P (Court of Protection: Transparency), Re [2019] EWCOP 67 (11 November 2019)

P (Court of Protection: Transparency), Re [2019] EWCOP 67 (11 November 2019)

The need to protect P is a powerful factor, but with the exclusion of the public, admission of accredited media, and a transparency order, the risks to P are sufficiently mitigated. Open justice should only be overridden on compelling evidence, which is not present here. Therefore, proceedings should not continue in private.

Citation
[2019] EWCOP 67
Parties
Applicant: A Local Authority; 1st Respondent: P; 2nd Respondent: National Probation Service
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Court of Protection / Application on Paper
Outcome
Application for private hearing refused; proceedings to be heard in public with a transparency order.
Legal Topics
Open Justice, Transparency Orders, Privacy in Court Proceedings, Freedom of Expression, Protection of Vulnerable Adults
Mental Capacity Law Human Rights Law Open Justice Transparency Orders Privacy in Court Proceedings Freedom of Expression Protection of Vulnerable Adults

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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A Local Authority

Applicant

P

1st Respondent

National Probation Service

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Court of Protection / Application on Paper

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether proceedings should be heard in private or in public with a transparency order
  2. 2 Balancing Article 8 (right to privacy) and Article 10 (freedom of expression) rights
  3. 3 Protection of a vulnerable adult (P) from identification and harm

Ratio Decidendi

The need to protect P is a powerful factor, but with the exclusion of the public, admission of accredited media, and a transparency order, the risks to P are sufficiently mitigated. Open justice should only be overridden on compelling evidence, which is not present here. Therefore, proceedings should not continue in private.

Court Disposition

Application for private hearing refused; proceedings to be heard in public with a transparency order.

Orders

  • Exclude members of the public from attending future hearings.
  • Permit accredited press and broadcast media to attend.