A (Covert Medication: Residence), Re

A (Covert Medication: Residence), Re

The judge was entitled to conclude, after a lengthy and finely balanced process, that the continuation of covert medication and deprivation of A's liberty were no longer justified by the remaining medical benefits, given the significant infringement of A's autonomy and rights, the lack of progress over five years, and the unlikelihood of A ever consenting to HRT. The judge's decision to return A home, cease covert medication, and inform her of the covert treatment was within his discretion and supported by coherent reasoning, despite professional opposition. The process, though not ideal, was not unfair.

Parties
1st Appellant: A Local Authority; 2nd Appellant: A (by her Litigation Friend, The Official Solicitor); 1st Respondent: B; 2nd Respondent: The Hospital Trust
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 November 2024
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil Division) From Court of Protection / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; judgment of Poole J affirmed.
Legal Topics
Best Interests Decision, Covert Medication, Deprivation of Liberty, Article 8 ECHR, Article 2 and 3 ECHR, Medical Treatment Without Consent
Mental Capacity Health Law Human Rights Best Interests Decision Covert Medication Deprivation of Liberty Article 8 ECHR Article 2 and 3 ECHR +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A Local Authority

1st Appellant

A (by her Litigation Friend, The Official Solicitor)

2nd Appellant

B

1st Respondent

The Hospital Trust

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil Division) From Court of Protection / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether it was in A's best interests to cease covert medication (CM)
  2. 2 Whether A should be informed she had been covertly medicated
  3. 3 Whether A should return to live with her mother (B) or remain in placement

Ratio Decidendi

The judge was entitled to conclude, after a lengthy and finely balanced process, that the continuation of covert medication and deprivation of A's liberty were no longer justified by the remaining medical benefits, given the significant infringement of A's autonomy and rights, the lack of progress over five years, and the unlikelihood of A ever consenting to HRT. The judge's decision to return A home, cease covert medication, and inform her of the covert treatment was within his discretion and supported by coherent reasoning, despite professional opposition. The process, though not ideal, was not unfair.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; judgment of Poole J affirmed.

Orders

  • Matter restored to the judge to conduct the implementation hearing for A's return home, cessation of covert medication, and provision of information to A as directed.