She had been stopping traffic and acting disinhibitedly, often talking in rather extravagant language about what were vaguely religious concepts. She was also expressing and articulating suicidal thoughts.
I am quite clear that when she was admitted to the G Unit nobody imagined she would still be there today. LW was able, despite some technical challenges, to speak to me during the course of this hearing, via a video conferencing platform. The other parties were able to hear what she had to say. LW was taken sensitively through her evidence in chief by Ms Paterson, on behalf of the Official Solicitor.
It is important to contextualise LW's evidence by setting it in the background of her mental health difficulties. Dr N has observed that LW has, throughout her life, had a variety of diagnoses reflecting the evolution of knowledge and understanding within psychiatry. In 1991 LW was diagnosed as having Bipolar Affective Disorder. Her condition has necessitated in-patient admissions throughout her life. However, for the most part, she has managed to achieve independent living. I am told that she had a strong relationship with both her mother and sister. As Ms Paterson is correct to emphasise, there is a great deal more to LW than her mental health diagnosis. She has in the past, undertaken training as a nurse, though she was unable ultimately to complete the course. I understand also that she worked, on a casual basis, in care homes. She enjoyed reading, current affairs, played the piano, enjoyed music and took great delight in going out for cake and tea. Despite her illness, LW has displayed a consistent enthusiasm for all aspects of life that she identifies as open to her.
The central challenge to LW's life, I regret to say, is that she formed a relationship with a man, known as MG, whom she described to me as her “long term partner.” It is important to say that even the most cursory analysis of the extensive evidence available points clearly to this relationship as being abusive, exploitative, coercive and wholly inimical to LW's welfare. As I have read the papers and heard the evidence, I have wondered how this has been permitted to continue for as long as it has. On a rational and objective analysis, LW derives nothing from this relationship at all. She expresses a strong wish for it to continue, though her behaviour often indicates that the relationship is stressful and disturbing to her. For reasons that I will identify below this relationship is corrosive of her welfare and significantly impedes her capacity to enjoy life which has been identified, historically, as intrinsic to her personality. I consider that some of MG's behaviour has a sadistic component to it.
MG has lived in LW's home for approximately four and a half years. They had been living together for 18 months before her hospital admission in March 2017. As the evidence has emerged it has become clear that she was emaciated because he had restricted her food intake. Salad and one potato a day were all that she was allowed. LW has reported this to various professionals and it is certainly corroborated by her physical condition on admission. She has since been able to eat healthily and is physically very much restored. I have heard, from care staff, how MG has controlled LW with his own distorted perceptions on religion. MG has made her say prayers at quite extraordinary length and often on a daily basis. These prayers have a veneer of Roman Catholic liturgy but veer off in to content which is fantasy and distortion. MG has insisted that LW recites these extensive prayers in a particular order which is something she becomes highly agitated and anxious about. It is particularly alarming that LW has reported that MG made her smash her own piano apart so she could no longer play. MG believed that LW's enjoyment of the piano was inconsistent with the religious faith which he purports to expound. MG has also forbidden LW from wearing underwear. On at least on one occasion this has put LW in an embarrassing position and compromised her dignity. Whilst LW has been in hospital her property has been neglected and fallen into disrepair. MG has refused admission to the Local Authority to assess the property. MG has declined many requests by the Local Authority to meet with them. In this relationship he is also highly manipulative.
It is important to emphasise, that MG would have been entirely aware of LW's striking deterioration and decline, particularly in the lead up to her admission in 2017 and he did absolutely nothing to help her. LW is unable to analyse these behaviours or process, in her own mind, the reality of her relationship with the man whom she considers to be her partner. In what is recognised as a paradigm of domestic abuse, MG has alienated LW from her family and from any other support, leading to her becoming ever more dependent on him.
In the course of her written and oral submissions Ms Paterson, on behalf of the Official Solicitor, has characterised this behaviour as “controlling,” “abusive” and “ cruel.” She is, I consider, entirely right to do so.
As the years have gone by it is apparent that MG has extended his control to the professionals involved in LW's care. He writes the “script” as to what she should tell the doctors and the carers. Staff are aware of this but have not felt able to intervene. During the course of her evidence I asked LW about the piano incident and as Ms Paterson rightly identified, she swiftly blocked any conversation about the past with perfunctory remarks (in which she was manifestly reflecting MG's views) that this was incompatible with her faith which she considers to be Roman Catholic.
The entire team surrounding LW, including Dr N, is now of the clear view that she will benefit very considerably from a total cessation of contact with MG. In recent months, the contact has been, of necessity, by telephone. These telephone conversations have been regarded as a kind of ‘indirect contact’ which has been thought to provide...
To continue reading
Request your trial