Lucinda Leeming

Court of Protection

Lucy is Joint Head of the Court of Protection team in chambers and has been instrumental in the development of the Court of Protection Team in Chambers.

Whilst Lucy is widely recognised as a skilled and highly effective advocate, it is her mix of intellect and compassion which makes her well suited to Court of Protection work. Drawing from her expertise in disciplines including criminal law, Lucy is adept at challenging different viewpoints in a non-confrontational way. In addition, she is quickly able to establish a good rapport with Judges giving both clients and court confidence.

Lucy undertakes a fairly even split of instructions on behalf of local authorities and P and receives instructions from across the country. She prepares Position Statements in advance of every hearing and the subsequent orders and is regularly instructed to draft the Statement of Facts and Grounds and the initial orders required to commence proceedings.

Lucy provides advice and representation in:-

• All matters regarding Health and Welfare before the Court of Protection including s21A challenges to a standard authorisation and s16 welfare applications;
  Capacity;
• Cases concerning all domains relevant to care planning including residence, care and support, contact, use of the internet and social media, engaging in sexual relations and entering into marriage, medication (including covert), possessions and belongings (hoarding cases and separate to property and financial affairs), tenancy (entering into and terminating);
• Cases concerning fluctuating capacity and the preparation of care plans requiring the need to identify the triggers for any dysregulated behaviours which might lead to the loss of capacity and care arrangements which will then follow;
• Contested cases involving questions regarding executive function and its effect on the using and weighing element of the functional test for capacity under the MCA;
• Arguments in relation to capacity “silos” and converging areas of decision making;
• Urgent applications including removal and related injunctive power giving the police a power of arrest;
• Urgent ex parte applications by the local authority to affect the removal of a vulnerable person from a residence to a place of safety.

Advice is often sought prior to the application being made and attendance at MDT meetings involving the police to discuss the extent of police involvement (where the police have been reluctant to be involved). In a recent case, urgent application was required, being attended by the police, and resulting in the court imposing an injunction on a person not to prevent access to a property or obstruct the removal, giving effect to the best interests decision, but also giving the police a power of arrest and right to entry to the property.

Injunctions

• Other cases requiring the court to use its injunctive powers to give effect to a best interests decision of the court including against family members where the decision has been made that there be no contact with P;
  Hoarding and self-neglect cases;
• Cases concerning hoarding where it is necessary to urgently remove a person from their property due to the safety of the property including the risk of fire and a risk to the life of P and, on occasion, to others in neighbouring property, capacity assessments concerning a persons’ capacity including to make decisions in respect of belongings, the sorting, disposal and storage of those belongings, schedules of work required to make the property safe and the costings to inform whether a return to the property can even be considered as a potential option, subject to the necessary package of domiciliary care and matters relevant to the termination of tenancy where a person lacks the capacity to terminate the same;
• Discharge from hospital including following detention under the MHA;
• Applications concerning the discharge of P from hospital where they are deemed fit for discharge but where no suitable placement has been identified including where there is a tension between the Trust seeking to discharge as quickly as possible and the local authority and P’s legal representatives recognising that there is no suitable and available placement;
• Applications concerning the interface between the Mental Health Act and the Mental Capacity Act where a person has been detained under the MHA, including cases where P is benefiting from leave under s17 MHA, sanctioned by the Responsible Clinician, and where discharge from detention is dependent on the Court of Protection’s authorisation of care arrangements amounting to a deprivation of liberty in the community. Also, cases where P has received a hospital order under the MHA, following a criminal conviction and may have conditions attached to a Sexual Harm Prevention Order and involving the Ministry of Justice involvement. (s37/41 MHA)
  Progression from 24 hour care towards more independent living
• Cases concerning step down placements and the preparation of Independent Living Plans where a P wants to live more independently but requires support in activities of daily living including assessment to determine the realistic goals for physiotherapy and Occupational Health, how the same can be supported and assessed and timescales.
  Contact Schedules and Contracts of Expectation;
• Cases concerning restrictions on contact and where a best interests decision is sought that it be in P’s best interests that contact be in accordance with a Contact Schedule;
• Cases requiring the use of a Contract of Expectations including to manage and support the relationship between care provider and family members and in order to safeguard the placement against a breakdown where P’s needs can be met but the involvement of the family members places the care provider under additional pressure potentially jeopardising the placement;
• Forced Marriage Protection Order (FMPO in the Family Court under s63A of the Family Law Act 1996 and advising local authorities in respect of the same following concerns as to the need for a FMPO where P has been assessed as lacking capacity to engage in sexual relations and to enter in marriage.

Special Education Needs

Lucy is frequently instructed by Local Authorities to represent them in Appeal hearings, Case Management Hearings (CMH) and Judicial Alternative Dispute Resolution hearings (JADR) before the First Tier Tribunal (FFT) and in Appeals to the Upper Tribunal (UT).

Lucy has experience of dealing with contested hearings before the Tribunal and involved issues including:-

i) Disability Discrimination claims (acting on behalf of schools with the support of the local authority) including cases involving reasonable steps, exclusions and the justification defence pursuant to s15 Equality Act 2010 where unfavourable treatment can be justified if it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

ii) EOTAS – Education Other Than At any School – including when to leave Section I blank

iii) The refusal by a local authority to secure an Education and Health Care Plan (EHCP) and arguments as to necessity;

iv) Disputes as to the identified needs of the child or young person (Section B);

v) Disputes as to the nature of and need for provision (Section F) in order to meet an identified Special Educational Need of the child or young person;

vi) Disputes over placement (Section I) including;

a) Suitability s39(4)(a) CFA 2014,
b) incompatibility with the provision of the efficient education of others s39(4)(b)(i) CFA 2014
c) incompatibility with the efficient use of resources s39(4)(b)(ii) CFA 2014
d) right to mainstream education including incompatibility with the provision of efficient education for others pursuant to s33(2)(b) CFA 2014 (including arguments of reasonable steps).

Lucy is always happy to assist in negotiations with SENDIASS or others regarding the appropriate wording in the EHCP and is often called upon to review and advise upon the approach of the Local Authority  / School and draft the Local Authority / School Response to an Appeal.

Lucy is a regular speaker at the Local Authority SEND Special Interest Group (SIG) meetings and following her appearance on behalf of the Local Authority before the Upper Tribunal in the matter of NN v Cheshire East Council (SEN) [2021] UKUT 220 (AAC), most recently delivered training on EOTAS.

Lucy also represents families appealing against School Exclusions.

Education

BA (Hons), Oxford Brookes

Prescribed Information

Lucy Leeming is a practising barrister, who is regulated by the Bar Standards Board. Details of information held by the BSB about Lucy Leeming can be found here.

Lucy Leeming’s clerks will happily provide no obligation quotations for all legal services that she provides. Their contact details can be found here. It is most common for Lucy to undertake Court and Tribunal services for a fixed fee or brief fee plus refresher days. For advisory work, paperwork, conferences and all else, it is most commonly charged at an hourly rate although fixed fees are available. Conditional Fee Agreements and Damages Based Agreements will be considered in cases with favourable prospects of success. Lucy Leeming will typically return paperwork within 14 days however professional commitments, complexity and volume of documentation can affect these approximate timescales.