Search results for ‘Publisher:"cardiff university"’ Sort:
Results 1 - 2 of 2
Use of the Court of Protection's welfare jurisdiction by supervisory bodies in England and Wales
- Authors:
- SERIES Lucy, et al
- Publisher:
- Cardiff University
- Publication year:
- 2015
- Pagination:
- 27
- Place of publication:
- Cardiff
This report presents information from local authorities about their involvement in Court of Protection (CoP) welfare cases during 2013-14, the nature of the cases, how long these cases lasted for and how much they cost local authorities. A total of 82 per cent of public authorities responded to a freedom of information request and provided information about their involvement in welfare cases for analysis. The results found: variations in the number cases between individual local authorities that could not be explained by population size alone; there were much lower rates of use of the CoP's welfare jurisdiction in Wales than in England; half of all completed cases reported lasted nine months or longer; and half of all ongoing cases lasted twelve months or longer; and that half of all cases reported in the study were estimated to have cost local authorities £8,881 or more, with the greatest cost for local authorities being the time of in-house legal staff. The report highlights the need to investigate the reasons for the high cost and lengthy duration of CoP proceedings (Edited publisher abstract)
The participation of P in welfare cases in the Court of Protection
- Authors:
- SERIES Lucy, FENNELL Phil, DOUGHTY Julie
- Publisher:
- Cardiff University
- Publication year:
- 2017
- Pagination:
- 190
- Place of publication:
- Cardiff
This report considers how effectively the person who is alleged to lack mental capacity can participate in Court of Protection (CoP) proceedings which are about their health, welfare or deprivation of liberty. It considers in depth what a ‘human rights model of participation’ looks like and identifies three essential principles of a human rights-based approach to participation: the dignity principle, the evidential principle, and the adversarial principle. Key features to promote participation in the Court of Protection are then assessed against this model. These cover: access to a court; evidence and information before the Court; representation in proceedings; attending court; special measures and reasonable adjustments, such as funding for intermediaries to assist with putting questions during a hearing; and training of judges and representatives. It then looks at the same issues for the Mental Health Tribunals in England and Wales, to see whether this offers a better approach. It finds that several aspects of the CoP model for participation are not working because the system was established on a model of ‘low participation’ that is no longer compatible with developments in international human rights law under the European Convention on Human Rights and the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. To increase levels of participation, it concludes that there needs to be revisions to the rules and practice directions, increased resources for various elements of participation, and by looking at when and how cases should come to the CoP. The report makes 20 recommendations for improvements. (Edited publisher abstract)