The Court of Protection transparency pilot is to be extended for a further 12 months. The announcement has been made on the Judiciary website.

The pilot commenced in January 2016 but is now expected to run in all regions until August 2017 to allow for the changes to be fully tested. Under the scheme, in a reversal of the pre-pilot procedure,  the Court will normally direct that its hearings will be in public and make an anonymity order to protect the people involved

You can read more on the Judiciary website or read our original story here

The son of the Patient was seeking orders that his mother is returned home with a robust package of care; in the alternative, that she is placed supported housing with an appropriate package of care; and ccertain restrictions on him are lifted or at least varied to allow him to visit his mother between 6pm and 12am on weekdays. 

Read the full text of the judgment on Bailii

Senior Judge Denzil Lush has retired from the Court of Protection with effect from 19 July 2016, 

He was appointed as Master of the Court of Protection in 1996 and Senior Judge of the Court of Protection in 2007.

Over the years he has written or co-written several key works in the area including Elderly Clients: A Precedent Manual & Cretney & Lush on Lasting and Enduring Powers of Attorney.

The Office of the Public Guardian, Ministry of Justice, HM Courts & Tribunals Service and Senior Courts Costs Office have issued fresh guidance on how professional deputies should submit estimates of costs and bills for assessment, and to explain what can be claimed for in general management bills.

It details how the Office of the Public Guardian and the Senior Courts Costs Office will work together to make sure deputies act in the client’s best interest and comply with the Court of Protection’s directions.

The guidance contains:

• reminders of what to consider when incurring GM costs against the client’s estate
• advice on submitting bills of costs for assessment
• OPG’s reporting requirements

It should be read in conjunction with the relevant Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), COP Practice Direction PD19B, section 23 of the SCCO Guide (October 2013), the Mental Capacity Act 2005 Code of Practice (the Code) and OPG professional deputy standards. 

You can download the full document here.

The LA claimed that the P was not being deprived of his liberty, but, even if he was, the deprivation of liberty was not imputable to the State because it was his family's responsibility, as his court-appointed deputies. The Judge found that the deprivation of liberty was directly imputable to the State. The LA was ultimately "the person making the determination" as to what was in the P's best interests and, because it was practicable and appropriate to consult them, the LA took into account the views of "any deputy appointed for the person by the court." However, the deputies' views did not automatically determine the outcome and were merely a factor that the LA was required to take into account as part of the overall decision-making process.

Read the full text of the judgment on Bailii