Non-Adherence to Anglo-Saxon Jurisprudence and the Adversarial System

The English legal tradition is rooted in the adversarial system, where parties control litigation, present evidence, and contest each other before an impartial judge. The Court of Protection (CoP), however, operates in an inquisitorial manner—contrary to that tradition. As one commentary notes:

“The processes of the Court of Protection are essentially inquisitorial rather than adversarial. In other words, the ambit of the litigation is determined, not by the parties, but by the court… to assess whether an adult is lacking capacity and, if so, make best-interest decisions.”

This divergence raises concerns about fairness. Parties—especially family members—lack control over scope and direction, and cannot fully contest claims or evidence. Such a departure from adversarial norms undermines the CoP’s legitimacy in resolving contested legal issues.

Inequality of Arms: Health Trusts and Local Authorities vs. Families

Equality of arms means all litigants must have comparable resources, representation, and ability to present their case. But in the CoP:

Families often face public bodies like local authorities or NHS trusts with vastly greater resources.

Legal aid limitations exacerbate this imbalance.

A notable case highlighting systemic issues was when Mr Justice Charles adjourned four CoP cases to urge the government to fund legal representation for vulnerable parties—citing that without it, the Court would breach Article 5 ECHR (liberty rights) and common law principles. He labelled this situation a by-product of austerity and resource failure.

The AJ v A Local Authority (2015) case also illustrates concerns: an 88-year-old with dementia (AJ) had to rely on a niece and social workers to represent her interests amid DOLS procedures, raising questions about her capacity to challenge her deprivation of liberty.

Further, in Re JM (2016), the Court faced a “Catch-22”: no pool of willing representatives (rule 3A) existed, and local or central government offered no help. The Court stayed proceedings and joined the Centre (MOJ and Dept of Health) to compel solutions. These examples show how families and P often face institutional disadvantages within the Court.

Admission of Unverified and Hearsay Evidence

Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence typically prohibits hearsay unless expressly allowed, with heavy safeguards. Yet the CoP admits hearsay more readily. In London Borough of Enfield v SA &

Ors (2010), Macfarlane J confirmed that hearsay is admissible, particularly from those incompetent to testify but cautioned that weight must be assessed case by case.

While the judgment is careful, mere admissibility of unverified hearsay risks cases being decided on untested statements, reducing reliability. In traditional adversarial courts, hearsay without cross-examination would typically be excluded or heavily scrutinized.

Arbitrary Decision-Making and Excluding Pertinent Evidence

A key principle of fair trials is full disclosure and consideration of all relevant evidence. In London Borough of Enfield, Macfarlane J emphasized the importance of disclosure, especially in “Achieving Best Evidence” interviews—but lamented that these were not disclosed in prior proceedings.

Furthermore, CoP practice acknowledges the need for open justice and full participation:

Guidance on closed hearings/materials stresses that fairness and Article 6 ECHR generally require parties to see adverse material and respond to it.

Criticism of secret hearings notes that many intimate decisions (e.g., sexual autonomy) are made in the CoP—but in secrecy—stifling transparency and public oversight.

In effect, relevant evidence can be excluded (through non-disclosure or closed proceedings), and material may be considered in private—undermining the adversarial principle that parties respond to all contested points.

Over-Reliance on Lower-Ranking Judges in Complex Proceedings

The CoP frequently deals with highly complex factual and legal questions (e.g., capacity, deprivation of liberty, medical ethics). Yet many decisions fall to deputy judges or similarly lower-ranking judiciary whose expertise may not match the complexity:

There is no clear hierarchy or consistent assignment of senior judges to such weighty cases.

For example, in Barnet, Enfield and Haringey Mental Health NHS Trust v Mr K (2023), high-stakes decisions involving life-altering treatment were made swiftly—amid junior doctors’ strikes—and required expert legal judgment.

The complexity and gravity of such cases arguably demand more senior judicial oversight than is routinely provided in the CoP.

Concrete Case Illustrations

· London Borough of Enfield v SA & Ors (2010) Hearsay admissible, but disclosure lacking and weight questionable. Mondaq

· Re JM (2016) Procedural fairness crippled by lack of representative pool; Court had to adjourn and involve central government. Mental Health Law Online

· AJ v A Local Authority (2015) DOLS procedure and family representation issues illustrate inequality. Court of Protection Hub

· Barnet Enfield & Haringey NHS Trust v Mr K (2023) Highly complex medical/factual situation handled under pressure by possibly less experienced judges. Mental Capacity Law and Policy

· Practice guidance on closed hearings (2022) Emphasizes fairness but also highlights how CoP allows closed material, conflicting with open justice. Courts and Tribunals Judiciaryopenjusticecourtofprotection.org

· 2016 judges’ plea. Mr Justice Charles argued legal aid is essential and CoP’s current setup risks ECHR breaches. The Guardian

Conclusion: The Court of Protection Is Not a Suitable Forum

In sum:

1. It rejects adversarial norms fundamental to common law tradition.

2. It institutionalises inequality, disadvantaging families and unrepresented parties.

3. It permits untested and hearsay evidence, compromising evidential reliability.

4. It permits expert evidence from professionals aligned with institutional positions who are not independent.

5. It restricts participation and disclosure, enabling arbitrary or opaque decision-making.

6. It handles highly complex, high-stakes cases with insufficient judicial seniority, risking errors.

7. These issues have materialised in real cases, undermining fairness and legitimacy.

While the CoP was created to protect those lacking capacity, these structural flaws suggest it fails to meet the standards of a fair, just, and transparent legal forum. Reform—or alternative mechanisms aligned with adversarial fairness—should be considered.

