Court of Protection rules on privacy in high-profile case

Court of Protection rules on privacy in high-profile case

The Court of Protection, presided over by Mr Justice Rajah, delivered a significant ruling on privacy in a case involving a public figure, referred to as P, who has severe dementia. The central question was whether the proceedings should be held in private, given P's past public profile and the natural curiosity surrounding his affairs.

P, who lacks cognitive capacity due to his condition, is unable to manage his affairs or communicate. His wife, W, supported by his family, applied for authorisation to make a statutory will and conduct lifetime dispositions on his behalf, aiming for an orderly and tax-efficient succession of P's assets, valued at approximately £20 million.

Under the Court of Protection Rules (COPR), the general rule is that proceedings are held in private. However, exceptions exist where the court may order a public hearing with restrictions to protect the individual's identity. The court considered whether such an exception should apply in this case.

Mr Justice Rajah highlighted the importance of privacy for individuals who lack mental capacity, noting that the Court of Protection's involvement is due to their reduced capacity, not by choice. The court must balance the individual's right to privacy against the public interest in transparency and accountability of court processes.

The court determined that a public hearing, even with reporting restrictions, would lead to significant publicity and intrusion into P's private life, outweighing any legitimate public interest. The risk of 'jigsaw identification' was deemed too high, as it could lead to P's identity being revealed despite anonymisation efforts.

Consequently, the court ruled that the proceedings should remain private, and no public judgment on the substantive application would be published. The decision was made to protect P's privacy and that of his family, acknowledging the potential serious consequences of public exposure.

The court also addressed the issue of notifying the press, concluding that doing so would undermine the purpose of holding the proceedings in private. The Human Rights Act 1988's section 12 was considered, but deemed not engaged as the court was asked to refrain from making an order for a public hearing.

This ruling underscores the court's commitment to safeguarding the privacy of vulnerable individuals while balancing the need for transparency in judicial processes. It sets a precedent for similar cases where public curiosity does not equate to public interest.

Learn More

For insights into legal processes involving mental capacity and privacy, explore BeCivil's English Data Protection Law Guide.