Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

Mental health patients being denied human rights in court

210 replies

HollyHB · 04/01/2014 02:15

From www.independent.co.uk/
Emily Dugan, Social Affairs Correspondent, published Friday 03 January 2014

Brief, fair use excerpt:

  • - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
People with mental health problems are being denied justice by some Court of Protection judges who fail to even consider hearing patients’ testimony, leading lawyers have told a House of Lords inquiry. ... Charlotte Haworth Hird, a solicitor who contributed to the submission, said that depriving patients of the right to speak for themselves “can lead to injustice”. She added: “Just because someone is deemed not to have capacity doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have the chance to speak to the judge about an important decision affecting their lives. ... The decisions of the court came under scrutiny earlier ... when it emerged Italian mother Alessandra Pacchieri had a caesarean section performed against her wishes and that her daughter was later taken into "care". ...
  • - - - - - - - - - - - - -

It's good that they acknowledge that when people are denied opportunity to speak in their own defense when accused of being mental in an English Star Chamber secret court, it is not just the victim but her child or children who are denied justice also.

OP posts:
WestmorlandSausage · 04/01/2014 23:08

GREAT MINDS SPERO!

AnyFuckerForAMincePie · 04/01/2014 23:09

Gosh, what a timely cross post Grin

MurderOfGoths · 04/01/2014 23:09

"Well, we shall see. Time will tell."

Time has told. He lost.

AngelaDaviesHair · 04/01/2014 23:10

Did you see my post, OP?

Spero · 04/01/2014 23:11

Holly, Holly, Holly.

why so coy? Surely you wish to share with me your interest and learning in European law.

WHY was the implementation of law in this case so remarkable?

You must have some kind of argument in mind to be able to make that statement.

You see, if you won't tell me I might have to be drawn to the conclusion that don't have a clue what you are talking about.

WestmorlandSausage · 04/01/2014 23:12

if you fail to see the relevance of your thread to John Hemming Holly then you must have been living under a rock for the last three weeks.

Either that or as you have already admitted - you don't necessarily know what you are talking about in regards to this case

BeyondTheLimitsOfAcceptability · 04/01/2014 23:13

"You see, if you won't tell me I might have to be drawn to the conclusion that don't have a clue what you are talking about."

Or perhaps you are the type of poster who likes to make bold statements of fact, with absolutely no evidence to back them up?

AnyFuckerForAMincePie · 04/01/2014 23:13

Holly versus European Law and Holly won ????

I must have missed that memo

KickassCoalition · 04/01/2014 23:15

OMG.

I actually can't believe what I think I might be reading.

Also, in a Northern ex-mining town, that isn't a colloquialism, it's an insult.

Spero · 04/01/2014 23:16

O yes, Anyfucker, in the world where Italian lawyer's diagnosis of mental illness can trump that of a qualified doctor, it is highly probably that Holly has taken on the Strasbourg court and given it a good old intellectual kicking.

AnyFuckerForAMincePie · 04/01/2014 23:19

Good to know, spero, good to know

< wanders off to give The Court of Human Rights a good ole kick up the shitter re. a Living Wage, I'm just in that sort of fucking mood >

if I'm not back in 10 mins, send out a search party

BeyondTheLimitsOfAcceptability · 04/01/2014 23:20

Holly, I don't suppose you know where EdwardSnowden has gone? I thought you might maybe be friends, you seem to share similar values? He seems to have disappeared...

Mignonette · 04/01/2014 23:26

Well we know who this is.

Original poster
HollyHB · 04/01/2014 23:27

AngelaDaviesHair wrote: If they did not speak to her or put her 'views', then as I understand it, it was because AP was not well enough to see them or express a view. ... Do you agree that sometimes (though not often) people are too ... ill to meet lawyers, have any meaningful consultations, or even express a coherent view about what should happen?

Sometimes yes. But no-one is ever too ill or too disabled to be notified that there is legal action being taken against them. No-one is ever too ill or too disabled to be offered a chance to see the evidence being presented. No-one is ever too ill or too disabled to be offered a chance to speak for themselves, even if they are too ill to be able to accept the offer.

A fact, if it be so, that someone expects them not to be able to hear, see or accept those offers is no reason not to make them. It's a matter of human rights. Which is where we came in and where most posters want to get away from. How about we get back to human rights?

And, incidentally, that a person is not well enough to to see them or express a view is not a reason for a lawyer to fail to offer his or her client a conference. Eyesight is truly irrelevant.

OP posts:
Spero · 04/01/2014 23:29

Yes Holly. Let's get back to human rights.

Answer my question: What human rights have been breached in the case of Alessandra Pacchieri?
What was so remarkable about the implementation of the law in this case?
When are we going to see the appeal do you think?

MurderOfGoths · 04/01/2014 23:30

"But no-one is ever too ill or too disabled to be notified that there is legal action being taken against them. No-one is ever too ill or too disabled to be offered a chance to see the evidence being presented. No-one is ever too ill or too disabled to be offered a chance to speak for themselves, even if they are too ill to be able to accept the offer."

Your lack of knowledge of is showing again, sometimes people are that ill. I know it's a horrible thought, and hard to imagine if you have no experience of mental illness, but it's true.

Mignonette · 04/01/2014 23:30

You see, some of us DO have in depth professional knowledge of psychiatric illness (never met a 'mental' in my life BTW) and can honestly say that you have no clue about it.

If you walk fast, you might be able to get a swift one in before the witching hour.

Do toddle off.

People, IGNORE IGNORE^

scalesagain · 04/01/2014 23:30

In my experience of the court of protection, people who are subject to proceedings have been allocated an IMCA (Independent Mental Capacity Advocate) who has instructed Solicitors on their behalf, if the Official Solicitor has not taken on the case. There often appears a conflict between human rights and mental capacity, for example when people have been found to lack capacity as to marriage, this conflicts with the right to family life...

Spero · 04/01/2014 23:30

And, incidentally, that a person is not well enough to to see them or express a view is not a reason for a lawyer to fail to offer his or her client a conference. Eyesight is truly irrelevant

Are you trying to be funny here?
Sorry, just my humour radar might be a little 'off' these days.

Original poster
HollyHB · 04/01/2014 23:31

Snowden? The Edward Snowden?

I don't get it, please explain.

OP posts:
scalesagain · 04/01/2014 23:32

Murder once proceedings are issued in the COP, the person is notified. Or at least an attempt to notify is made. In person, not by post, and we have to tell the court that this has been done.

IamtheZombie · 04/01/2014 23:32

I have only ever had one mumsnet account, and this is it.

Interesting. Prior to starting this thread earlier today your entire posting history consisted of 7 posts on a thread about gender dysphoria in June 2011 and 3 posts on one of the AP threads just before Christmas 2013.

You certainly lurk a lot.

Maryz · 04/01/2014 23:34

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Maryz · 04/01/2014 23:34

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Spero · 04/01/2014 23:36

As long as you do so politely Maryz