'Closed Hearings' and 'Closed Material': Guidance
[2023] EWCOP 6
Stockport MBC v NN & Anor
22 August 2024
[2024] EWCOP 51 (T1)
Court of Protection
A court hearing about someone's care was supposed to be public, but the person involved didn't want strangers there. Because it would make them very anxious, the judge decided to make the hearing private to protect that person's well-being and make sure they could fully participate.
Key Facts
- •Court of Protection hearing for NN (by her litigation friend, the Official Solicitor), with Stockport MBC and Greater Manchester ICB as respondents.
- •Hearing initially listed as public with reporting restrictions.
- •A late request for an observer to join the remote hearing.
- •NN, actively involved in her case, expressed strong objection to the observer's presence.
- •NN's anxiety increased upon learning of the observer's request.
- •Counsel for the Official Solicitor argued that the observer's presence would not be in NN's best interests.
- •The observer voluntarily withdrew their request after hearing NN's concerns.
Legal Principles
Court of Protection hearings are presumed to be public, promoting openness and transparency.
Court of Protection Practice
The best interests of the protected party are paramount in Court of Protection proceedings.
Mental Capacity Act 2005
Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) are applicable to Court of Protection proceedings.
Mental Capacity Act 2005
A private hearing is permissible if necessary to protect the interests of a protected party or to secure the proper administration of justice (CPR r.39.2(3)(c), (d)).
CPR r.39.2(3)(c), (d)
Outcomes
The hearing proceeded in private.
NN's strong objection, heightened anxiety, and the potential for impaired participation due to the observer's presence outweighed the presumption of public access. The judge prioritized NN's best interests and the proper administration of justice.