Application by father of G, his adult daughter, to discharge reporting restrictions in proceedings relating to where she should be cared for when she is discharged from her current placement in a children’s hospital (see also G, Re  EWCOP 69)
The applicant, LF, sought to discharge the restrictions so the family could begin a crowdfunding campaign to buy a specially adapted vehicle to help G get around: some celebrities had said they would back the campaign and the family had also been approached by two national newspapers.
Hayden J rejects the application. Partly this was in the light of a blog written ostensibly in G’s own voice that reflected LF’s determination to get G a move to the care of her parents and which Hayden J found revealed LF’s refusal to accept the earlier judgment that G should move to ‘A’ home. He also contrasted the situation in these proceedings with that in Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust v Verden where the purpose in lifting reporting restrictions was to find a donor to save the child’s life. While he notes that LF’s right to freedom of speech is an important one at  Hayden J states that it is not curtailed
“merely because what he wishes to say to the media is, on all the available evidence, misguided, and inaccurate, rather it is because it is in direct conflict with his daughter's rights as I have analysed them.”
Read the judgment on Bailii
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 alert
We do not share your details with any third parties and you can unsubscribe at any time
More from Bath Publishing