View source for Re KT (2018) EWCOP 1

{{Case
|Date=2018/01/15
|NCN=[2018] EWCOP 1
|ICLR=[2018] WLR(D) 24
|Other citations=[2018] 4 WLR 21, [2018] COPLR 185
|Court=Court of Protection
|Judges=Charles
|Parties=KT, Dr, KH, DC
|Sentence=Role of COP Visitor in DOL cases
|Summary="These are four test cases that were stayed in accordance with my decision in [[Re JM (2016) EWCOP 15]]. ... There are now over 300 such cases in which the MoJ and DoH (alone or together with the relevant applicant local authority or other public body) have not been able to identify a professional who the COP could appoint to act as P's Rule 3A representative. ... The first issue raised in these test cases is whether a welfare order approving a care plan advanced as being uncontroversial and which authorises any DOL caused by its implementation will have been made by a procedure that satisfies the minimum procedural requirements of Article 5 and common law fairness if P's participation in the proceedings is through the appointment of a general visitor to prepare a report under s. 49 of the MCA and that report supports the making of that welfare order. If the answer to that question is in the affirmative, the following issues arise, namely: (i) What approach should be taken by the COP to choosing this option or other options and in particular the appointment of a professional Rule 3A representative? (ii) What directions should be given to a visitor on what he should do and report on? (iii) Should the Crown be or remain as a Respondent? ... I have therefore concluded ... that periodic reviews by the COP with the benefit of information provided by a visitor meets the procedural requirements."
|Subject=Deprivation of liberty
|News=No
|RSS pubdate=2019/3/23 11:14:47 AM
}}