Structural and Procedural Reforms

Restoring Adversarial Balance

Shift the CoP closer to the adversarial model by allowing parties, not the court, to set the scope of litigation.

Require full disclosure of evidence, with narrow exceptions (e.g., genuine national security or safety).

Tighten the rules on hearsay—permitting it only under strict necessity and subject to cross-examination.

Guaranteeing Equality of Arms

Expand legal aid so that families and vulnerable parties are represented on equal terms with public authorities.

Introduce a publicly funded independent advocacy service to support families unable to afford legal counsel.

Require NHS Trusts and local authorities to provide neutral expert witnesses, not only those aligned with their institutional position.

Judicial Oversight and Expertise

Require that all cases involving serious medical treatment, deprivation of liberty, or end-of-life decisions be heard by senior High Court judges, not deputies or district judges.

Create a specialist judicial panel with training in medical ethics, human rights, and capacity law.

Transparency and Open Justice

Presume that hearings should be open to the public (with anonymisation for patient privacy).

Prohibit closed material unless the parties and their representatives can access it.

Establish independent reporting panels to review systemic issues raised in CoP judgments.

Alternative Institutional Models

Specialist Tribunal Model

Replace the CoP with a Capacity and Autonomy Tribunal, akin to the Mental Health Tribunal.

Panels would include:

A judge (law)

A medical practitioner (medicine/psychiatry)

A lay member with social care or lived-experience expertise

This would democratise decision-making and bring expertise directly into the adjudication process.

Mediation and Arbitration Framework

Require mandatory mediation before CoP litigation, especially in family or local authority disputes.

Use independent medical ethics arbitration panels for cases involving treatment withdrawal, instead of a legalistic courtroom battle.

Regional Community Panels

For less complex welfare and residence cases, establish regional community capacity panels, chaired by retired judges or senior practitioners, to make quicker, less formal decisions with community involvement.

This would reduce pressure on the CoP and give decisions more local legitimacy.

Integration with Human Rights Bodies

Transfer certain functions (e.g., deprivation of liberty appeals) to an independent human rights tribunal with binding powers.

Ensure all decisions explicitly comply with Article 5 (liberty) and Article 8 (family/private life) of the ECHR.

Safeguards for Vulnerable Adults

Introduce mandatory independent representation (a “capacity defender”) for every person lacking capacity, similar to the Official Solicitor but with regional offices and wider coverage.

Create a special fund to finance expert evidence for families, ensuring they can challenge medical or social care opinions.

Legislate for strict evidential standards, requiring corroboration where allegations are based on hearsay.

Comparative Lessons

Canada (Consent and Capacity Board): Uses panels of judges, doctors, and lay members to resolve disputes quickly, often within days.

Scotland (Adults with Incapacity Act): Involves the Sheriff Court, providing more robust judicial oversight and community involvement.

New Zealand (Family Court model): Prioritises less adversarial but still evidence-based approaches, with strong safeguards for participation.

Summary: The Court of Protection could be reformed by strengthening adversarial safeguards, improving representation, ensuring senior judicial oversight, and opening up its processes. Alternatively, replacing it with a tribunal-style body or hybrid community/ethics panel system may offer a more transparent, balanced, and expert-driven forum.

Comparative Policy Proposal — Replacing the Court of Protection with a Capacity & Autonomy Tribunal

Executive summary

The current Court of Protection (CoP) was created to protect adults who lack capacity. However, recurring concerns about adversarial imbalance, reliance on hearsay, uneven judicial expertise, secrecy, and resource inequalities suggest the need for structural reform. This proposal sets out a practical, comparative blueprint to replace the CoP with a specialist Capacity & Autonomy Tribunal (CAT), a hybrid tribunal/bench model that combines legal rigour, multi-disciplinary expertise, adversarial safeguards, and stronger procedural protections for vulnerable parties.

Key features:

· Specialist tribunal panels (judge + medical + lay member with lived-experience/social-care knowledge).

· Stronger adversarial safeguards, mandatory independent representation for P where necessary, and tighter hearsay rules.

· Transparent hearings by default with narrow, reviewed exceptions for closed material.

· Regionalised structure with central oversight and specialist appellate review by a High Court division.

Objectives & principles

The CAT should be designed to achieve:

1. Fairness & equality of arms — ensure parties (family/P) are not disadvantaged versus public bodies.

2. Legal and clinical expertise — decisions informed by both high-quality legal reasoning and relevant clinical/ethical input.

