Posted on

Appealing a Court of Protection Judgment

Over at the Open Justice Court of Protection Project, I have written a long explainer about appeals in the Court of Protection.

Any contested hearing in the Court of Protection will leave at least one party disappointed by the outcome.

Often, the disappointed party (whether that is a family member, a public body, or the protected person themselves) will accept the judge’s decision and work within the terms of the order that has been made.

On other occasions, the disappointed party may consider that the judge has made a mistake which may be corrected on appeal.

This post offers a basic introduction to Court of Protection appeals. It covers (1) the general principles that govern appeals and why appeals fail at an early stage (2) the procedure for making an appeal and some common reasons and (3) some alternatives to an appeal.

Visit the Open Justice Court of Protection Project blog to read the whole thing.

Posted on

The Vilification of Welfare Recipients

There is a sanctimonious strain in British society that likes to divide the citizenry into ‘working people’ on the one hand, and feckless spongers on the other. This is a form of the ‘us and them’ mentality that the populists love and the tabloids love to repeat. It is as simplistic as racism and just as pernicious.

Listening to the vox pops on last week’s budget, you’d think that all the money has been taken straight from taxpayers and put into the pockets of lazy people.

What’s lazy is this analysis. It is simply not true. Large portions of the new tax take will be given to pensioners, most of whom will have paid into the system throughout their working life.

Child benefits are paid to everyone, including families where the parents work.

Recipients of disability benefits may also employed.

I’ve just spent two years working for a local authority. Every day I encountered people subsisting on benefits.

It is a miserable, miserable life. It is no-one’s first choice. The Universal Credit system and the cost of living (especially cost of accommodation) conspire to keep people in the system. Receiving benefits erodes dignity. The pittance we grant serves to keep them hovering around the poverty line. That increases both physical and mental illness, and encourages people towards crime and substance abuse.

Whether you fall into this system or not has nothing to do with the content of your character, but the luck of your birth and your postcode.

I don’t know whether Rachel Reeves’ particular economic recipie will boost growth and living standards. But I wish that the responses to her policies were not riddled with classism.

This was first posted on LinkedIn.

Posted on

A New Job, and (Hopefully) a Return to the Blog

Last month I began a pupillage at Field Court Chambers. It is a civil set with a strong Public Law team, and I am enjoying spending time in the Court of Protection and the Administrative Court. The power of the state over the individual, and the rights that the individual might have against the exercise of state power, was a theme of my undergraduate studies and my career since (at least) 2007. 

So I find myself in a state of eudaimonia (εὐδαιμονία), the good spirit of feeling I am doing exactly what I should doing. I cannot wait to begin taking instructions and building a practice.

My new job has got me thinking about this old blog. My conversion to the law and subsequent legal work in the County Courts and for the Royal Borough of Greenwich has kept me away. 

The activism of writing was entirely in keeping with my work at English PEN. But in recent years, I felt I had to refrain. There were many reasons for this. 

Continue reading “A New Job, and (Hopefully) a Return to the Blog”
Posted on

Failure to implement a care order

I’ve done another judgment summary for Family Law Week. I’m finding its a useful way to gain an understanding of an area of law.

This time I’ve dealt with the snappily titled Re E (A Child – Application to Discharge Care Order – Failures of Local Authority) [2025] EWFC 223 (B).

This was a judgment of HHJ Earley regarding an application by a child to discharge a Care Order that the Court had made ten months earlier. The Court dismissed the application and maintained the order, but in doing so made pointed comments regarding the local authority’s failures to implement the agreed care plan. The judge reviewed the legal authorities regarding the Court’s oversight of care placements, once a final order has been made. It is salutary reading for those working in social care and those representing Looked After Children.

Posted on

Discussing the role of parental consent in withdrawal of treatment cases

Over at Family Law Week, I have written two case summaries and a short legal analysis on the vexed issue of withdrawing care from seriously ill children.

  • In An NHS Foundation Trust -v- J [2025] EWHC 2247 (Fam), a child was born with catastophic brain damage after his mother suffered a cardiac arrest. The medical evidence was clear that it was not in the child’s best interests for him to stay on ventilation, but his mother did not have capacity to consent to withdrawal.
  • In The Trust -v- Z, FA and KB [2025] EWHC 2100 (Fam), a child was born with a congential brain abnormality and was being sustained only by invasive medical intervention. Several doctors were of the opinion that further treatment should be stopped, but his parents wanted to “give him the best chance” of continued life. The Court overruled the parents’ wishes and treatment was withdrawn.

In my short analysis I note that the law does not consider parental views to be determinative in these kinds of applications. They are relevant only to the extent that they illuminate the ‘best interests’ of the child. This is a point of law wiorht restating, because the lay-public’s view is often that parents should “have the final say” in such matters. I recall that this was the opinion expressed (often in shrill terms) during the Charlie Gard case in 2017 and the Archie Battersbee case in 2022.