P (Court of Protection: Transparency), Re

P (Court of Protection: Transparency), Re

The need to protect P is a powerful factor, but with the exclusion of the public, the presence of accredited media, and a properly drafted transparency order, the risks to P are sufficiently mitigated. Therefore, it is not necessary or proportionate for the proceedings to continue in private; open justice can be maintained with appropriate safeguards.

Parties
Applicant: A Local Authority; 1st Respondent: P (by his Litigation Friend, the Official Solicitor); 2nd Respondent: National Probation Service
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Court of Protection / Application on Paper Regarding Hearing Privacy and Transparency Order
Outcome
Proceedings to be heard in public with a transparency order and exclusion of the general public, but accredited media permitted.
Legal Topics
Open Justice, Transparency Orders, Privacy in Court Proceedings, Protection of Vulnerable Adults
Mental Capacity Law Human Rights Law Open Justice Transparency Orders Privacy in Court Proceedings 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 (by his Litigation Friend, the Official Solicitor)

1st Respondent

National Probation Service

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Court of Protection / Application on Paper Regarding Hearing Privacy and Transparency Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Should the proceedings be heard in private or in public with a transparency order?
  2. 2 How should the court balance Article 8 (privacy) and Article 10 (freedom of expression) rights in the context of a vulnerable adult with criminal convictions?

Ratio Decidendi

The need to protect P is a powerful factor, but with the exclusion of the public, the presence of accredited media, and a properly drafted transparency order, the risks to P are sufficiently mitigated. Therefore, it is not necessary or proportionate for the proceedings to continue in private; open justice can be maintained with appropriate safeguards.

Court Disposition

Proceedings to be heard in public with a transparency order and exclusion of the general public, but accredited media permitted.

Orders

  • Exclusion of the general public from future hearings.
  • Accredited members of the press and broadcast media permitted to attend.