3. Adversarial safeguards — allow parties to test evidence, cross-examine witnesses, and control litigation scope within appropriate rules.

4. Transparency & open justice — default public access with strong anonymisation and narrowly-defined closed material procedures.

5. Speed, proportionate process, and accessibility — quicker resolution for welfare/residence matters while preserving rigorous procedure for life-and-liberty disputes.

6. Human rights compliance — explicit integration of ECHR Articles 5 & 8 in procedure and reasoning.

Comparative models: lessons learned

Canada (Consent and Capacity Board / Province-level variations)

Panel-based decisions with non-legal experts; fast timetabling for urgent liberty matters. Lesson: multidisciplinary panels speed practical decisions but must be balanced with legal safeguards.

Scotland (Adults with Incapacity mechanisms; Sheriff Court involvement)

More robust judicial oversight with court routes for serious deprivation of liberty; community input. Lesson: stronger judicial hierarchy improves protection of fundamental rights.

New Zealand (Family Court / welfare-led approaches)

Focus on less adversarial process with mediation and family participation. Lesson: mandatory dispute-resolution options reduce litigation and preserve relationships.

Proposed institutional design

Name and mandate

Capacity & Autonomy Tribunal (CAT) A statutory body replacing the Court of Protection for all matters concerning capacity, best interests, deprivation of liberty (civil), and specified personal welfare/health disputes. Matters involving crimes, wills, or property probate remain outside scope (or handled in parallel routes).

Structure

· National Leadership: President of the CAT (High Court judge or equivalent senior judiciary) with a national registry, rules committee, and quality assurance unit.

· Regional Tribunals: Regions (e.g., 8–12) with full-time tribunal judges and administrative staff.

· Panels:

o Standard Panel (for routine welfare/residence disputes): Tribunal judge (chair) + Lay member (social care / lived experience).

o Complex/Serious Panel (for deprivation of liberty, life-sustaining treatment, forced treatment): Tribunal judge (must be a senior judge, e.g., High Court or designated senior tribunal judge) + medical expert (psychiatrist/physician) + lay member with ethics/social care background.

· Emergency fast-track stream: Immediate single-judge hearings for urgent liberty cases, followed by full panel review within a fixed short period (e.g., 7 days).

Jurisdiction

· Determination of capacity for specific decisions.

· Best-interest determinations (residence, care, treatment).

· Authorisation and review of deprivation of liberty arrangements (civil).

· Appointment, supervision, and challenge of deputies/guardians.

· Appeals and judicial review routes (see below).

Procedural rules: balancing inquisitorial utility with adversarial protections

Scope-setting & case management

· Parties propose scope; the tribunal may refine scope for proportionality but cannot expand issues without party notice.

· Mandatory early directions hearing in all cases to set:

o Issues list

o Witness list and timing

o Disclosure orders

o Whether mediation is required

Evidence and hearsay

· Default rule: oral evidence under oath + cross-examination where oral evidence is available.

· Hearsay admissible only where:

o the witness is genuinely unable to attend (e.g., lacks capacity, is deceased), and

o corroboration is available or the tribunal orders viva voce evidence by an alternative witness or expert.

· Any hearsay admitted must be identified on the issues list; the admitting judge must give reasons and direct proportionate testing (e.g., short oral evidence, expert verification).

Disclosure and document handling

· Automatic disclosure obligations on public bodies (NHS trusts/local authorities), with sanctions for non-compliance (cost orders, adverse inferences).

· Parties must disclose expert reports to each other within fixed timeline; “late” expert evidence requires court permission.

Closed material / privacy

· Default: open hearings with anonymisation orders where appropriate.

· Closed material regime only where stringent tests are met (necessity & proportionality) and where both parties’ legal representatives — including the independent representative for P — can see the material (special advocates only where unavoidable).

· Annual external review of closed orders by the national oversight panel.

Representation & legal aid

· Mandatory independent representation for P in all deprivation of liberty, serious medical treatment, or contested capacity cases (a “Capacity Advocate/Defender”), funded by central legal aid or a dedicated statutory fund.

· Families are eligible for legal aid on means and merits; if family are litigants-in-person, the Tribunal must identify and appoint independent legal assistance for P where conflicts exist.

· Right to expert evidence funded by the tribunal in cases where the party cannot afford it and the evidence is material.

Case types and timetables

· Urgent liberty cases: hearing within 48 hours; full panel review within 7 days.

· Serious medical treatment / end-of-life: pre-hearing ethical review and full panel within 21–28 days.

· Routine welfare/residence: streamlined timetables (e.g., 6–12 weeks) with mediation first.

Judicial oversight, appeals and review

· First-tier decisions by CAT panels; appeal on points of law or significant procedural unfairness to a dedicated Capacity & Autonomy Appeal Chamber of the High Court (or a specialist division), with expedited timetabling for liberty matters.

· Judicial review remains available for errors of jurisdiction, but appeal routes should be designed to reduce unnecessary JR litigation.

