The case of SR v A Local Authority & Anor (2018), involves the Protected Party (SR), who was an 83-year-old woman who suffered from late onset Alzheimer’s, which was of moderate to severe intensity.
The Protected Party resides at a care home and lacks capacity to decide who she has contact with and to decide on any arrangements for such contact. The Local Authority raised awareness that the Protected Party may be at risk of harm in her husband’s sole care, due to his expressed views on euthanasia, which involved reference to throwing himself and his wife into a river and supplying her with tablets. The Protected Party’s husband also had restrictions placed on the care that he could provide to the Protected Party, such as having to be accompanied if he took her out of the care home. The Protected Party’s family wished for her to return home and the Protected Party has allegedly stated her wishes to be with her husband as she becomes distressed when he leaves her.
In determining whether the Protected Party would be at risk, the court reached the conclusion that the restriction sought by the Local Authority was neither justifiable, proportionate or necessary. They therefore declined to make the Order sought. It was believed that the Protected Party’s husband would most likely not harm the Protected Party, as he had been previously been with her many times unaccompanied. The Protected Party’s daughter also stated that her mother and her father were a happy and loving couple with no allegations of domestic violence ever having been made between them.
Court of Protection orders imprisonment of a Respondent for falsely impersonating the Protected Party and breaching an injunction.
In the case of Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council v Hill (2018), the Court of Protection made an Order for committal to prison after the Respondent was found guilty of impersonating the Protected Party and incurring costs on the Protected Party’s behalf without the authority to do so.
The Court of Protection were concerned for the Protected Party, both in
relation to his health and welfare and also his property and financial affairs.
There had been a provisional declaration made within the proceedings that the
Protected Party lacked capacity. The Protected Party resided in his own home
with his support workers, and the Local Authority were heavily involved in the
The Protected Party was an 82-year-old man who suffered from dementia
and the Respondent had been impersonating the Protected Party for a significant
amount of time. The Respondent was served an injunction which forbid him to
directly or indirectly contact the Protected Party or come within 100 meters of
his property. The Respondent breached the injunction by attending the Protected
Party’s property on 25th November 2017 and in January 2018, the Respondent
fraudulently arranged for the installation of BT equipment without the required
authority. Furthermore, the Respondent made a large number of telephone calls
from the Protected Party’s property, which incurred unnecessary charges and
proved that he had entered the Protected Party’s property.
The Respondent was required to attend a hearing, which was to determine
whether he had breached the Order for injunction. The Respondent failed to
attend the hearing and the Court then found him guilty as a result of the
breach of the Order of injunction. The Respondent was sentenced to 4 months
imprisonment, to be served concurrently.
If you have any queries, please do not hesitate to contact Casey
McGregor or the team at COPCosts@clarionsolicitors.com