The use of the Court of Protection has increased over the years. This session will cover the use of it in terms of in particular, the position with court deputies, lasting powers of attorney and the position with advance directives.
Hello and welcome everybody. Nice to welcome you to today's session through Data Law. My name's after Mahmoud and I'm very pleased to welcome you to today's session. This is session one on the two hour session where I'm going to be spending some time going through with you the position with the quarter protection and in particular talking about what kind of matters it covers and how lawyers would of course need to ensure that they are working within this. So this two hour sessions split up into two sessions then each approximately an hour in length. We'll be looking at the use of the quarter protection and how really the use of uh the court over the years has gradually increased. And in particular we're taking you through uh somebody positions surrounding the use of court deputies, for example, will be talking about LPS lasting powers of attorney and also the use of advanced directives sometimes loosely referred to as the living will. I'm also going to be spending some time looking at some of the other functions of the court of protection, whether it's maybe matters related to deprivation of liberty, for example, and also other specialist applications, maybe as applications for one of declarations orders that are sold for disclosure of documentation, for example. And also matters related to the use of the statutory world. I'll be talking about some of the paperwork that is sometimes used in relation to these applications also. Okay, so we're looking at this as of July 2021. So the main contents and over the course of the two uh one hour slots, is there some talking first and foremost about the Mental Capacity Act? So we're looking at what it is, how it came into being and some of the fundamentals behind it. And I've been making reference to the Court of Practice which accompanies and supplements the M. C. A. Later on then in the first session, I'll also be talking to you about the proposed amendments to deprivation of liberty. What we're not not what would then be referred to as the uh the liberty safeguards as a result of the Mental Capacity Amendment Act of 2019. So I'll be talking to you about that and then I'll be looking at some of the other powers of the Quarter Protection. And in the first session in today's session I'll be taking you through somebody developing case law surrounding applications to Quarter Protection for one off applications on the Section 15. Section 1516 of em see a particularly applications related to the need for the covid vaccination for example which as you can imagine has been a very necessary and topical issue over the last year or so in particular. And in the second session I'll be spending some more time going through with some of the elements of planning ahead. I'll be taking you through L. P. A. S. Uh looking at these, looking to see how these differ than from the E. P. A. And that will then enable me to speak specifically that the position with the ePA enduring power of attorney and how that is different to the LPS and then towards the latter part of the section section I'll be talking to you about advanced decisions in that regard. I'm also going to be spending some time looking at the role of deputies called appointed deputies and like I say, other applications to the Court of Protection, particularly when it comes to statutory will. Right, so let's then begin with first and foremost thinking about the Quarter Protection, The Reformed Quarter Protection as a Result of Section 45 of the Mental Capacity Act of 2005. Now, majority of that act came into Effect on one October 2007, and that was where a lot of the rebranded Quarter Protection was put into place. That's where we had the new quarter protection rules, for example, that came in 2007. And then we've had the subsequent ones that came in December 2017. And when is the Mental Capacity Act relevant what it's going to be relevant? I would suggest in in these various situations have put on the slide for you, firstly, whereby you're dealing with cases where people lack mental capacity to make decisions relating to property and financial affairs, or where people do not have the mental capacity to decide on their property and welfare, property and financial decisions are issued. They charge a property should to sell a property should to purchase the property, property. And also really when it comes to other matters related to finances, paying bills, paying their tax, uh arranging wages and so forth. Some times, people may be physically and mentally incapable of carrying out these steps. And that's where the M. C. A. Then come come into play. But also a large part of the mental capacity Act is about dealing with matters whether through attorneys or through a deputy insofar as a personal well faced concerns. So matters related to where a person is to live, for example, where they live in the community, are there to live in a in say, a nursing home, a care home under to live in their own property. Um, what's the position with whom we have contact with? Who they don't have contact with? What's the position with Diet? What's the position with dress? What's