· Oversight by President of the CAT with annual reporting to Parliament on systemic issues, closed hearings, resource shortfalls, and ECHR compliance.

Safeguards to protect P and human rights

· Capacity Defender role — independent and statutory with duty to represent P’s wishes and rights, challenge evidence, and instruct experts.

· Best-interests checklist codified and integrated with ECHR obligations (Articles 5 & 8) — tribunal must provide explicit proportionality reasoning when liberty or private/family life is impacted.

· Independent monitor for long-term detention/authorisations: periodic reviews (3 months, then every 6 months).

· Data protection & anonymisation safeguards in public reports and judgments.

Funding, resourcing & equality of arms

· Central funding ring-fenced for:

o CAT registry operations,

o Capacity Defenders and public legal aid for P/families,

o Tribunal-appointed expert witnesses.

· Financial parity rules: public bodies must disclose costs and cannot subsidise litigation advantage through undisclosed expert reserves.

· Efficiency measures: digital filing, remote hearings where suitable, national expert panel to reduce duplicated expert costs.

Transitional arrangements (how to move from CoP to CAT)

1. Primary legislation to create CAT and set jurisdiction (example statutory timetable: Royal Assent + 12 months to stand up).

2. Shadow phase (6–12 months):

o Appoint President and senior panel members,

o Recruit regional registries,

o Pilot CAT procedures on a subset of cases (e.g., welfare/residence matters).

3. Full roll-out (months 12–24): transfer cases, retire CoP appointments, national training program for judges and Capacity Defenders.

4. Legacy cases: transitional rules to finish sensitive ongoing litigation or transfer with consent.

Legislative and regulatory changes required (high level)

· Repeal/replace core CoP enabling provisions with CAT statute.

· Amendments to:

o Mental Capacity Act (to align definitions, representation rights, and procedural safeguards).

o Mental Health and health-care legislation where deprivation or treatment authorisations intersect.

o Legal Aid Act (to create ring-fenced funding for Capacity Defenders).

· Secondary legislation to set tribunal rules, panel composition, and closed material procedure.

Accountability, quality assurance & oversight

· National Rules Committee (including judicial, clinical, and civil society membership) to keep rules under review.

· Independent Inspection & Audit Unit to publish annual metrics: timeliness, appeals rate, use of closed hearings, proportion of litigants-in-person, and user satisfaction.

· Parliamentary reporting with annual statement on ECHR compliance.

Costs, benefits & impact assessment (summary)

Costs

· Initial set-up: recruitment, training, IT and property.

· Ongoing: Capacity Defender network, tribunal registry running costs, expert panels.

Benefits

· Greater procedural fairness and equality of arms.

· More consistent, expert-informed decisions reducing appeals and judicial review costs long-term.

· Increased transparency and public confidence.

· Faster resolution for routine cases and better protection of liberty in urgent cases.

Net effect: Upfront public investment likely offset over time by reductions in costly litigation, improved outcomes, and fewer successful appeals/JR claims against the state.

Implementation roadmap — suggested timetable

1. Months 0–6: Policy approvals, draft legislation, stakeholder consultation (including NHS, local authorities, patient advocacy groups, legal profession, judiciary).

2. Months 6–12: Parliamentary passage; set up transitional implementation board; begin recruitment of President and senior staff.

3. Months 12–18: Shadow operations and pilots for rules and Capacity Defender scheme.

4. Months 18–24: Full activation and transfer of cases to CAT.

5. Year 3 onward: Monitoring, rule refinement, public reporting, and formal review after 3 years.

Measurable success criteria (KPIs)

· Time to first hearing (urgent liberty cases: ≤48 hrs; serious medical: ≤28 days).

· Proportion of P represented by Capacity Defender (target 100% where deprivation of liberty or serious treatment at issue).

· Appeal/JR rate reduced year-on-year (target: 20% reduction in 3 years).

· Use of closed hearings reduced and subject to independent review.

· Stakeholder satisfaction (families, professionals, P) measured annually.

Risks and mitigation

· Risk: Initial costs and recruitment difficulties. Mitigation: Phased roll-out; reuse of existing CoP staff; central funding guarantee.

· Risk: Resistance from existing institutions (courts, local authorities). Mitigation: Stakeholder engagement, transitional protocols, shared training.

· Risk: Potential for procedural complexity delaying cases. Mitigation: Proportio

Recommended next steps (policy actions)

1. Convene a cross-departmental working group (Ministry of Justice, Department of Health & Social Care, NHS England) and an independent expert panel (judicial, clinical, civil society).

2. Commission a full costed business case and impact assessment.

3. Draft primary legislation and open a public consultation with targeted focus groups (families, mental capacity NGOs, and disability rights organisations).

4. Pilot the Capacity Defender model and the complex panel approach in two regions within 12 months.

Appendix — Suggested statutory outline clauses (short form)

1. Establishment — “There shall be a Capacity & Autonomy Tribunal (the CAT). The CAT has jurisdiction over matters under the Mental Capacity Act relating to capacity determinations, best-interest orders, deprivation of liberty authorisations, and deputy/guardian appointments…”

2. Panel composition — “The CAT shall hear matters in panels constituted as prescribed: standard and complex panels as set by regulations; complex panels require a legally qualified chair designated by the President.”

