A 'sinister court’ mocks justice again
The workings of the mysterious and ultra-secretive Court of Protection are a national scandal
Christopher Booker
31 January, 2015
[We have published several pieces recently on the decline of civil liberties in the UK, and the stirrings of an authoritarian state. Christopher Booker writes of another instance of Leviathan stirring to life. Ed.]
My article on January 3, headlined “The
most sinister court in Britain strikes yet again”, has for the past
month been the “Most Viewed” Comment item on the Telegraph website. Its
theme was the workings of the mysterious and ultra-secretive Court of
Protection, which has only recently begun to emerge from the shadows –
that’s thanks to the stalwart efforts of our top family judge, Lord Justice
Munby, to lift something of the suffocating veil of secrecy shrouding the
courts over which he now presides.
My report centred on the astonishing treatment of Kathleen Danby, a
72-year-old grandmother, who first hit the headlines last year when it was
revealed that – two months earlier – she had been sentenced in her absence
to three months in prison by Judge Martin Cardinal, for breaking an
injunction by hugging her granddaughter who had run away from “care” 170
times.
But just how disturbing the workings of this all-powerful court have become
has again lately been highlighted by two more cases, which in many respects
were strikingly similar. Each of them involved the forced removal of an old
man into “care” by social workers from Essex County Council, which was
empowered by the Court of Protection to take complete charge of his life.
In both cases, as the men were deemed to be no longer capable of looking after
their own affairs, the council took over the houses where they had lived for
50 years and virtually all they possessed. But in their outcomes the two
stories could not have provided a starker contrast.
In the first case, as can be read on the Bailii website under (2015) EWCOP 1,
Judge Paul Mort couldn’t have been more critical of the conduct of Essex
council, which he described as “totally inadequate”.
“It is hard to imagine a more depressing and inexcusable state of affairs,” he
said, than “to remove a defenceless old man” from the home where he had
spent most of his life, to detain him in a “locked dementia unit against his
wishes”. Only because of the eloquent intervention of a friend was the scandalous
treatment of this 91-year-old drawn to the court’s attention. This led Judge
Mort to order that the man must immediately be released to go home, where he
could be properly looked after; and that Essex must pay all his care and
legal costs, plus hefty damages.
The other case I have long been following with dismay, but without being allowed to write about it. This concerned an 80-year-old who, after a complaint from a man who lived close by that he was being “neglected”, was in 2010 taken by Essex social workers to a care home, not only against his wishes but also initially without court permission. To the fury of his son, who had been abroad at the time, Essex was then authorised to take control of his father's home and all his assets, including valuable family heirlooms.
Such a blanket of secrecy was thrown around the case by Judge Anselm Eldergill in the Court of Protection that it was virtually impossible to refer to it at all. The father, miserably imprisoned behind locked doors, was only allowed occasional visits from his son, and even these were eventually suspended. Meanwhile, the council set about selling the father’s family home (to someone who had originally reported him to the social workers) and all his prized possessions to defray the costs of his “care” and ever-mounting legal fees.
Only after Munby issued his new guidelines in favour of more “transparency” were these draconian reporting restrictions partially lifted. But by now, after four years locked away in “care”, the old man was visibly going downhill. Worse still, he was violently attacked three times by a fellow inmate with a stick, with several of his teeth being knocked out.
Finally, last month, after he had been escorted outside in the cold for a smoke, he caught pneumonia and died. The contrast between the outcome of this case and the one which earned the same council and its social workers such withering criticism from another judge could not be more glaring. We may now be allowed to reveal rather more about the Court of Protection than was possible before the advent of Munby.
But there is still far more going on behind those closed doors than justice and human decency should allow.
The other case I have long been following with dismay, but without being allowed to write about it. This concerned an 80-year-old who, after a complaint from a man who lived close by that he was being “neglected”, was in 2010 taken by Essex social workers to a care home, not only against his wishes but also initially without court permission. To the fury of his son, who had been abroad at the time, Essex was then authorised to take control of his father's home and all his assets, including valuable family heirlooms.
Such a blanket of secrecy was thrown around the case by Judge Anselm Eldergill in the Court of Protection that it was virtually impossible to refer to it at all. The father, miserably imprisoned behind locked doors, was only allowed occasional visits from his son, and even these were eventually suspended. Meanwhile, the council set about selling the father’s family home (to someone who had originally reported him to the social workers) and all his prized possessions to defray the costs of his “care” and ever-mounting legal fees.
Only after Munby issued his new guidelines in favour of more “transparency” were these draconian reporting restrictions partially lifted. But by now, after four years locked away in “care”, the old man was visibly going downhill. Worse still, he was violently attacked three times by a fellow inmate with a stick, with several of his teeth being knocked out.
Finally, last month, after he had been escorted outside in the cold for a smoke, he caught pneumonia and died. The contrast between the outcome of this case and the one which earned the same council and its social workers such withering criticism from another judge could not be more glaring. We may now be allowed to reveal rather more about the Court of Protection than was possible before the advent of Munby.
But there is still far more going on behind those closed doors than justice and human decency should allow.
No comments:
Post a Comment