|
Can injunctions to protect the names of clinicians involved in life-sustaining treatment be continued once those proceedings have ended?
Judgment considering whether an application involving a public figure should be heard in private.
An application by JK, the son of Z, for access to various court documents and expert reports relating to declarations made in November 2018. JK was not a party to those proceedings (even though he could have been) and Morgan J had found that Z lacked capacity to manage his property and financial affairs. Application refused.
Application by the Public Guardian to commit the individual to prison after he disclosed information in breach of a transparency order. No order for committal was made.
Application to prevent publication of a video of a patient, P, in her treating hospital. The application was granted.
Hayden J heard the application for the continuation of a reporting restriction order (RRO) when M died following the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment by means of clinically assisted nutrition and hydration. The application was refused, the judge saying that "the balance here weighs more heavily in favour of freedom of expression".
Application by the Health Trust, supported by the family of a woman in a permanent vegetative state, for a reporting restriction order (RRO). The application was to extend the RRO indefinitely. Mr Justice Jackson refused the application.
This case concerned long-running proceedings relating to a young man aged 26, M, and had been ongoing for two years. His parents E and A, whilst the court found they greatly loved their son, had, in an earlier judgment of Baker J, (Re M [2014] EWCOP 33] found that whilst M had ASD and a learning disability, his parents had fabricated his reaction to an MMR vaccination. They had claimed it had caused autism in M and had given many fabricated accounts as to his health, caused M to be subjected to unnecessary tests and interventions, failed in relation to dental treatment to obtain treatment and E as M’s deputy had controlled all aspects of his life and restricted access to him by number of professionals. The court found that these behaviours amounted to factitious disorder imposed on others and additionally E had a combination of personality disorders – narcissistic, histrionic and emotionally unstable.
The key issues in this judgment focused upon the identity of the deputy, deprivation of liberty, disclosure and publication of information relating to proceedings and some miscellaneous issues. |
Case summaries on every Court of Protection case & other relevant decisions with links to the full judgment where available.
Support the Hub
This site is free to access but if you find it useful then please consider a contribution by way of support for our work. Click here to contribute. Sign up for our free email alertWe do not share your details with any third parties and you can unsubscribe at any time
More from Bath PublishingBrowse |
RSS Feed
|
This site is published by Bath Publishing Limited
www.bathpublishing.com Manage your email preferences Read the Bath Publishing Privacy Policy |