These Rules amend the Court of Protection Rules 2007 in two respects. They:
Read the SI here.
Court of Protection model no longer compatible with latest international human rights, argue Cardiff researchers
A team of researchers from Cardiff University think that the Court of Protection’s ‘low participation’ model is ‘no longer compatible with developments in international human rights law’. As a result they feel there is
“an urgent need to address the model of participation of P in the CoP. This will require revisions to the rules and practice directions, through increased resources for various elements of participation, and by addressing the question of when and how cases should come to the CoP. “
Their thinking is presented in a research report published this month that looks at The Participation of P in Welfare Cases in the Court of Protection. The team of Lucy Series, Phil Fennell & Julie Doughty consider different elements of participation in the CoP in turn, highlighting some particular concerns as below:
The Intensive Care Society & the Faculty of Intensive Care Management have issued updated guidance for their practitioners following the Court of Appeal decision in Ferreira.
The two organisations, who intervened in the appeal, welcomed that decision as it confirmed that in general DoLs does not apply in the administration of life saving treatment. However the guidance also notes that questions remain and that in
"cases where significant coercion may be required to provide treatment, it may be prudent to seek legal advice and wider support within the Trust in any event."
The guidance, which was prepared by Browne Jacobson, can be found here.
This is the judgment preceding the Court of Appeal decision in MM (A Patient)  EWCA Civ 34. In that Court of Appeal decision the order for return of the patient from Portugal made in this judgment was quashed because attempts to enforce the order had proved futile.
Read the full judgment on Bailii.
The court concluded that the Respondent Patient lacked capacity to revoke the LPA for property and affairs but that it was not to be reinstated. Instead, a professional deputy with whom the Patient had a good working relationship, was appointed and the court authorised the deputy to sell the Respondent's UK property.
Read the full text of the judgment on Bailii
Stay up to date with changes to policy and procedure.
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