Declaration that the P, who was pregnant, should have a termination was set aside.
P appeal against a range of orders relating to her use of social media and consent to sexual relations. LA's cross-appeal against a decision that the P had capacity to decide on where she lived. Appeal dismissed, cross-appeal allowed.
Judgment was reserved in a case where the question was whether the P has the capacity to consent to sexual relations.
Application to prevent publication of a video of a patient, P, in her treating hospital. The application was granted.
Guidance has been given on the taking of samples from a person who does not have the capacity to consent.
Appeal against a decision which justified the P's deprivation of liberty was allowed.
This judgment in long-running proceedings involving the P, a vulnerable young woman, addresses difficult issues concerning her sexual relationships and the covert insertion of a contraceptive device.
P is a young woman with learning disabilities. Concerns arose that, by reason of her learning difficulties, she was vulnerable to sexual exploitation, pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). There is evidence that she was sexually assaulted and an expert reported that the police expressed concern that P should not access the community unsupervised as she appeared to be a target for exploitation and was extremely vulnerable.
The court agreed that the P has the capacity to consent to sexual relations and that it was in her best interests for the IUD , which had been inserted some years earlier without her knowledge, to remain in place until the end of its normal ten-year span. However, the court regarded it as imperative that professionals working with P keep this issue under review at all times and start planning now for ways in which further decisions about contraception can be taken in a way that includes P and respects her personal autonomy and human rights.
Read the full text of the judgment on Bailii
Charles J judgment in which he tackles streamlined (Re X) non-contentious deprivation of liberty cases and the problem where no family members or friends of the Patient are able or willing to act as Rule 3A (now Rule 1.2) Representatives.
Appeal against a decision involving the deprivation of liberty of a 16 year old boy. The appeal was allowed on one ground.
Case summaries & Editor's comments 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.