tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7327718065135964598.post3010980264770404961..comments2023-08-10T15:02:51.259+01:00Comments on The Small Places: Strategic litigation by the EHRCLucy Serieshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07820866715125284389noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7327718065135964598.post-83167284150574495292011-05-27T11:51:44.623+01:002011-05-27T11:51:44.623+01:00I'll comment on RP vs United Kingdom here rath...I'll comment on RP vs United Kingdom here rather than on Twitter as this will take more than 140 characters ;-)<br /><br />Para 77 - No real cause for concern. What that appears to document is the Official Solicitor informing RP of their opinion that she has a hopeless case and cannot, therefore, oppose the court for ethical reasons. OS's duty to act in RPs interests is bounded by ethical duties which cannot be overriden, even if this is not what RP wants.<br /><br />Para 160 indicates that the court concurred with the OS's judgment and hence that he behaved ethically.<br /><br />EHRC's first point appears to be seeking to engage DDA in fairly non-specific terms. What's not clear is whether this is necessarily relevant given that any challenge to the Local Authority's assertion that they would be unable to provide RP with the care necessary to allow her to raise the child is a separate matter which necessarily would have required separate litigation. If that line were to be followed, the OS (acting for RP) should have instructed cousel to seek an adjournment in order to allow the LA to be challenged under DDA - maybe this something that the OS should have considered, maybe they did and chose not to go that route on the basis of the LAS submission.<br /><br />It's an arguable point, just not sure whether it will fly.<br /><br />Point 2 is speculative, given that I don't by the suggestion that paras 77 and 160 indicate anything more than the OS acknowledging the ethical limits of their role.<br /><br />Point 3, I'd agree with as a matter of general principle but doubt very much that it would have made any difference in this case, given what was adduced as to the precise nature of RPs capacity issues - which Hemming clearly didn't understand (and probably still doesn't)<br /><br />What is clear is that nothing in any of this would offer grounds for Ect HR to make a ruling reversing the decision to place KP for adoption, let alone overturning an adoption order.<br /><br />RP may get a bit of compo, and EHRC may be successful in adding extra checks and balances to the process - the latter being all to the good, I suspect.<br /><br />My concern, as you know, is whether RP understands this or not, and I fear she might not.Unityhttp://www.ministryoftruth.me.uknoreply@blogger.com