NHS South East London Integrated Care Board v JP & Ors [2025] EWCOP 8 (T3)

Follow up judgment concerning delays in making an applications to the courts to evaluate the best interests of patients in a prolonged disorder of consciousness.

Hayden J had given an earlier judgment [2025] EWCOP 4 , concerning JP, who had been in a prolonged disorder of consciousness (PDOC) for nine years. In paragraph 5 of that judgment, he indicated that he wanted to concentrate entirely on JP's best interests and would draft a second judgment dealing with the delays in this and similar cases. This is that judgment.

He makes several comments about the ethos at the treating units, who had several similar patients to care for, and also the purpose of speaking with family members which "is not to ascertain their views and beliefs but to ascertain if what they have to say can illuminate P's wishes and beliefs" not to mediate agreement with family members [34]. He also endorses Theis J's observations in  [2024] EWCOP 66 that the critical role of the ICB is to ensure "that the care package remains appropriate to meet the service user's assessed needs" (Theis J's emphasis) and goes on at [11]

"for the best interests reviews to be effective, the ICB is required to be vigilant and proactive in the process. Notwithstanding Theis J's clear signal that they should not be "passive bystanders", that appears to be what has happened again here."

Read the judgment on Bailii