Thread by @KitzingerCelia

A thread

1. Almost all Court of Protection hearings are open for public to observe: they aren't "private".

The COP is committed to open justice + transparency.

But about half the COP hearings every day are branded "PRIVATE".

This sends the wrong message from #notsecretcourt

@HMCTSgovuk 2. It's bizarre and counter-productive for a court that is very committed to open justice (and - whatever its failings - delivers on it better than most other parts of the justice system) to put out the message that half of its hearings are "PRIVATE".

3. More than half of the hearings in the COP listing on CourtServe today say hearings are "PRIVATE".

Only one (as far as I can tell) would actually exclude observers - because it's a Dispute Resolution Hearing.

Observers are not being deliberately excluded from the others.

4. This hearing says (in capitals) "IN PRIVATE NOT OPEN TO PUBLIC".

Then the small print at the bottom says we can ask to observe it.

Does anyone else think this is ... odd?

5. A "PRIVATE" hearing in Birmingham.

But in the small print it says we can ask to observe it.

Why put up a great big "no entry" sign if you don't mean it?

This sends a contradictory message. Is it private or not?

(Spoiler - the public *can* observe!)

6. I observed this 'PRIVATE" hearing today.

The judge was welcoming and helpful - gave a clear opening summary and ensured I could access position statements.

Why would the court choose to brand a hearing as PRIVATE when it self-evidently wasn't.

I'll blog about it later.

7. I am pretty sure observers would have been admitted to this hearing in Port Talbot, also branded "PRIVATE"

The Court of Protection is much more open than it seems from the listings.

It's actually a #NotSecretCourt - but you wouldn't know that from the lists!

I've observed lots of remote hearings labelled "PRIVATE" from First Avenue House London

But I know "PRIVATE" doesn't mean I can't observe

Most members of the public don't know that

Branding as "PRIVATE" has a chilling effect on open justice

Not what the COP intends at all.

@HMCTSgovuk 9. These two "PRIVATE" hearings look identically "private"

But I know (most members of the public don't) we're almost certainly allowed to observe a pre-trial review, but we're definitely not allowed to observe a Dispute Resolution Hearing.

Why not say so in the listings?

@HMCTSgovuk 10. It's absolutely standard routine practice for many Court of Protection hearings (especially remote ones - those most accessible to many people who might like to observe!) to be branded "PRIVATE".

11. All this "PRIVATE" branding is really an 'own goal' for the Court of Protection. It's not the message they want to promote.

We *can* (and do) observe many "PRIVATE" hearings.

Please @HMCTSgovuk can we dispense with the "PRIVATE" branding. It's so misleading.

12 (last tweet in thread)

There were reasons for branding hearings as "PRIVATE" when they first went on line at the beginning of the pandemic.

It's time to rethink, so that the listings reflect the fundamental commitments to transparency + open justice of the #NotSecretCourt.