3. Representation — “Where the person lacks capacity and the matter involves deprivation of liberty or life-sustaining treatment, the Tribunal shall appoint a Capacity Defender at public expense.”

4. Open justice — “Hearings are presumptively open. Closed material only on strict necessity test and upon reasons published to the extent consistent with privacy.”

5. Appeals — “Appeal to the Appeal Chamber on points of law or significant procedural unfairness. Emergency appeal timetabling for liberty matters.”

Closing note

This comparative proposal aims to preserve the fundamental protective purposes of the existing regime while repairing its defects: restoring adversarial safeguards, guaranteeing equality of arms, ensuring technical and ethical expertise on decision-making panels, and making the system more transparent and rights-compliant. The Capacity & Autonomy Tribunal is a pragmatic hybrid model — tribunal-style speed and expertise combined with judicial safeguards — designed to offer better outcomes for vulnerable adults, families, and public bodies alike.

Tonight I received a call from Elizabeth. The call was as usual supervised by a healthcare assistant. Elizabeth told me that today a lady came to see her claiming to be a Paralegal together with her Advocate from Voiceability. Elizabeth recognised her from Ash Villa. What was discussed was supported living yet they know full well that Elizabeth wants to come home.

Nothing surprises me but this is so very underhand. None of us in the family have been notified and only get to hear things from Elizabeth herself who is sharing information which is most probably the reason why they put staff there instructed to write notes. This has all been done behind our backs. No regard whatsoever has been given to Elizabeth who clearly has capacity or her family and I am sure you will all agree from reading her messages below she has capacity. She told me that she was not happy about the idea of supported living which has been tried before and was a disaster. The whole reason I moved was to provide a nice living environment away from a stressful city where people are rushing around. Here below I describe some of the disastrous places where Elizabeth has been sent by the former area of Enfield, none provided the right support in the community.

s.117(6) Mental Health Act 1983 as amended by s.75 Care Act 2014.

Accommodation can only be provided where it meets a need related to the person’s mental ill health, and reduces the risk of the person’s condition deteriorating.

The person has the right to express a preference for particular accommodation. 

Social services must meet this preference provided it is: 

·       of the same type that social services has decided to arrange

·       suitable for the adult’s needs

·       available

·       affordable, using a ‘top-up’ if necessary

MotiVilla – dreadfully abused therein – all possessions of value missing.  14 year old drug dealer on site.

Phoenix House Northampton no food at the weekend yet rated good by CQC

Premier Inn Enfield Island Village –  moved from room to room – had to keep paying

Mays Cottage – Priory Craegmoor group –  broken lock to door of room- told to sleep on settee all night.  Resident drug dealer, resident bringing prostitutes in.  No supervision or care overnight.  Faced eviction because of another resident staying over from a related scheme.

Reservoir House  –  total breach of H&S –  five fumigations failed to stop bed bug problem which spread to all other residents.  Had to sleep on floor with damp sheets because of constant washing of clothes to try to stop the problem which persisted.

Solway Road–  temporary scheme without even a proper kitchen or lounge or garden to sit out in

Purcell House – the very best accommodation and independent council flat on 3rd floor that Elizabeth was assessed for and was assessed as being able to manage however Enfield provided not a scrap of care in the community and left to go downhill.

Since moving to Lincolnshire nothing but acute wards for nearly 3 years now. Family have provided a nice bungalow but a team of around 30 strangers are against her coming home.

“SHE IS ON A DIFFERENT KIND OF SECTION”

The above was the response received when I questioned why Elizabeth was being treated so very differently to others at Ash Villa. The other response I received was in relation to her missing meals “If she chooses to miss meals it is up to her” however this is neglect on the part of LPFT especially when at the time, she was deemed to have no capacity. Elizabeth was held a virtual prisoner for so long without leave, phone taken away and 2-1 supervised visits for just half an hour sometimes at Ash Villa, just as she has been held at Castle Ward under Dr Waqqas Khokhar, who is the Responsible Clinician. There have been times when Elizabeth has said she feels like giving up and no longer wishes to live. All calls have been supervised, all visits supervised and this is the current position. My daughter’s treatment has been appalling. Now suddenly for reasons I cannot say they are keen to move Elizabeth and all this is going on behind our backs right now. Elizabeth wants everyone to know she does not wish to go into supported living and wants to come home. She has capacity to decide and I am now a BI assessor myself. No doubt they would want to put on DoLs or CTO in order to detain her in all for profit scheme owned by business people where it is unlikely they will have the expertise to cope with her seizures and provide the necessary care. Elizabeth has made it clear she does not wish to be sent away from her family and where we live overlooking beach and sea is the right environment, not a city or out of area placement. The way these “professionals” have gone about things is both under-hand in their dealings to think they can get away with saying “no capacity” this will backfire on all of them. Totally dishonesty to set about trying to take away a vulnerable person’s autonomy for their own convenience.

