Media granted new freedoms in court of protection case

The media has been given permission for the first time to report on proceedings at a private court of protection hearing before judgement has been handed down.

The hearing concerned whether Hillingdon Council was unlawful in detaining a 21-year-old autistic man in care for a year.

Steven Neary was taken into a "positive behaviour unit" for a proposed three days in December 2009 after his father Mark fell ill, but the local authority refused to allow Neary to return to his father's care under a Deprivation of Liberty Order after raising concerns over his behaviour and weight.

The decision by Mr Justice Jackson means journalists are allowed to report some information from a week-long private hearing held last week, despite judgement being reserved until 9 June.

Previously journalists have only only been able to report on court of protection hearings held in public or on the judgements in cases.

Jackson's decision followed applications to the court by the Independent, Guardian News and Media, the BBC, the Press Association and Times Newspapers.

The same five newspaper groups achieved a breakthrough in the case in late February when they were allowed access to a previous hearing and given permission to identify the parties involved.

They were restricted to reporting on the judgement that followed the hearing however, and not contemporaneous proceedings.

The local authority order under which Neary was detained meant that he could only return home to his father for two hours at a time and was barred from staying overnight. Likewise his father was allowed to visit but not stay overnight.

Neary remained in care for a little over a year, returning to his father's home in December 2010.

Before the March ruling, Mark Neary's battle to have his son allowed home had been heard completely in private.

The court of protection deals with cases involving vulnerable people and rarely allows any of its proceedings to be reported.

Romana Canetti, a lawyer for the Independent who organised the newspaper groups' application in the case, told Journalism.co.uk that the media's access to the court of protection needs reform, but that these were "small steps on the way to a better system".

"Slowly, on a case-by-case basis, we are seeing progress in the way the media are allowed to report on these cases.

"The problem is is that it is very expensive to be allowed into hearings, and then all that money has to be spent to go back to court to apply to be allowed to report.

"Each case can become considerably expensive."

Cannetti revealed the Independent had sent reporters to cover cases who spent several days in court only to be told that they were unable to report on proceedings afterward.

She added that reforms of the family court had led to perceived inconsistencies in the rules for the media.

"I don't understand why in the family proceedings, media representatives are allowed to attend, but in the court of protection they are not. It doesn't seem consistent."

The first case of the media being granted access to a court of protection hearing was in 2009, when several newspaper groups applied to attend a hearing involving "A", a 30-year-old who also suffered from autism.

Represented in the case were Independent News & Media Ltd, Associated Newspapers Ltd, Guardian News and Media Ltd, Times Newspapers, Telegraph Media Group Ltd and the Press Association

The application was successful and "A" was subsequently identified as pianist Derek Paravicini.

Free daily newsletter

If you like our news and feature articles, you can sign up to receive our free daily (Mon-Fri) email newsletter (mobile friendly).