the position with medical intervention? What's the position with sustaining uh seizing life sustaining treatment for example. So also someone who matters that the CIA is going to be involved in. And as I mentioned, sometimes there may be one off decisions or declarations that are being sought through the M. C. A. Uh route by way of applications. A quarter protection particularly. And I'll take you through some cases later. The position with the covid vaccination. Should somebody, for example who is in a care home or a nursing home who lacks mental capacity? Should they be given the covid vaccination uh even against their consent in those circumstances. And those are some of the situations where you may have one of applications that are being made to the court of protection. Now, sometimes you'll find that people have lost capacity and they, for whatever reason, never appointed attorneys in an L. P. A. So who makes decisions for them there in terms of their property and financial affairs and personal welfare and that's where the role of a deputy will come in. So a lover look at that with you later as well. Mhm. All right. So in terms of the applicable legislation, there's a fair bit of legislation which has been pulled together over the years in this area. uh so first and foremost, like say, we've got the mental capacity act of 2005, most of which like they came into Effect on one October 2007. We used to have the enduring power of Attorney act uh Of course was uh then uh succeeds to exist when the M. C. A. Provision came into effect. But we've now still Got the lasting power of attorney and doing powers of attorney and public guardian regulations of 2007. As amended initially, the Quarter Protection Rules which accompanied the M. C. A. were the ones of 2007. Those as I mentioned with an amended By the Quarter Protection Amendment Rules of 2017. The position with the costs Of fees has been changing steadily over the last few years. So we had the 2007 court protection fees order That was amended in 2009 by the Amendment Order. Then They were then the court fees miscellaneous amendment holds of 2019 and the most recent and most up to date. Change that insofar as the applicable legislation and guidance is the Mental Capacity Amendment Act Of 2019. And as I mentioned earlier, this will be bringing about significant changes in so far as the position with liberty safeguards, which I've talked to you about later on. So what is then the relevance of the CIA? Well, it's going to be relevant in relation to cases where people have now lost mental capacity and therefore what decisions can and should be made for them. So it would be relevant in those types of cases. It would also be relevant in those cases where somebody wants to prepare for loss of mental capacity, the future. So, for example, if I wanted to uh as a donor appoint somebody to be my attorney. So that either when uh I still have capacity maybe in the case of a property and financial affairs, but I would wish somebody to carry out those actions for me on my behalf. Or perhaps if I have lost capacity or if I want a an attorney to be able to make welfare decisions for me. And that's where I can plan ahead, so to speak and therefore appoint an eternity act for me in those circumstances under the auspices of an L. P. A. So that's where the M. C. A. Also comes into play. It allows people to plan ahead and therefore to make decisions sorry to make arrangements for their welfare, their personal welfare for their property and financial decisions in due course. So in that respect it some similar to a will as you know, when you're making a will, you're then planning ahead, aren't you? In so far as the distribution of your wealth and also determination as to who is going to be responsible for administering your state uh once you die. So in a way uh the CIA also caters for that. But of course at the point at which somebody in many cases has lost capacity. But also the M. C. A. Is relevant in cases where someone cares for personal capacity. So this is particularly relevant for individuals. So for family members caring for their family members who may be lacking capacity. And also of course professionals. So you've got social workers when you've got k home managers, when you've got staff at k homes, nursing homes, position at hospitals uh and so forth. In terms of the duties that they are and the responsibilities that they are towards. Uh the person concerned. Uh Now as I mentioned we've got the colder practice, we've got the 2000 and five M. C. A. 2000 and five colder practice which supports the Act. And it provides some much needed guidance and information so far as the position with carrying out the various steps and duties via the axle. What I would suggest is if you're new to this area would suggest that not only should you be looking at the act, but also make sure you can access the colder practice as well, which will give you a lot of useful information to certainly be appraised as to the actual practical application of the Act to real life scenarios. So the act itself then also sets out the test for assessing lack of capacity. And what I mean by that is, um in order to enable decisions to be made, we need to first and foremost assess whether or not P and P is the person who were concerned with the person who is always likely