From Mental Health Law Online
(1) The arguments in favour of publication of the local authority's name (openness and accountability) were truly compelling: they amounted to a "good reason" and the balancing exercise came down in favour of publication. It would be a different matter if there was any significant risk that the family might be identified, but Manchester is a large city. (2) It would inappropriate and unfair to name the social workers, because responsibility for what went wrong rested at a much higher level, including the failure to provide any or any adequate training on the introduction of the DOLS. (3) Neither the company running the establishment nor its manager would be identified: (a) they were not represented when the criticisms were made or identification was discussed; (b) it had not been necessary to make findings on the criticisms, the appropriate course being for the OS to raise the issue with the CQC which has some responsibility for such establishments; and (c) crucially, it would lead to a significant risk of the family being identified. (4) In an unreported judgment in May it was ordered that E should return to F's care immediately, and residence and family contact there had been successful. (5) A further judgment will be delivered dealing with: (a) arrangements as to E's future care; (b) whether to appoint G and F as deputies; and (c) whether the OS should be replaced as E's Litigation Friend. (6) A further hearing will deal with: (a) whether the Court of Protection can award damages for human rights breaches; if so, whether to do so; if not, whether to leave or transfer that claim to another jurisdiction; and (b) whether to make a contact order against MCC and if so on that terms.
- G v E (2010) EWHC 3385 (Fam) - costs
Related legislation etc
- Court of Protection Rules 2007, r90-93
- PD13A - Hearings (including reporting restrictions)