Post by Focus on Jun 24, 2013 7:01:25 GMT
* Judges make crucial decisions based on casual phone consultations
* Justice Hedley admitted to giving life-saving decision while at the zoo
Judges are making life-or-death decisions about vulnerable people based on casual phone consultations with council lawyers, it was revealed last night.
On or off duty? Justice Sir Mark Hedley admitted to making a life-or-death decision over the phone while at the zoo
The secretive Court of Protection has an out-of-hours service which is being routinely used by local authorities wishing to ‘rush through’ decisions.
In many cases, judgments are handed out over the phone with the family not being consulted and proper evidence not being made available.
One judge – who was on a trip to a zoo – has even admitted to giving a decision on his mobile phone about whether a Jehovah’s Witness with learning difficulties should get life-saving treatment.
In another case, a judge allowed an Asian woman with learning difficulties to be forcibly removed from her home on the grounds of ‘flimsy’ evidence that she was going to be forced into marriage.
After a few weeks in care, the woman was returned home but the family sued and were paid thousands of pounds in compensation by the local council.
Out-of-hours rulings, a system meant to be used only in urgent cases, are being routinely abused, an investigation has revealed.
Instead of being subject to open court, judges on call between 4pm and 9am are consulted over the phone by a single barrister often without the involvement of families.
In the dark : Wanda Maddocks was jailed 'in secret' for trying to remove their father John Maddocks from a care home
Written evidence is rarely used out-of-hours and the proceedings are not always recorded.
One legal expert told the Independent newspaper: ‘There is no real investigation out-of-hours over whether [an action] would be appropriate. It’s just the local authority ringing the judge up, the parents are not part of the proceedings, so it’s on full trust that the barrister gives their side.
‘We can see from the transcripts that judges don’t ask enough questions and the barristers don’t tell them the other side of the story.’
The Daily Mail has led calls for the reform of the Court of Protection which is shielded from the scrutiny of the public and the Press.
John Hemming, chairman of the Parliamentary Group on Family Law and the Court of Protection, will today call for an inquiry into the out-of-hours service by the Justice Select Committee.
He described the system as an ‘appalling’ one in which ‘the family are not told about it, but the judge is called to rubber-stamp a decision.’
He said: ‘I was shocked when I found out this was going on.
‘The court is there to protect people, but it seems more concerned about protecting local authorities and their incomes. I’ve been to see ministers several times and they’re just not interested in looking at individual cases.
‘They turn a blind eye to the problem – it’s a disgrace.’
A retired High Court judge has also attacked the system which does not publish the results of its hearings, making appeals nearly impossible.
Sir Mark Hedley said: ‘There are very few cases which can’t wait until Monday morning. For example, any cases involving turning off of machines can wait.’
In another case he said he was asked to make a decision while on a family outing to Chester Zoo.
He said: ‘The transplant case was made in the back of a car outside Chester Zoo, my wife said it was the only time she’d heard me making judgments.’
Sir Mark claims the procedure causes a problem for transparency because rulings are often not recorded so transcripts are not available.
He added: ‘There’s a duty to keep a note [of hearings] I’ve kept them but I’ve never been asked for them.’
Last month the Mail highlighted the case of Wanda Maddocks, 50, who was secretly jailed for five months for attempting to move her 80-year-old father from a care home where she believed he was at risk.
Secrecy rules forbade anyone to name Miss Maddocks , her father, the Stoke-on-Trent Councillor who asked for her to be locked up or the social worker who gave evidence against her. She served six weeks before finally being released.
This is just so wrong and has got to stop, the zoo is definitely not the place to be making life changing decisions involving vulnerable people! - This 'cavalier' approach is totally unacceptable and is not what judges get paid bloody good money to do!! - Fx
