England and Wales Court of Protection Decisions

IN THE COURT OF PROTECTION
SITTING AT NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE

		Claim No.12134721 The Law Courts The Quayside Newcastle-Upon-Tyne NE1 3LA
		16th January 2014

1. THE JUDGE: The applicant in this matter, Sunderland City Council, brings these proceedings for committal against Lindsey M for breach of an order which this court made on 14^th October 2013.
2. That order was made following a long history of difficulties as far as Miss M's contact and relationship with PW is concerned. The Court of Protection has already determined that PW lacks capacity to litigate and lacks capacity in relation to a number of other matters including determining those with whom he would have contact.
3. For a lengthy period of time PW lived within residential accommodation but the decision was taken that it was in his best interests to live in supported accommodation, to live in his own flat with considerable support from Adult Social Services. That has been the position now, I think, since 2009. It is what PW himself wants to continue, and it is a position that, with support, is able to be maintained. The difficulty has arisen, however, that PW is very vulnerable and the involvement of Lindsey M, when she has been under the influence of alcohol has been seen as detrimental to his best interests and welfare.
4. Lindsey M has her own problems and vulnerability, and has a longstanding alcohol problem. I am told that presently it is the first time in six to seven years she has taken any steps to address that problem. So she herself recognises that she does have a drink problem.
5. Lindsey M admits that on 28^th October she breached the order which the court had made and therefore brought herself within breach of the suspended order for imprisonment which the court had made on 14^th October. Upon that date the court made a suspended order, which was suspended upon the basis that she complied with the previous court order and that she did not seek to have contact, or go into the property of PW.
6. It is to her credit that she admits it. It is to her credit that I have before me documents firstly from the Galleries Health Centre in which it is set out that Lindsey has attended the practice seeking help for her alcohol dependence. It goes on to say: "Lindsey informs me that she has not drunk any alcohol since detoxed whilst in hospital." I am told by Miss Sweeting that Miss M spent three days in Sunderland Royal Infirmary undergoing detox. The letter from the practice goes on to say she has requested treatment to aid her abstinence and Acamprosate was issued with a firm management plan. Lindsey is also going to attend the Wellbeing Clinic for counselling regarding her dependence. Today she is still alcohol-free and appears to be very motivated to change.
7. I also have a document from Wearside Women In Need supportive of Lindsey M, whom it is said is currently living in a woman's refuge due to fleeing domestic violence and past alcohol issues. She did go into the refuge prior to the order on 18^th October which was prior to the breach, but it seems that now she has completed a domestic violence programme and is working well with the support with which she is being provided. They confirm that as far as they know she has remained abstinent from alcohol since 15^th December of last year.
8. Clearly this information is positive information as far as Miss M is concerned, and positive information in respect of the best interests of PW. I am told that Miss M will cooperate with Social Services, that she will accept, or indeed seek, their help to explain to PW that the relationship is not one which will continue and that she expresses a clear view and intention that she will not breach the court order on any further occasion.
9. Bearing in mind that the intention of the court order is to protect PW then those matters to which I have referred clearly go a long way to achieve that protection, is in the best interests of PW. Therefore, the court has to decide how to deal with the admitted breach.
10. It is apparent that Miss M has, although belatedly, accepted the seriousness of the position in which she finds herself and which has been brought about by her behaviour when intoxicated. She has sought the assistance of her family and her sister accompanies her to court today. Again that is a positive feature for the future.
11. It is suggested by Mr Gatenby on behalf of the local authority that I adjourn sentence, which will emphasise to Miss M the jeopardy in which she will place herself if there is a further breach because, of course, if there is a further breach, I am sure it has been explained to her by Miss Sweeting, if that further breach is proved then she will be sentenced if this matter is adjourned for the present admitted breach as well as sentenced for any further breach, which one can anticipate would add up to a significant custodial sentence. The other alternative is to deal with it today.
12. In light of the factors about which I have been today been made aware of, it is likely that I would not activate the suspended sentence. However, there has been a serious breach of the order which the court made. It is a fairly recent situation that Miss M has recognised the seriousness of her position set against a long background of just ignoring the court and the orders which it has made.
13. In all the circumstances, it seems to me that before I determine what is an appropriate sentence in all the circumstances it would be preferable to see whether Miss M, in fact ,does carry out what she says to the court she will do, namely not to have a relationship with PW. I make it clear for Miss M's sake that if there are no further breaches then I will deal with the admitted breach by taking no action upon it. However, if there are further breaches, as I have already indicated, action will be taken upon it and any further breaches that might be proved. Therefore I am aware this matter is coming back before me on 12^th February, so I will deal with this matter on 12^th February.