Each and every member of staff there has a Code of Conduct and so do the doctors but noone is acting accordingly and reliant on each other to back each other in the case where there may be challenges or things go wrong. The Bolam Principle thankfully is no longer accepted in law from what I can understand. Each and every one of these professionals are individually responsible for their actions. The doctor had apparently asked a nurse to film Elizabeth having a seizure for the purpose of passing this on to the Neurologist. Elizabeth did not agree to this and then I got a call from the Clinical Lead asking me if they can pass this on to the Neurologist so I said No. I could not believe the way I was asked this question as though Elizabeth was a vegetable when she has capacity and clearly said no. What is needed is for Elizabeth to go to Sheffield as they do not even have the correct scanners in Lincolnshire. A brain scan should be under under a Tesla 3. Elizabeth has agreed to go to Sheffield and have extensive tests done but the Neurologist is afraid that equipment may be broken which Elizabeth promised not to do. I am waiting to book my hotel for Sheffield and the only information I am getting is from my own daughter. There is a wall of silence from everyone else. She needs to go there for a few days to have extensive tests done properly with the correct equipment and not filmed by the MH team as how can this provide any accurate picture as to the reason for the seizures which incidentally I have been partially blamed for. Again Elizabeth who is said to have “no capacity” relayed to me the date of this appointment is on 30 July 2024 and I have asked her for the time of this appointment.

The seizures started whilst at Ash Villa. There was an accident where according to Elizabeth she lost her balance in the seclusion room and hit her head hard on the floor. I was concerned for my daughter’s wellbeing so I booked a private MRI scan in a small window of opportunity. The results were not normal and because of this dispute finally a scan and referral to a Neurologist has been allowed and I have checked that the MRI scan under Tesla 3 has been booked through Sheffield but what is needed and what Lincolnshire Partnership Trust is not wanting to do is refer her for a few days stay on the Neurological ward for proper observations instead taking it upon themselves to do the filming which is gross breach of medical ethics.

THESE ARE MY DAUGHTER’S WISHES NONE OF THEM WISH TO LISTEN TO:

FRIDAY 10th NOVEMBER 2023

“I want to eventually come home to live with my Mum in the Annex through the Court of Protection.

I miss my Mum greatly and want to go home to her.”

Rachel – HCA Castle Ward PHU, Lincoln County Hospital “Wish not allowed“.

28.09.2021                     19.21              –        I should not have been sectioned as I am a vulnerable person.  I have got the paperwork to appeal”

08.10.2021                     20.45                          –           “Can’t wait to come home”

22.10.2021                     21.34                          –           “I’m very unwell physically”

23.10.2021                                                         –           “I won’t get better”  

23.10.2021                     11.46              –                       “The consultant was very subtle when talking but vicious   –  He decided to put me on depot injections. 

                                                                                       I am hurting in my arms”.

27.10.2021                     23.51              –                       “I am suffering from an unknown illness which is making me tired”

30.10.2021                     09.28              –                       Shared S3 Detention papers under Dr Ismail on 30.10.2021 at 09.28”

27.11.2021                     16.21              –                       “I’m in trouble with this autism.  Try not to worr at this stage”

28.11.2021                     12.46                          –           “I’m now left mentally scarred by dreadful treatment.  I’m  not able to cope any more”

28.11.2021                     14.29              –                       “I can hardly walk coz i’m frightened of the floor.  Can you send me my walking sticks” 

28.11.2021                     18.18                          –           “I want to die”

30.11.2021                     18.53              –                       “I’m in the wars with this autism”

04.12.2021                     17.43              –                       “I don’t care any more these staff are abusive to me”.

05.12.2021                     12.26              –                       “They have been very unfair to me and do not understand where I’m coming from”

06.12.2021                     19.15              –                       “Caged van is not suitable for a patient like me.”

06.12.2021                     20.56                          –           “It’s really unnecessary to have held me for such a long time.”

06.12.2021                      22.54                         –           “so they believe I’m German”

07.12.2021                     15.51                          –           “I’m only able to talk to a female doctor”

07.12.2021                                                         –           “Look Mum they shd not be suggesting things me wait until I’ve had a diagnosis for autism.”

15.12.2021                                                         –           “Hi Mum I’m allowed home in few days”.

21.12.2021                     20.40              –                       “My medication is causing bad side effects shaking in hands.”

22.12.2021                                                         –           “they really think the drugs work”  “its weird I swear I have seen Dr Shapasandy before once on a video call.

22.12.2021                     12.25              –                       “Last night I was very ill with the drugs, they are toxic.  I need a toxicology test.

27.12.2021                     21.43                          –           refers to pain in her back with the injection.

28.12.2021                                                         –           “You’ve got to get me outta here.  One nurse that I know said don’t struggle on your own like I need any help from these people.”

