Kevin has been a member of the Albion Court of Protection team since its inception in 2011. As a former social worker with experience in Adult Social Care, he has invaluable ‘insider’ experience of the complexities of this field of practice from the perspective of social workers, local authorities and family members.
Kevin regularly represents local authorities, family members and litigation friends, including the Official Solicitor, in all manner of cases brought under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. He is also instructed to provide written advice in relation to merits, or other the specific matters pertaining to potential or existing applications under the the MCA 2005.
Kevin is known for his attention to detail, clear advocacy, and his ability to quickly build rapport with his clients. He has also been led by Queen’s Counsel in the Court of Protection.
Cases of interest:
Re N [2016] (CoP): Representing the respondent local authority in an application for a best interests determination issued by P’s sister, contending that P should remain in his home, whilst LA contending that his needs were better served in a care home. Counsel successfully defended a costs application against the authority which had been issued as a consequence of the LA filing evidence late resulting in delay and the need for a further hearing.
Re A [2016]: Representing A via the Official Solicitor in a s.21A challenge specifically focusing on the best interests determination within the Standard Authorisation procedure. Case involved full consideration of all matters pertaining to P’s care, residence and treatment, and matters pertaining to how best to maximise P’s participation in decision making.
Re SP [2016] (CoP): A complex case representing P via her litigation friend during which counsel exposed the unlawful procedure followed by the LA. The case also involved difficult interrelated safeguarding matters in respect of one of P’s friends, relevant to best interest decisions regarding her contact with that person and the management of P’s property and affairs which had previously been managed by that person.
Re S [2016] CoP: A complex case representing the mother of P who sought declarations that P’s best interests would be better served in a different care setting and that his DoL could be managed in a less restrictive manner. Counsel successfully argued that there should be a change of care home and that restrictions on contact and certain activities were disproportionate and should be relaxed. Counsel successfully argued that CCG funding was being unlawfully capped. Case also involved complex matters of historical sexual abuse against P and the relevance of that to P’s presenting needs.
Re G [2016] (CoP): Representing the applicant local authority in circumstances where the original DoL was unlawful, and associated decision making regarding care assessments under the Car Act 2014 were also prima facie unlawful. As a consequence, the Official Solicitor sought costs and HRA damages against the local authority. At final hearing counsel successfully defended the costs application and reached agreement with the OS on future care implementation such that the OS undertook not to pursue a claim for HRA damages against the local authority.
Re M [2015] (CoP): Representing the applicant local authority, the substantive application was brought under s.21A, but other matters requiring careful consideration included: (i) the capacity of P to revoke an LPA some 18 months previous, and the consequences if she did not (ii) interrelated safeguarding matters regarding the historical and current management of P’s finances (iii) complex family dynamics and competing views in respect of what was in P’s best interests in terms of care, residence and treatment.
Re H [2015] (CoP): Counsel representing P’s RPR in a s.21A appeal. Matters of capacity were clear, but in addition to P’s DoL, there were significant best-interest complexities concerning variety of health and welfare issues including whether or not P should undergo serious and potentially life changing treatment, and whether or not she should move home.
Re MK [2014]: Led by Queen's Counsel. HHJ Marston concluded following a ten-day trial, that M, the client’s daughter, had been unlawfully deprived of her liberty for 14 months. The court ordered that the daughter should be returned to the full-time care of her mother. This was somewhat of a landmark case which represents the longest unlawful deprivation of liberty since the implementation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The costs awarded against the LA is also the largest in the history of the MCA.
Clerk:
Stephen Arnold
E: stephen.arnold@albionchambers.co.uk
T: 0117 311 0310