THE JUDGE: Now, Miss Sweeting, effectively I am deferring sentence. Do you have any objection to the court dealing with it in that way?

MISS SWEETING: I have no formal objections [inaudible] before the court.

THE JUDGE: No.

MISS SWEETING: What I would ask—

THE JUDGE: It is perhaps an unusual course of action, but it is one that I think recognises all the elements that are present in this case for the interests of PW.

MISS SWEETING: Yes.

THE JUDGE: But also it emphasises to Miss M just how serious all of this really is and hopefully that will assist and support her to make the right decisions and no doubt her sister will be able to reinforce how serious this is at various stages, and particularly if there is any prospect of there being any difficulties.

MISS SWEETING: Yes.

THE JUDGE: But if there are no further difficulties, ie, no further breaches, then this court will support Miss M in her further attempts and determination to become alcohol-free and make something of her life. Of course, if she cannot do that then the inevitable consequences will follow.

MISS SWEETING: [Inaudible]. Would you require any further documentation by 12^th February from Wearside Women In Need?

THE JUDGE: It would be helpful.

MISS SWEETING: Yes.

THE JUDGE: It would be helpful if I had some independent source to tell me how Miss M is getting on and that would come from Washington Women In Need and indeed, as you have provided, from her general practice.

MISS SWEETING: Yes. I will endeavour that that documentation is obtained for the court [inaudible].

THE JUDGE: Thank you.

MISS SWEETING: May I make one request?

THE JUDGE: Yes.

MISS SWEETING: [Inaudible] dealing with the Court of Protection matter could the committal matter be dealt with first?

THE JUDGE: Yes. First on the same day, I presume you mean?

MISS SWEETING: Yes. Yes. It is to ensure the continuity of representation because I do not think it is envisaged that I am going to be playing any part in the Court of Protection matter on behalf of my client, it is the committal matter.

THE JUDGE: Yes.

MR GATENBY: Your honour, I was going to suggest a self-contained statement from the local authority solely dealing with the cooperation and progress to be filed within these proceedings.

THE JUDGE: Yes.

MR GATENBY: Seven days before, your honour?

THE JUDGE: Yes.

MR GATENBY: Thank you.

MISS SWEETING: Would your honour require as well a formal document signed with my client admitting the breach?

THE JUDGE: Yes, we had better have that.

MISS SWEETING: Yes.

THE JUDGE: I mean, I do not think… there is clearly not a difficulty with it, but for the purposes of the records there ought to be a formal finding and therefore a formal document from your client.

MISS SWEETING: Seven days?

THE JUDGE: Yes. Mr Gatenby, clearly it seems that Miss M's sister is a force for good.

MR GATENBY: Yes, your honour.

THE JUDGE: And therefore I presume that the local authority will involve her, at Miss M's request, of course, within the communications that there are made between the local authority and Miss M?

MR GATENBY: We have already agreed that, your honour.

THE JUDGE: Good. Anything further?

MR GATENBY: No, thank you.

THE JUDGE: Will you draw up the order for me please?

MR GATENBY: Yes, of course.

THE JUDGE: I will give you the bundles back. What I mentioned before is if you look at paragraph 5 on the actual order that has been drawn it merely says that LM was seen getting into a taxi. Well, that is not breach of an order. It should say with PW.

MR GATENBY: Yes, your honour.

THE JUDGE: Well, I hope when this matter comes back before me on 12^th February what I am dealing with is merely the best… I am saying merely, is only the best interests of PW and I am not called upon to consider at any length the committal or any matters concerning Miss M.

MR GATENBY: Yes, your honour. Thank you.

THE JUDGE: Thank you. Mr Gatenby, I should say that there will have to be a transcript of this judgment which will be posted on BAILII because it is a committal application.

MR GATENBY: Yes, your honour.

[Court adjourns]