Court Of Protection Authorises Reporting Of Neglect Case

Most Court of Protection decisions and judgments are reported, with the names of the parties anonymised in order to shield the protected party from exposure. In certain cases, the Court can prohibit any reporting of the decision if it is considered to pose a threat to the protected party in some way.

In the case of Kent County Council v P & Another [2022] such an order had been made.

Kent County Council v P & Another

Case summary 

The Protected Party was a 21-year-old woman who had been neglected by her parents. She was removed from the care of her parents after other relatives raised concerns over their behaviour. The Protected Party had been poorly cared for and was suffering from malnutrition.

Criminal proceedings were being considered against the Protected Party’s parents as there had been a long history of neglect, although the Protected Party could only give very limited evidence of what had happened to her. The Court of Protection had assisted in having the Protected Party removed to a place of safety.

Due to the Protected Party’s vulnerability, the Court had concerns that as there would be a lot of press interest in the case (due to the appalling conduct of her parents), it might have a detrimental effect on the Protected Party to read about it on social media and in the newspapers. There was some evidence of the Protected Party becoming upset if she believed people were talking about her. The Local Authority was in favour of continued reporting restrictions. The Police also argued that reporting on the Court of Protection case could lead to the intended criminal proceedings against the parents being undermined.

The Court of Protection can, under the Court of Protection Rules 2017, order that hearings must take place in private, and/or impose restrictions on the parties involved being able to publish details of (or details which could expose) anybody’s identity. The Court does sometimes – as was the case here – have to take into account any impact this would have on the right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998.

Court of Protection decision

Mrs Justice Lieven did not agree with the Police’s argument that reporting on the Court of Protection decision would affect the criminal case, and/or prejudice a jury. The Judge compared the current situation to major cases such as the Grenfell Tower and Manchester Arena public inquiries which were followed and reported on by the media and yet did not jeopardise future criminal prosecutions. The Judge, therefore, ordered that this case could be reported on by the media, subject to the anonymisation of the parties’ names.

Another factor that the Court did consider was the likelihood of the Protected Party reading about herself in the press. It was noted from those caring for the Protected Party that she had shown very little interest in interacting with the outside world, and therefore it was less likely that she would read something upsetting. Without knowing any details of the Protected Party’s character and traits, the Court will rely on advice from professionals including (but not limited to) the Protected Party’s social worker, the Special Visitor (and for details of Special Visitors’ roles see this guide).

Comment

Whether or not criminal proceedings might be prejudiced in some way would probably depend on the scope of the details reported. It goes without saying that cases of neglect and mistreatment are particularly upsetting and do therefore interest the media, and it is likely that some details of the Protected Party’s ordeal will become public knowledge in due course. It is difficult to say whether this would affect a jury at trial – one of the points Mrs Justice Lieven considered.

Although at criminal trials, juries are directed by the trial Judge when making their decision and a measure of trust must be placed on them, the emotional factor should never be underestimated, particularly if a criminal trial has been amplified by the press. In this case, the Court was not satisfied that those were very clear and obvious consequences, however, this would be a compelling argument in other cases should there be a high likelihood of the accused being vilified in the media.