Once a month or so, we look systematically at COP listings in Courtel/CourtServe (the publicly available listing service for the courts) to check how well they support transparency + open justice.
Here's September's analysis
Some good news
Some bad.
2/
We've kept our ambitions for the listings realistically modest.
We're only asking that COP hearings are in the COP list, make clear the public can observe, tell us whether a hearing is remote/hybrid/in-person, supply contact details + some info on what the hearing is about.
3/
So here's what the COP list in Courtserve looks like (the pic on the left)
CourtServe is free to access (you just have to register ) + it's the main way we find out about hearings, across all the courts (not just COP).
In CourtServe you can find out what hearings are happening.
Good entries look like this one.
It tells us that this hearing in Birmingham is open to the public (by video-link), there's an email address to ask for the link, and it's about Deprivation of Liberty.
Perfect!
5/
Unfortunately, not all listing is that good
Some Court of Protection hearings aren't in the Court of Protection list
Instead they're in the Daily Cause list for the country court - and there are literally 100s of hearings in these lists so it makes them very hard to find.
6/
When hearings aren't included in the COP list we call them "hidden" hearings.
We don't have time every day to go through all of CourtServe looking for hidden hearings, so our daily alerts don't cover them. We doubt anyone observes them
Here's one in Plymouth today.
There's another hidden hearing in Walsall today.
It's not in the COP list.
I only know about it because I spent 2 hours trawling through CourtServe looking for hidden hearings (and I only do that once a month or so).
Hidden hearings don't support open justice + transparency.
2nd Key Performance Indicator is that listings should make clear that the public can observe (when they can).
This is a miserable failure.
Three-quarters of the hearings say "private", "not open to the public" or "restricted" when this does NOT mean we can't observe.
11/
Sometimes hearings really are private and we're not allowed to observe them
But given the way hearings are routinely listed as "private" it's impossible for most people to tell which those are.
They're "Dispute Resolution Hearings" (DRH) + there are two listed for today.
12/
The problem of the public believing we can't observe hearings (when actually we could) is compounded because sometimes hearings are listed as "Dispute Resolution Hearings" (DRH) - and therefore "private" - when actually they're not DRHs at all.
13/
We know the judiciary is strongly committed to transparency+supports public observation of hearings
But it's really hard to convince the public of this when 75% of listed hearings are branded "private", "not open to public" etc.
In order to decide whether or not to ask to observe a hearing, we need to know whether it's "attended" (i.e. in person, meaning we'd need to go to a physical courtroom), or "remote" (phone/video-link) or "hybrid" (which gives us a choice.
27% of hearings listed don't say.
I live 300 miles from Chelmsford. If these hearings are remote I can observe them. If not, I can't. But it doesn't say.
They're also both "PRIVATE" and one of them has no case number.
Here's another example of a listing - in Sheffield - which doesn't tell us whether the hearing is attended (in person), remote (phone/video-link) or "hybrid" - with some people attending in person and others remotely.
This is *so* unhelpful to would-be observers.
17/
This CourtServe entry for a hearing before DJ Ellington today in First Avenue House London doesn't say whether the hearing is attended, remote, or hybrid.
But on the Daily Cause list for First Avenue House it says "hybrid" - so it should have said this on CourtServe too.
18/
There seems to be some problem with transferring listing info from First Avenue House (FAH) to CourtServe.
This hearing before DJ Eldergill is confusingly listed as a "REMOTE ATTENDED" hearing in CourtServe. (The FAH Daily Cause says it's "remote").
There seems to be some problem with transferring listing info from First Avenue House (FAH) to CourtServe.
Here's another one.
This hearing before DJ Jackson is confusingly listed as a "REMOTE ATTENDED" hearing in CourtServe. (The FAH Daily Cause says it's "remote").
20/
We can't currently rely on CourtServe listings to tell us whether hearings are attended, remote or hybrid.
More than a quarter of listings omit this information or provide contradictory+confusing information
Please @HMCTSgovuk - this is pretty crucial info to get right!
21/
Our 4th Key Performance Indicator for the Court of Protection is this: give us the correct phone number and email address so that we can contact you to ask for links to hearings. (And/or addresses when hearings are in person).
Today 11% of COP hearings failed to do this.
Our 5th Key Performance Indicator for COP is: Tell us what the hearing is about (e.g. "Decisions relating to Deprivation of Liberty; Where P shall live; Serious Medical Treatment)
Today (20th September 2022) 17/26 hearings DID say what hearing was about + 9/26 hearings did not.
23/
It's hard to get people interested in observing hearings when there's no information what they're about.
A sense of civic duty only takes you so far
Knowing a hearing is in your area of interest/expertise makes such a difference to willingness to give up time to do this.
24/
I wonder if confusion generated by way the template elicits information?
Quite a few listings tell us about the type of hearing ("Directions", "Case Management" etc) but not what the hearing is about.
Both are useful of course.
Will be adding type of hearing to KPIs.
25/
When COP hearings appear in the Daily Cause Lists and not in the COP list, they often omit information both about the type of hearing and about the issues before the court i.e. what the hearing is about.
The improvement in getting more hearings in the COP list is positive!
26/
We've noticed a big increase in the number of people who volunteer to observe hearings when we've been able to tell everyone what they're about.
And people with relevant expertise and experience ask to observe them.
27/
We know the judiciary understands the need for descriptions of what cases are about - they've been saying this is needed for more than 7 years.
There's a gap between judicial aspiration and on-the-ground reality.
It's incredibly disappointing that 7 years after the judiciary expressed its aspirations for transparently describing what hearings are about, this still isn't happening on the ground (in 35% of hearings listed today).
Thank you to all the court staff, lawyers, judges and members of the public who gave up time and effort to contribute to open justice and transparency in the COP this month.
Towards the end of every month we do a systematic overview of the listings for just one day, to see to what extent they successfully implement the judicial commitment to open justice.
Here's today's assessment.
2/
We're developing Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for the Court of Protection's implementation of open justice.
So far, we have 5 rather basic FPIs without which we don't think open justice is possible. (Lawyers aren't disagreeing with us).
Surely these are achievable?
3/
So this thread reports a systematic review of COP hearings listed in CourtServe for 1st August 2022.
I'll assess what I found against the 5 KPIs we've identified as key to open justice.
I've also been working with court staff to support this + am grateful for their efforts.
Why does the Open Justice Court of Protection Project make its own lists of hearings?
Can't members of the public rely on the lists the Court publishes: lists from the Royal Courts of Justice, First Avenue House and CourtServe?
It's a lot of work - here's why we do it.
One very important reason is that the published lists 'hide' some hearings by listing them in the wrong place.
Other hearings never appear on the court-published lists: they're effectively 'secret'.
'Hidden' and 'secret' hearings are a massive problem for open justice.
This thread focuses CourtServe, which was clearly never developed with the idea that members of the public would use it to identify hearings to observe.
It's supposed to list ALL the Court of Protection hearings in the county courts every day, under
"Court of Protection" tab.
Hayden J said it was not in AH's BI to continue to receive ventilation.
LJ Moylan gave main judgment: "I have, very regrettably, come to the conclusion that the Judge's decision cannot stand+must be set aside"
There were 5 grounds of appeal. Only one was upheld - the concern about the Judge's visit to AH in hospital after the hearing was finished + before he handed down his judgment.
First ground of appeal: that judge gave insufficient attention to AH's earlier capacitous decision on ReSPECT form that she wanted "full escalation" .
But this applies only to "emergency" treatment + current situation is "very far from an emergency".