Re JM, AMY, JG, MM and VE
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Charles J |
| Judgment Date | 10 March 2016 |
| Neutral Citation | [2016] EWCOP 15 |
| Docket Number | Case Numbers and initials of P: 1272635T (JM) 12738724 (JG) 12240569 (MM) 12755071 (VE) |
| Court | Court of Protection |
| Date | 10 March 2016 |
In the Matter of the Mental Capacity Act 2005
[2016] EWCOP 15
Mr Justice Charles
Case Numbers and initials of P: 1272635T (JM)
12727467 (AMY)
12738724 (JG)
12240569 (MM)
12755071 (VE)
IN THE COURT OF PROTECTION
(Sitting in Open Court)
Conrad Hallin (instructed by Gateshead Council Corporate Services and Governance (re JM); London Borough of Tower Hamlets Legal Services (re AMY); Hill Dickinson LLP (re JG); Manchester City Council Legal Services Division (re MM); and Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council (re VE)
Jason Coppel QC and Rachel Kamm (instructed by the Government Legal Department) for the Secretary of State for Health and the Secretary of State for Justice
Bridget Dolan (instructed by the Official Solicitor) for the Official Solicitor
Stephen Broach (instructed by the Law Society's Legal Services Department) for the Law Society of England and Wales (written submissions only)
Hearing dates: 3 and 4 December 2015 and 13 January 2016
Introduction
These five cases are examples of cases in which the procedure to be adopted by the Court of Protection (COP) was left open in my judgment in Re NRA & Others [2015] EWCOP 59. That judgment contains the references to the decision of the Supreme Court in Cheshire West and of the President and the Court of Appeal in Re X which are the essential background to NRA.
In short, the five cases were chosen as cases in which it was thought that there was no family member or friend who could be appointed as a Rule 3A representative. That is no longer the position in VE and my reference to the test cases in this judgment are to the remaining four.
The general approach taken by the Secretary of State, through officials at the Ministry of Justice (the MoJ) and the Department of Health (the DoH), in these test cases means that it is important to remember that they relate to a class of cases in which a welfare order is sought to authorise P's deprivation of liberty ("a DOL welfare order application") and not to such applications in general. That class is where the applicant (usually a public authority) is of the view that the application is not controversial and there is no family member or friend who the COP can appoint as a Rule 3A(2)(c) representative.
It follows that a general approach that is based on the wide powers of the COP that includes other classes of DOL welfare order applications (e.g. when the case is controversial or when there is a family member or friend who can be appointed as a Rule 3A representative) has to be de-coded:
i) to relate it to the relevant class of case, and so to ones that are presented as being uncontroversial, and which would have been included in the Re X streamlined procedure outlined by the President if it had been approved by the Court of Appeal, and
ii) to assess which of the theoretically wide range of choices is actually available on the ground to the COP either as the primary or alternative procedural route for that class of cases.
This means that it is necessary for me to trace the development of the respective positions and evidence of the parties on the procedural route that the COP should take. This has added to the length of this judgment. In doing so and more generally my reference to the Secretary of State (an indivisible office) is to both the Secretary of State for Justice and the Secretary of State for Health and so to central government.
It is also important to remember that in Cheshire West the Supreme Court has determined that the class of case with which I am concerned involves an objective deprivation of liberty that can only be authorised and thereby made lawful, by a welfare order made by the COP. This conclusion does not provide a label or description for a class of welfare order. Rather, it is a binding conclusion that the position on the ground is that P is being deprived of his liberty which engages:
i) Article 5 and importantly, as the Court of Appeal's reasoning in Re X confirms, important principles of the common law directed to ensuring that no-one is unlawfully deprived of their liberty and can challenge it, and so
ii) issues of procedural fairness relating to the imposition of, and the ability to test the lawfulness of, a situation on the ground that amounts to a deprivation of liberty.
A consequence of this conclusion of the Supreme Court is that it has, in a time of austerity, imposed major and perhaps unforeseen difficulties and burdens on those responsible for providing, authorising and monitoring the placement and care of a wide range of vulnerable people and if extra resources (alone or coupled with changes to the underlying statutory framework) are required to meet the procedural safeguards required by the Cheshire West conclusion in DOL welfare applications within the class represented by the test cases either:
i) those resources have to be provided by central or local government, or
ii) the COP cannot operate a procedure that meets those procedural requirements of Article 5 and the common law and so a procedure that is lawful.