28.12.2021                     15.08                          –           “Look this is no joke I’ve got to decide tomorrow what to do whether I want to go to a specialist autism home”

28.12.2021                                                         –           “Georgi was saying that they are here to help but look what a state I’m in for trusting these sick people.   Can you phone me pl.”

04.01.2022                     11.47                          –           “Hello the plan is for me to be discharged 1^st week Feb to be discharged to my place of choice.”

06.01.22                          10.24              –                       “Hi Mum isn’t there a way I could stay in the chalet while your busy building”

07.01.22                                                              –           “hello I’m in a lot of trouble these are very nasty people”

07.01.22                                                              –           “Because they are not letting me go at the moment.  There is a problem.  I should not have been detained.”

07.01.22                                                                          “Mum you need to listen and listen well my health is declining.  I am becoming a vegetable because of the drugs.  The doctor was   trying to say they are doing this in my best interests but they are forgetting one thing I do not wish to be well.”

14.01.2022          14.01          –                                                     “I spoke with CQC” and attached a letter from Ringrose Law where it was tribunal on 30 December application had been withdrawn.  That was the day of my return to Ash Villa after a successful Xmas break.

15.01.2022                     20.46              –                       “I’m starving hungry and staff just left me”.

16.01.2022                     18.04                          –           “Im currently stuck in Ash Villa.  I don’t belong here.”

16.01.2022                                                         –           “Look my body has given up in here”

16.01.2022                                                         –           “I feel trapped here”

17.01.2022                     10.15              –                       “Hi Mum I’m shaking in agony my bones hurt”.

19.01.2022         02.36          –                                                             “ I have been trapped in my head for many  days now locked up in a mental asylum notice I use the word asylum because it best describes this place Ash Villa which I was told was a nice place yet to be desired!

20.01.2022                   17.38              –                       “I am also developmental autistic”

25.01.2022                   15.45              –                       “Hi you can come up tomorrow but be aware of covid bring the things.”

15.53               –           “There is only one case of covid”

02.02.2022                                        –                       “They are not treating patients well in this hospital”

06.02.2022   19.30                          –                       “Hi Mum I’m in some trouble down here with the section but we have got a tribunal coming up so hopefully that will                                                                                                  shed some light on this whole mess that’s been created by the mental health.”

07.02.2022                                        –                       “Its a long old stretch till the end of February but I hope ur ready to pick me up and we’ll go for a nice McDonalds meal e

                                                                                     But I’ll give you my coke so I don’t spill it”.

09.02.2022                                        –                       “Some idiot said to me I need to get a bit better before I come home.  Dont know what they are talking about.”

11.02.2022     01.04                          –                       (Day before my Birthday)  “I cant wait for the choc cake sounds del”

22.02.22                                                         –           “Mum the Drs have been asking to do an ecg on me trace of the heart and I had to go with the physical nurse to do one.”

27.02.2022    17.41                          –                       “Make sure you send that Ombudsman paper off to the right place”   (in relation to complaint on former area who refused to pass over                                                                                                the “care to be transferred)

28.02.2022                                        –                       “They are being nasty – I dare you to come to the hospital and demand my release”

02.03.2022    16.35                          –                       “Im not happy in here.”

07.03.2022                                                    –           “I refused the lying down MRI scan.

 10.03.2022                                        –                       “I would like to come to church”

15.03.2022        03.55                           –                 “The situation re MH gets weirder as the day goes past – they’re  ob lying and trying to hold me against my will here.  It’s

so very terrible”

22.03.2022  15.55                          –           “My hearing has been adjourned”  I did get changed to go in.   “Did they not let you in to your tribunal?”  “Yes”     The hearing has bn adjourned                                                                                               

            24.03.2022    19.52              –                       “There is a conflict of interest with the staff here at Ash Villa they seem to think they are doing the right thing.  I’ve never seen something so absurd”                                                                                  

28.03.2022                                        –           “Listen to me I am at breaking point.”

11.04.2022     10.19              –                       “The doctor has checked me.  I have muscle weakness in whole body”

21.04.2022    19.39                          –           “I have spoken to the doctor from tribunal.”

22.04.2022    11.18                          –           “I’m not going in the tribunal”  

27.04.2022    16.29              –                       “Im on haloperidol, lorazepam, Clopixol. The Dr says I’m subject to a manager’s hearing I bet they are in the wrong.”

08.05.2022                21.31              –           “I’m not doing too well.  Why do the MH keep trying to make me well.  They are stupid.”

            08.05.22                     21.39                          – I think things should go to the High Ct.

09.05.2022    01.15                          –           “I want ***** to help re the high court but how long is that gon take.

24.05.2022                09.54              –           “The Manager’s Hearing will take place at quarter to eleven.

24.05.2022                22.07              –           They have put me on 400mg

24.05.2022                10.25              –           “I’ve asked them to send you a link but when I asked they said you were not invited but I have told them I want you to attend”

            24.05.2022                10.48              –           I was not aware that G had done a capacity ass.

            24.05.2022                11.05              –          I’ve just bn in to the hearing looks OK so far but I’m waiting for the final decision at the end.

