Opening up the courts: the Court of Protection transparency pilot

摘要

Because this is a pilot scheme, we hope that there is already a feedback loop in operation. It was noticeable on the second visit to the court, a month or so later, that the name of the local authority, which had been anonymised in the first case, was set out in full in this court order. That change may have been in response to media reporting of cases, including the account of one of the present authors in a blog post. Informal discussion with court staff on the second visit suggested that the level of public attendance at hearings under the pilot scheme during its first two months had not been significant. Only one court reporter (from the Press Association) made anything like regular visits and, apart from him, the number of members of the public attending did not reach double figures. That should not matter particularly. The justification for the pilot scheme, and for greater transparency in general, is not about numbers. The principle of open justice is based on the possibility of scrutiny, not proof of its actuality. The fact that, to date, the court has held many hearings in public and there have not been any major misreporting disasters is arguably an endorsement. The vital piece in the picture is whether P and their families have a sense of intrusion. The five case studies we set out above show that some journalists do try to attend and/or report on the CoP if they are alerted to a case of interest. Perhaps transparency can be achieved through developing public awareness that attendance can be routine and unremarkable, even if it is not common. Even if only high profile and atypical cases continue to be publicised, with appropriate reporting restrictions, no longer can anyone simply claim that the CoP is a secret and sinister court.