Public Guardian v JM (Rev 1)
2014
COURT OF PROTECTION
United Kingdom
CORAM
- SIR JAMES MUNBY
Areas of Law
- Media Law
- Human Rights Law
- Probate and Succession
2014
COURT OF PROTECTION
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
On January 16, 2014, Sir James Munby issued guidance on the publication of judgments, focusing on transparency. A case involving JM, who served as DP's attorney and breached fiduciary duties, came into the spotlight. Following the CPS's decision not to prosecute, media campaigns led to applications to reveal JM's identity. The court ruled that public interest and the right to report outweighed privacy concerns, allowing JM's identification, especially given the minimal impact on DP. Judgment emphasized media's right under Article 10 and individuals' privacy under Article 8.
Judgment
Sir James Munby, President of the Court of Protection :
On 16 January 2014 I issued Practice Guidance: Transparency in the Court of Protection: Publication of Judgments [2014] COPLR 78. In paragraph 17(iv) I indicated that in “any case where the issues include whether a person should be restrained from acting as an attorney … or that an appointment should be revoked” the starting point is that “permission should be given for the judgment to be published unless there are compelling reasons why the judgment should not be published.”
In paragraph 20 I said this:
“In all cases where a judge gives permission for a judgment to be published:
(i) public authorities and expert witnesses should be named in the judgment approved for publication, unless there are compelling reasons why they should not be so named;
(ii) the person who is the subject of proceedings in the Court of Protection and other members of their family should not normally be named in the judgment approved for publication unless the judge otherwise orders;
(iii) anonymity in the judgment as published should not normally extend beyond protecting the privacy of the adults who are the subject of the proceedings and other members of their families, unless there are compelling reasons to do so.”
I emphasise that there was nothing novel in this approach. Although P’s identity (like the identity of a child in proceedings in the Family Court, protected by section 97 of the Children Act 1989) is usually protected by an order made in accordance with rule 91 of the Court of Protection Rules 2007, it has long been settled law that section 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 does not protect the identities of those involved in the proceedings. If the anonymity of persons other than P is to be preserved, an order of the court is required. The burden is on those seeking such an order to establish the need for anonymity; not on those seeking publicity to establish why there should not be anonymity: see A v Ward [2010] EWHC 16 (Fam) , [2010] 1 FLR 1497 , paras 129-131.
This is reflected in paragraph 27 of PD13A, Practice Direction A – Hearings (including reporting restrictions) :
“The aim should be to protect P rather than to confer anonymity on other individuals or organisations. However, the order may include restrictions on identifying or approaching specified … other persons … in cases where the absence of such restriction is likely to prejudice their ability to care for P, or