24.05.2022    17.49              –                       “They have increased my medication.”   “They have put me on 400mg weekly +10mg  “Nothing else discussed.

            25.05.2022    18.04                          –           “The Dr is being unreasonable”

            26.05.2022    00.22              –                       “I had a crow come to the window to eat birdseed this morning at 7.00.  Unfortunately I think the feeder was too high.

            14.06.2022                22.36              –           “Hi mum thanks for the gifts yes I wd love to see you on Wednesday.

17.10.2022                18.43              –           “Jand Jput me in seclusion last night and injected me twice”  (Text)

                                                                               “What did you do to be put in seclusion?”  (T (SB)   17.10

                                                                                      Nothing”  17.10.

28.07.2022                21.41              –           “Can you come with me to Yorkshire wildlife park”.      

            21.10.2022                20.30              –           “There is a meeting with everyone coming up next week.  I believe they will discuss whether or not I come bk home for Xmas.”

 20.59              – “without warning I was pushed against the wall to be given an injection one lower one higher.

14.10.2022         09.59          –                                                            “It would be nice to get a response from my text about getting groceries for Ash villa a delivery.”                      

24.10.2022         20.49                                                                     S kept coming to my room to administer medication in depot form on three occasions

21.02 25            21.01                                                                                                      

                               

            26.10.                         13.30              –                       Hi  I’ve just witnessed a patient refusing the depot and being set upon by staff”

28.10.22                     13.36              –                       “Hi my medication is current at 300mg then going up to 600mg.   Sophie told me.  She works in the medication room.”   

28.10.22                                                                                 –           Sophie advised hat there were concerns about the lumps on my body following the weekly depot injections.

28.10.22                     22.44              –                       “the lumps are from the depot I had last week”.   

                                                            22.45                          (referring to my meeting arranged for next Tuesday) “I hope that meeting is to discuss Xmas leave”

02.11.2022                 15.38        –                 “Hi mum just got bk from trip to Ruskington garden centre.  I had a lovely time. 

 I looked at some Christmas decorations.  Had a coffee and food in the coffee shop.  I bought you a little gift in the shop for Xmas.”

                                                            20.38                          –           “No donkeys at Ruskington I thoroughly enjoyed the coffee I really enjoyed the Indian meal and I shared it.                                                                   With three friends”

03.11.2022                 16.36              –                       “Hi so I have bn granted leave to go out with you in the grounds by ourselves”.

03.11.2022                 22.46              –                       “it looks like I will hear something about Xmas leave tomorrow as I have ward round.  Thanks for responding quickly I 

                                                                                     will look forward to hearing your new response to my newest message ie “it looks like i will hear”.

            04.11.2022                14.02              –                       “I have had ward round.  An advocate was present via videolink”

05.11.2022                 02.29             –                       “They said I can come home but I don’t know when.  Enough is enough so ask next time because u wanna do a Xmas shop”

18.29          –                                        “cant wait to come home.  Do you wanna go to Lidle or somewhere to do some Xmas shopping.  Make sure you ask for this coz I might be all out earlier.    Can I see you on Tuesday?

06.11.2022                                                                                         –                       L “I am going to Macdonalds tomorrow.  Please could you bring me some money for my hair as we are gonna book a hair app.”

            11.11.2022                 09.54              –                       “When are you com take me for xmas”

                                                            09.55              –           “I’m still stuck here in the ward.”

           

                                                                                             

15.11.2022  –          21.20                                                 “Ive not been very well at all.”

16.11.2022  –          22.15                                                 “I have no water”

Does the above messages sound to you that Elizabeth has no capacity or rather that she has been written off by so many “professionals” and medication raised to sky high levels whilst at Ash Villa no doubt to achieve their goal of “no capacity” for the purpose of producing assessments to get rid of me as Nearest Relative in County Court but these did not tie in with the CoP assessments as during this time I was put under investigation by the Public Guardian Office whilst the team tried to take away the POA for Health & Welfare.

So we have had almost three years of absolute hell since moving to Lincolnshire and I would describe out experience as “hell on earth” – these are the words that Elizabeth has chosen to describe the facilities she has been sent to by Lincolnshire Partnership Trust (5 of them) and 10 doctors. All that was ever needed was a continuation of care but no-one will take any kind of responsibility. There was no need to section her. They have deprived her of all her physical health appointments and only backed down on Neurologist because of the seizures that started at Ash Villa never experienced before. I have also noticed that Elizabeth’s right hand was constantly shaking.

What they are doing is so very wrong giving constant Lorazepam injections after each seizure. They have also allowed her to go without eating in two hospitals under their care both of which resulted in complaints.

When I came to this area I did not wish to complain or fight but it soon became clear that it was never their intention to want to work together with me as a mother or the family. The main goal was to take the POA for health and welfare which they did not succeed in doing and then to take away the role of NR only for me to become NR again to someone else. This makes a mockery of the law doesnt it.

What would make things right now would be a few days booked on a neurological ward to allow her to have full pathological tests but this is not being granted.