Court of Protection rules on media access need to be overhauled to improve transparency and prevent miscarriage of justice, a new study claims.
Strict rules on media access apply to the court, which makes decisions about the care of people who lack mental capacity, whether through dementia or learning disabilities. Journalists must make costly applications to attend hearings.
However, a Cardiff University School of Law study, Transparency in the Court of Protection: Report on a Roundtable, funded by the Nuffield Foundation, argues that these rules need to change to allow for routine media access to important hearings—mirroring the practice applied in the Family Court system.
The research highlights cases such as that of Stephen Neary, whose unlawful deprivation of his liberty by the London Borough of Hillingdon led to public outcry after his father turned to the media with his public fight to bring his son home.
Dr Lucy Series, of Cardiff University’s School of Law, who co-authored the study, says: “The current rules are not fit-for-purpose.
“All participants in the research expressed support for the principle of ‘open justice’. Media reporting on Court of Protection cases, and the publication of judgments, were seen as important to enhance public understanding of the Court of Protection’s work, to protect against miscarriages of justice and to promote public confidence in the court. Open and accessible judgments were also said to be important for access to justice for litigants in person who might not have access to law reports or legal advice.”
