Counsel accused of "a charade, a game"; counter-claims "a tactical move".
We've had "my learned friend is simply wrong..." and "my learned friend has misrepresented my position".
Judge says "I can't give this case very much more of my time".
Judical eyebrows were raised: "this debate is becoming increasingly unedifying" he says, as parties "have locked horns".
Judge limits witness statements to 15 pages. They are now talking about fonts: "you can get about 30% more on the page with Aerial narrow".
Judge says 12 point Times Roman. And double spaced.
Stands out because this sort of behaviour is very rare in the Court of Protection!
This is what adversarial looks like. Hackles bristling at every turn.
Thank goodness we are (mostly) inquisitorial in the #NotSecretCourt
Judge interrupts submissions: "You don't need to trouble me any further on this; perhaps you'd like to move on" + "Mr X. I've got the point".
Advocate asks permission to appeal. Counsel for other party theatrically puts head in hands, elbows on desk + shakes head in disbelief.
Application to appeal refused.
Next hearing in this case is heading for DJ Batten with a limit of 175 pages of essential pre-reading. (Counsel: "does that include position statements?" - Yes).
As judge ended the hearing they were still arguing about costs.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Today I cried in court. I was watching 3 lovely, articulate, passionate young women (the older 2 just out of their teens) come to terms with the fact that their Dad was going to die. Doctors believed that continuing life-sustaining treatment was not in his best interests.
The family hoped+believed he would recover. There was a WhatsApp video his wife + brother believed showed P responding to them. Doctors (incl. independent expert) said no - it was involuntary movement. P is in a coma with catastrophic brain (stem) injury following stroke.
The applicant Trust was represented by Nageena Khalique QC @serjeantsinn seeking withdrawal of ventilation (+ provision of palliative care). P's brother (rep by @CounselTweets) argued for continuation of life-sustaining treatment. Official Solicitor (for P) was @DrBridgetDolan
Today's hearing was about RS who is 30. Four months ago he was diagnosed with testicular cancer. His left testes was removed, but the cancer has spread. Without treatment he'll die within a year. With usual t'ment, a 95% chance of cure. Trust referred RS to palliative care only.
His mother advocated for him. Best interests meeting was convened. Agreed usual treatment ("BEP" - Bleomycin, Etoposide, Platinum (Cisplatin) chemotherapy) is not suitable for RS. He'd need to be under GA for 70+ hrs due to inability to tolerate clinical intervention.
RS has Fragile X syndrome, atypical severe autism, learning disability + limited communication. But described by his consultant oncologist as "a fit lad with no physical difficulties".
Today's hearing concerned a Trust's application for approval of an order for a 63 year old man with learning disabilities to be given a trans-urethral resection of the prostate (TURP) - using chemical or physical restraint if necessary. nhs.uk/conditions/tra…
He's terrified of hospitals because "that's where my Dad died". He currently has a catheter in place but that needs changing every 3 months with all the difficulties occasioned by a hospital visit. A TURP would fix the urinary problems once and for all.
Mr Justice Hayden is superb today. A clear + unwavering focus on P. "I'm eager to ensure the TERP is undertaken on the basis of clinical need, rather than due to the challenges of getting P to hospital. How do I satisfy myself of that?"
Does being watched change how justice is done? Lawyers in the Court of Protection say it does. Here are the top 5 ways.
Are there more? Comments welcome!
[1] Cases are opened properly with case summaries highlighting history of case + key issues + introduction to the parties.
[2] Role of observers is now routinely raised with P + P's family Responses include "acute distress", "mild anxiety", "neutrality", "active desire for observers + journalists to publicise injustice". Solicitors may need to become more skilled at these convos. + explaining TO.
[3] Taking more time to expressly set out legal basis underpinning hearing (human rights + MCA). Lawyers' views vary from "as the principles are pushed to the forefront of everybody's mind, they are more rigorously and consistently applied" to concern about extra time taken.
I've spent most of today in court watching an urgent application before Mrs Justice Judd concerning a feeding tube for a woman (P) in her 70s with Lewy Body dementia. She's in hospital following admission in November last year with biliary sepsis + delirium.
She's had a rough time in hospital. Pneumonia, surgery for gallstones + Covid for which she needed oxygen. All this combined to mean she can't swallow + nasogastric tube is now dislodged. Trust don't think replacement replacing it is in her best interests.
Family disagree. Describe P's good quality of life - loved, cared for, supported, communicating with family + doing Times crossword up until a few weeks before hospital admission. Family says this is not "severe" dementia + treatment should not be withdrawn