Thread by @KitzingerCelia

A thread about listings in the "private" Court of Protection

This week some would-be observers contacted me to say the COP hearings in their regional court were all being held "in private" so they couldn't observe them.

How could they find some "public" ones?

Many COP hearings (sometimes *most* of them) are listed as "in private" and "not open to public".

I know the court doesn't mean to say we can't observe them, but most people don't know that. Why should they?

It's a huge obstacle to open justice to list hearings as "private".

Listing COP hearings as "private" is very common.

Do you want to guess how many of the 23 hearings listed in CourtServe for tomorrow (16th May 2022) are listed as "private".

Remember this is the #NotSecretCourt!

More than half of tomorrow's hearings in the Court of Protection are listed as "private".

That doesn't sit well with the judicial commitment to open justice.

It sends completely the wrong message.

A message people read (not surprisingly!) as meaning they can't observe.

Here's a *good* listing from Bristol which says the hearing is "PUBLIC".

Members of the public are likely to believe that the word "public" means that we are allowed to observe this hearing.

And this listing has lots of other useful information as well to support observers.

This listing says the hearing is "PUBLIC".

The word "public" suggests that we can observe this hearing.

But there's no information on what issues the court will address (e.g. deprivation of liberty, contact, COVID vax etc)

This makes it less likely anyone will ask to observe.

@HMCTSgovuk Here's another listing saying the hearing is "PUBLIC".

The word "public" suggests that we can observe this hearing.

But again there's no information on what issues the court will address (e.g. DOLS, contact, s.21A etc)

This makes it less likely anyone will ask to observe.

@HMCTSgovuk This hearing is "PUBLIC WITH REPORTING RESTRICTIONS".

Members of the public are likely to believe we are allowed to observe this hearing.

Sadly, no mention of the issues before the court, which makes it less likely that anyone will be sufficiently interested to ask.

Some more "public" hearings - with some information this time as to what issues are before the court ("residence and care").

Listings like this are GOOD for open justice and transparency in the Court of Protection.

But many (sometimes *most*) hearings in the Court of Protection are listed as 'PRIVATE' and 'NOT OPEN TO THE PUBLIC'.

Like these in First Avenue House London.

This doesn't look like open justice.

Most people think they aren't allowed to observe them.

I have observed many hearings at First Avenue House London listed as "private".

I just ask and I am almost always admitted.

I know there's a complicated legal reason for the word "private" but.....

... it means most people don't think they can ask to observe.

The "private"/"public" labelling is confusing and doesn't map on to the "remote"/"attended" distinction.

First Avenue House lists all remote hearings as "private" (I think), but that's not the case in other regional COP courts.

One of these remote hearings is "open to public"

Whether they're attended (in person) or remote, most of the hearings listed for 16th May 2022 state that they are "PRIVATE - NOT OPEN TO THE PUBLIC".

That can't be good for open justice.

Even if they don't really mean that we can't observe.

Because how would we know that?!

Open justice is in the "small print" - which seems to be how we are supposed to know that we can ask to observe "private" hearings.

But really - how likely is it that the public read the small print and think "oh right, I'll ask to observe this private hearing then".

@HMCTSgovuk The small print for this listing says (in 2 languages) that we can ask to observe any hearing except Dispute Resolution Hearings - but the capital letters warn us off daring to make any such request, and also there's no info about what kind of hearing this is. It might be a DRH!

Here's one that says it's a 'PRIVATE HEARING" which is deterrent enough.

It also omits to say if it's remote or in person. So if I was interested in observing I'd have to find out.

And there's nothing about issues before the court, so I don't know why it might be of interest.

This isn't a new problem.

Last time I did a systematic check (14th March 2022) nearly half of the hearings were "PRIVATE".

Two month later it's just over half of the hearings that are "PRIVATE".

"Private" hearings are absolutely normal in the COP listings.

@HMCTSgovuk I've posted before about the problem of "private" hearings, e.g. 30th March 2022 re. First Avenue House.

One thing that's changed since then is contact info for FAH is now on CourtServe. Thank you!

But "private" hearings are the norm for all remote hearings at FAH.

One of the reasons @OpenJusticeCoP tweets court listings is because when we do so we omit words like "private" from our version of the listing.

Because the word "private" deters the public from asking to observe.

For obvious reasons.

So why do the court lists say "private"?

Please lawyers of Twitter - don't explain to me why the word "private" appears on court lists. I do actually know the history of this.

"Private" (I'm told) is a legal term + not used here in its ordinary sense.

It doesn't mean we can't observe

But that's how people read it!

Most people who read that a judge is "sitting in private" will be deterred from asking to observe the hearing.

Whatever it says in the small print below about "open justice".

This slide is from mid-March 2022.

The same problem persists in mid-May 2022.

Will anyone fix it?

For members of the public, the word "private" means the opposite of transparency and open justice.

We see the word "private" and don't think we'll be allowed to observe.

If in fact judges want us to be able to observe, this needs to change.

So, this week some would-be observers contacted me to say the COP hearings in their regional court were all being held "in private" so they couldn't observe them.

Why did they think that when that was (almost certainly) not the case.

Because they read the CourtServe listing.

As a member of the public, I can't fix this

But I can ask the Court of Protection judiciary to 'own' the problem and take action.

I ask judges to recognise how listing "private" hearings defeats their aspiration to open justice

And find a way to fix it for #NotSecretCourt

Oh, and just to add the small print in the listings *doesn't* fix anything.