Court Of Protection Allows Parties’ Identities To Be Published In An Effort To Secure A Kidney Replacement For The Protected Party

The majority of cases in the Court of Protection are private and will often have a transparency order in place preventing details of the case from being disclosed to anyone not directly involved. This is necessary due to the vulnerability of the individual’s cases revolve around.

The recent case of Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust v Verden & Anor however, saw the Court of Protection lift the reporting restrictions order in order to assist the protected party, being a 17-year-old boy named William, sourcing a kidney transplant.

What is a reporting restrictions order?

A reporting restrictions order prevents the claim from being reported, whether in Court records or by the media. In the event where a case has been reported, the parties involved will be anonymised to protect their identities. The case of Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust v Verden & Anor related to whether or not it was in William’s best interests to receive a kidney transplant as opposed to continuing to receive dialysis. Despite the Court having not yet decided whether a transplant was in William’s best interests, William’s mother made an application to lift the reporting order so the identities of those involved could be published in an effort to find a donor, should a transplant be later allowed.

In considering the application the Court focused on William’s best interests and weighed up the harm any media coverage may cause. William was aware that if the order was lifted it did not mean he would be allowed a transplant even if a donor came forward. This created the potential to cause false hope which could have caused significant psychological harm, again of which William was aware. The Court also had to weigh up the effect on the parties’ human rights (as set out in the Human Rights Act 1998). There was a conflict between William’s mother’s right to freedom of expression and William’s right to respect for his private and family life.

The Court of Protection held that in this case, the reporting restrictions order should be lifted as it was not only in William’s best interests to provide him with an opportunity to find a donor, but also as a matter of public interest – the Court of Protection recognising that its role to protect vulnerable individuals should not override the need for those individuals to have access to potentially life-saving medical treatment.

The BBC, as an interested party and being in a position to bring the story to the media in search of a kidney donor, made submissions to the Court that the reporting of the judgment was in the public interest. The Court of Protection, on review of the BBC’s submissions, noted on lifting the reporting restriction order that the public shall have the option to scrutinise the Court’s judgment in such cases. The lifting of the transparency order did not however relate to the remainder of the case and it was accepted the hearing on deciding whether or not William would receive a transplant and would remain private. This is an example of the Court acting proportionately to ensure that any public reporting of the proceedings is limited to what is strictly necessary.

Comment

This case demonstrates that despite the very private nature of Court of Protection proceedings, the Court can adjust its own powers and approach if it is deemed to be in the best interests of a protected party. In this particular case, the lifting of reporting restrictions was deemed to be helpful to the protected party and so the Court made the decision primarily on this basis. The Court can and will consider also whether something is in the wider public interest and this has sometimes been a determining factor in similar cases.