MA v A Local Authority & Ors [2024] EWCOP 48 (T2)

Application for permission to appeal, with appeal to follow, against a final order regarding contact between a couple who have been married for 60 years but who now both have dementia.

AA and MA had moved into a care home as a couple but MA requires more specialist care and, after AA had a fall, they were separated in the first care home and subsequently MA moved to a second placement. These proceedings arose out of a need to determine whether it was in both AA's and MA's best interest to have contact via video. The judge determined it was not and also decided the respondent trust had not acted in a way that was incompatible with Article 8.  

In this appeal, HHJ Smith was faced with eight grounds of appeal, broadly related to the weight placed on MA and AA's wishes and whether their Article 8 rights had been properly considered. HHJ Smith allows permission to appeal on seven of the grounds but dismisses them all. He refuses permission to appeal on one ground - that the judge  erred in his analysis under Article 8 ECHR - as it was inappropriate to deal with it in this way, noting at [22]:

"I do not regard convention rights merely as bolt-ons. Such rights are continually engaged and form part of any court's evaluation."

Read the judgment on Bailii
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCOP/2024/48.html