Podcast Location:
Download it here [file size: 25.5 MB]
Categories:
Defamation and Reputation Management
Capacity & Court of Protection
CPD Points:
Up to 1 point. details »

Due to the difference in guidelines between the SRA and the Bar Standards Board, CPD points are awarded differently for Solicitors, Barristers and Legal Executives:

Regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority:
Listen and pass the quiz: Gain 1 CPD point (60 minutes)
Listen only, gain ½ a CPD point (30 minutes)

Regulated by the Bar Standards Board:
Listen and pass the quiz: Gain 1 accredited CPD point (60 minutes)

Regulated by ILEX:
Listen and pass the quiz: Gain 1 CPD point (60 minutes)
Listen only, gain ½ a CPD point (30 minutes)

Cost:
  • FREE
Length:
30 minutes of audio
(+ optional 5 minute online quiz)
Plays on Computer:
Yes Downloadable as MP3:    Yes
Contributor(s):
Course Aims:

This podcast aims to explore the ambit of Article 10 (protection of freedom of expression) within the context of the Court of Protection’s procedural rules designed to protect the privacy (protected by ECHR Article 8) of those subject to its jurisdiction. It aims to address how the tension between these two normative rules can be reconciled in the light of a number of recent cases since the 2005 Mental Capacity Act came into force.

Outcomes:
After completing the course you will:
  • Understand the ‘open justice’ principle;
  • Understand the extent to which the perception that the Court of Protection as a secret court is an accurate characterisation;
  • Understand the relevant procedural rules that can give rise to Article 10 arguments;
  • Understand the court’s powers with regard to media access and reporting to the Court of Protection;
  • Understand the relevant considerations the court will undertake when seeking to balance Art 8 and Art 10 considerations in the context of the Court of Protection sitting in private;
  • Be aware of several recent cases on media access and reporting following Paravicini;
  • Be aware of a number of cases and circumstances in which the presumption of the court’s right to sit in private may be rebutted from the outset on grounds of general public interest.
Level:
General Interest Difficulty: 2 of 5
Classification:
Case Update
Legal Principles
Sources and References:
  • Mental capacity Act 2005;
  • Court of Protection Rules Part 13;
  • Scott v Scott [1913] AC 417;
  • Human Rights Act 1998 s6;
  • European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950 Arts 6, 8, 10;
  • Guardian News and Media Ltd [2010] UKSC 1;
  • S (Identification: Restrictions on Publication) [2004] UKHL 47;
  • R v Legal Aid Board Ex p Kaim Todner [1999] QC 966;
  • Campbell v MGN Ltd [2004] UKHL 22;
  • A v Independent News and Media Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 343;
  • P v Independent Print Ltd and others [2011] EWCA Civ 756;
  • Brown v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 295;
  • Hillingdon London Borough Council v Neary [2011] EWHC 413 (COP);
  • G v E, Manchester City Council and F [2010] EWHC 2042;
  • W v M and Others [2011] EWHC 1197.
Tags:

This podcast with Chancery barrister William East discusses recent developments that have shaped the principles to be applied to media applications to report on proceedings in the Court of Protection. It is a very interesting on the relationship between Article 8 and 10 and a counterpoint to 2011’s super injunction furore.

Podcast recorded: 01/03/12

Start this CPDcast Activity

© CPDcast.com