Every six weeks or so, we step back and take a look at how the Court of Protection is doing in relation to open justice and transparency. Here's our assessment for 14th November listings and the last six weeks of observation. @HMCTSgovuk
2/
We've added another 2 Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) since last time.
They still represent a fairly modest collection of requirements for us to be able to support the judicial commitment to #openjustice and transparency in the Court of Protection.
I found it hidden in the Chelmsford Daily Cause list.
It doesn't comply with the pro-forma requirements of the COP list - nothing about the hearing being public, or what it's about. And the wrong contact info.
Tell us whether the hearing is remote or in person (and ideally whether it's telephone or video, and if video which platform).
Better news on this front. Most of the listings tell us! @HMCTSgovuk
24/
The "hearing channel" can change at the last moment.
This afternoon's hearing before Hayden J in the Royal Courts of Justice was listed as in person, but was changed - we heard mid-morning - to "hybrid" to accommodate a party.
It meant observers could attend remotely.
25/
You wouldn't think it would be *that* hard to supply correct contact info for would-be observers.
But 41% of today's hearings do exactly that.
All 18 hearings not on the COP list provide their own generic court contact details instead of the regional COP hub.
5th Key Performance Indicator: Tell us what the hearing is about.
Only 50% do this.
Lots of room for improvement here - notice it's the "hidden" hearings (the ones not in the COP list) that are letting the court down again. @HMCTSgovuk
27/
Some exs of no info what hearings are about.
Sadly the RCJ lists never say what hearings are about either.
We learnt thru' the grapevine Hayden J was hearing a case about kidney transplant today.
So @TheOrganOgress (+ others) went along to watch. Exactly her topic.
Open justice should include people with specialist knowledge in particular areas watching how the court makes decisions in that area
It's good for developing professional knowledge of law
And an opportunity for scrutiny of justice by someone with topical expertise.
29/
If "Organ Transplant" had listed by Hayden J's case today, @TheOrganOgress wouldn't have been dependent on me hearing about case on the grapevine and passing the info on to her.
Specialists should have access to this info direct.
Our view is that we're supporting the judicial commitment to transparency in the COP
So we should persist in the face of obstacles
Judges *want* us (we believe) to report on difficulties so that the Court and its staff and @HMCTSgovuk can figure out how to improve things
36/
Just some of the access problems encountered by members of the public over the last 6 weeks trying to support the judicial commitment to open justice in the Court of Protection....
Some more of the access problems encountered by members of the public over the last 6 weeks trying to support the judicial commitment to open justice in the Court of Protection....
Let us know if this happens to you. Together we can make things better.
When we chase non-replies, we're sometimes told that if only we'd emailed the court *sooner* they'd have had time to "process the request". I'm not sure what needs "processing"? Why not just send us the link?
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).
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".