I wrote yesterday about proposals in the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill which is currently in the Committee stage in the House of Commons. By changing the way in which Protective Custody Orders work, the state will be better protected against the actions of small charities and organisations wishing to challenge its impact on behalf of individuals who have no way of defending themselves. There are however reforms of the Criminal Justice System which are desirable if the power of the State is to be diminished which was the stated intention of the coalition when it took power almost 4 years ago.

Sir James Munby is President of the Family Division of the High Court of England and Wales which makes him the most Senior Judge in the system when it comes to family cases. He has been calling for greater transparency in the Court of Protection for several years. According to the Ministry of Justice website “The Court of Protection is a specialist court for all issues relating to people who lack capacity to make specific decisions. The Court makes decisions and appoints deputies to make decisions in the best interests of those who lack capacity to do so.” The Court which was set up in its present form under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 hears cases involving vulnerable and mentally incapacitated people and works under more restrictive rules than other family courts, with the default position that hearings take place in Private. James Munby spoke out again this week criticising ministers’ lack of action to improve the transparency of the Court saying that the case for reform had “fallen on deaf ears”.

Although the Court of Protection, just like Protective Custody orders from yesterday may not be familiar to many of us, the actions of the Court will be a great deal more memorable in the context of a recent high profile case. The Italian Mother who was forced by Health and Social Services in Essex to have a Ceasearan had her future decided by the Court of Protection, in secret. An article in the Guardian from 17th December reports: “Granting an order that the child’s mother can be named as Alessandra Pacchieri but ordering that her 15-month-old daughter must not be identified, Sir James Munby said it was “hard to imagine a case which more obviously and compellingly requires that public debate should be free and unrestricted”. The baby girl has been placed with prospective adopters following an order made by a circuit judge in October. Munby said the child had a “compelling claim to privacy and anonymity”. “The mother has an equally obvious and compelling claim to be allowed to tell her story to the world,” the judge continued. Courts should be very slow to prevent parents from expressing their views about what they saw as failings by courts and judges. “If ever there was a case in which that right should not be curtailed it is surely this case. To deny this mother in the circumstances of this case the right to speak out – and, I emphasise, to speak out, if this is her wish, using her own name and displaying her own image – would be affront not merely to the law but also, surely, to any remotely acceptable concept of human dignity and, indeed, humanity itself.”

These changes or failure to change the legal system which impacts our lives, and the lives of our friends and neighbours are vitally important. Certainly as important as any laws that might be made in Europe, or any of the actions of European Courts. We have two Political Parties constantly telling us that we must not tolerate our laws being made outside of our own Parliament or have foreign Courts making decision on our behalf, yet where are the Conservative Party and UKIP spokespeople when it comes to telling us about the laws that are being made in our own, fully elected Parliament. Where are the spokespeople from Labour or the Lib Dems explaining about these Laws that will enable the State to protect itself from charities and to shroud in secrecy, legal cases which are of significant interest to society as a whole? It appears that they believe that we don’t need to know!