S was found to be in a permanent vegetative state without any awareness of herself or the world around her.
This case came before Hayden J as a final hearing to determine what was in S’s best interests. The family were asking for a declaration that it was no longer in S’s best interests to continue to receive artificial nutrition and hydration, and that it was lawful and in her best interests for artificial nutrition and hydration to be withdrawn. After hearing from medical experts that S would be very unlikely to recover, Hayden J agreed to make the declarations sought by the family.
This decision builds upon the previous decisions by Hayden J in N v N  EWCOP 706 and Re O (Withdrawal of Medical Treatment)  EWCOP 24.
Charles J considered an application that part of the applicant’s costs be paid by the Respondents on an indemnity basis. The court ruled that departure from the rule 'no order as to costs' was not justified in this case.
This judgment should be read in conjunction with the reported judgment on this case at  EWCOP 21.
This case considered the State’s positive obligations under Article 5 ECHR and whether such obligations extend to cover individuals who fall under care within the private sector.
Case summaries on every Court of Protection case & other relevant decisions with links to the full judgment where available.
Get the latest cases & news delivered to your inbox with our free email updates.