The provision of any such resources is highly likely if not inevitably to be at the cost of something else that can also be said to be important, and in the case of local authorities it is highly likely, if not inevitable, that it would be at the expense of the resources available to them to fund the placement and care of vulnerable people. This is an unhappy prospect but, whilst the Cheshire West conclusion remains authoritative, it is one that has to be faced by central and local government. The COP cannot itself change that conclusion or create extra resources to enable the COP to adopt a procedure that takes it into account.
It is not easy to predict the number of applications and reviews that are within the class to which these test cases are directed. An informal survey was conducted in 2014 by the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services (ADASS) which estimated that there would need to be about 30,000 applications in 2014/15 and 2015/6. The evidence in these test cases and in NRA supports that view if all the necessary applications and reviews are brought. This estimate relates to all DOL welfare order applications and the present test cases represent part of that workload. The evidence in these test cases indicates that a high proportion of such cases are likely to be presented as non-contentious and that in over half of such cases it is likely that there will not be a family member or friend who could be appointed as P's Rule 3A representative.
So far history does not match such estimates. At present about 90 cases in the class represented by these test cases have been issued and are stayed but for the reasons set out in NRA, and confirmed by the evidence in these cases, this does not provide a reliable guide to the number of cases in that class in which, as a result of the decision in Cheshire West, public authorities need to apply to the COP for a welfare order to authorise a deprivation of liberty.
The existing small numbers of applications and a focus simply on these four cases could found a short term solution (and so a solution for these four cases). Such a solution de-railed the similar cases in NRA as test cases and one of the purposes of these test cases (and my refusal to join P in them and ask the Official Solicitor to act as his litigation friend) has been to enable me to address in the short, medium and longer term the class of cases, expected to be at least in the thousands each year, in which there is no suitable family member or friend who can act as a Rule 3A representative. Naturally, I accept that having done so my task is to make appealable orders in the test cases.
Finally, by way of introduction, I mention that:
i) the cases and this judgment refer to the minimum procedural safeguards that are required. However it seems to me that an approach that leads to a conclusion that the procedural safeguards that are provided and used clearly meets that minimum is to be preferred to one based on just meeting the minimum,
ii) there are references in the evidence to the Law Commission's investigation and proposed report as a reason why it is difficult to take steps now. However, it seems to me that the length of the timetable for that report and its implementation means that a "wait and see" approach is inappropriate and, in any event, the Law Commission's provisional proposals are heavily dependent on the provision of additional resources and so work on that would inform their work and provide necessary resources for the COP, Ps and their families, and
iii) the impact of the Cheshire West conclusion on resources and procedures extends more widely than DOL welfare order applications and, for example, extends to the DOLS and the appointment of IMCAs and RPRs in that process.
Overview
As I pointed out in NRA, if professional Rule 3A representatives could be appointed this would satisfy the minimum procedural requirements of a DOL welfare order application and go a long way to meeting the underlying reasoning of the Court of Appeal in Re X.
An obvious potential source for such Rule 3A representatives is the pool or pools of persons from whom IMCAs, RPRs and Care Act advocates (see in particular ss. 37 to 39 (including ss. 39A, C and D) of the MCA 2005 and s. 67 of the Care Act 2014) are or will be appointed. Indeed, the Court of Appeal in Re X made particular reference to RPRs and it was their role that I concluded in NRA could effectively be replicated (and in respect of continual or regular review on the ground bettered) by family members or friends as Rule 3A representatives.
As is well known, the main source of these advocacy services to Ps and others is based on contracts that local authorities have entered into with advocacy providers. My...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Re EM
...participation was practically to be secured followed, including the decisions of Charles J in Re NRA [2015] EWCOP 59, Re JM and Others [2016] EWCOP 15 and Re KT and Others [2018] EWCOP 1, although these focus on the practical mechanisms for securing participation at that 21 Throughout these......
-
Re Briggs (Incapacitated Person)
...P is being deprived of his liberty and so that detention should be authorised by an order made by the COP. The last in the line is Re JM [2016] EWCOP 15. Those cases show the limitations on the availability of legal aid in such cases if they are not disputed. After the JM case, the Secretar......
-
KT (Incapacitated Persons) (Deprivation of Liberty: Appointment of Representatives)
...re NRA [2015] EWCOP 59, Ct of Protection, and In re JM (Incapacitated Persons) (Deprivationof Liberty: Appointment of Representatives) [2016] 4 WLR 64, Ct of Protection applied.APPLICATIONIn each of three cases concerning incapacitated persons, KT, DR and KH, the applicantlocal authority, S......
-
Re Ve
...This is one of five cases that were listed before me and are the subject of my judgment in Re JM & Others (DoL procedural requirements) [2016] EWCOP 15. As explained in that judgment in this case a friend of VE is available for appointment as VE's Rule 3A representative and, applying my app......