to be lacking capacity. We need to ascertain whether or not he or She does actually lack capacity. So therefore, I'll have a look at that with you shortly. That sections two and three of the Act and the act also governs decision making on behalf of adults then who lack capacity in terms of decision making for their property and financial affairs and also for their personal welfare decisions as well. And like I say, it allows people to plan ahead for a time when they may lose capacity will be unable physically to carry out certain steps. Now, one of the key points that I um certainly noticed when the M. C. A. Came into effect, unlike what we used to have previously is the increased use of additional safeguards that it brought in. And those were quite extensive, I would suggest. And they still remain the case having said that With the mental capacity Amendment Act of 2019 there's going to be even more safeguards been brought in, particularly to address issues surrounding liberty safeguards. So in that respect, the M. C. A. In my view, certainly does have a number of very important and necessary safeguards for P. And also for other persons then working with P and on behalf of P in those circumstances. So the act itself that is going to be very relevant to enable court appointed deputies to know what's expected of them to apply for Deputy ship the position with knowing what they need to do, wants to become appointed going forward. And it's also very relevant then for the attorneys as well, who would be appointed as an attorney under the LPS. Now, the act, also under section 35, makes provision for what's called the YMCA as we referred to them. Incur stands for the Independent Mental Capacity Advocate. And an YMCA is a very significant role that is played in these circumstances, where you may have the situation where P suddenly has got no family friends who are there, who are able to support them. Uh And therefore in situations where P say goes into a situation where decisions need to be made in terms of his or her uh property, financial affairs and or personal welfare decisions, then you certainly need somebody there who is able to be nominated to support them. To guide them in those circumstances where they do not have the benefit of friends and family who are available or willing to support them. In those circumstances, each local authority will have their own list of Incas in the area. And therefore, when you're dealing with this matters, these matters, it's important to make those inquiries to make sure that P, if appropriate, does have an impact. Who is there to support him or her in these situations? And Like, so if you look at section 35 of them CIA, that then sets out the position with the YMCA in terms of the support the representation for part for the person who is without capacity. And this could be particularly relevant when you've got cases involving serious medical treatment, for example, so that at least the impact is there to support P. So that they can provide them that independent voice to them in that regard. Which of course will be very very relevant and significant for P in the circumstances. Mhm. That then brings me onto the position with the court appointed deputies. Quite pointed deputies would be relevant in this context. Let's assume you've got a situation where say, I'll give you my example where if I if I didn't have an L. P. A. And let's say I then lost mental capacity. And then decisions need to be made on my behalf in terms of property affairs and my uh certainly financial affairs decisions need to be made as to whether uh the house is sold, whether the business is sold where the business continues payment of my tax, national insurance and so forth. Then because I didn't have an L. P. A. I therefore haven't appointed an attorney. But this is where it's possible then for a person then to apply to become my deputies, a court appointed deputy. Now that could be uh an individual or sometimes it would be lawyers who would be then instructed to apply on behalf of p that application would need to be made to the Court of Protection. So it's not an application that would go to the Office of the Public Guardian. Alpa applications would be going there. These applications for deputy ship would be going straight to the Court of Protection and I'll talk to you later on uh about the application process for that. And whoever may become my deputy in those circumstances, they may then have permission to either do a one off decision for me, one off declaration or order is made. Which would be preferred if possible. But if it's going to be a need for an ongoing legal authority to make decisions on my behalf, then that's where a deputy ship order could be made to enable my deputy then to continue to make both financial and if necessary personal welfare decisions on my behalf. So it could be that ongoing legal authority. But as I mentioned earlier, it's important note that there are a number of safeguards in place for me so that there would be an expectation once any deputy ship holder is made for the deputy to account uh to the quarter protection, the manner in which they are conducting the decisions on my behalf. They will have to for example, the filing records, they will have to be filing accounts. So for example, if they're making financial decisions for me, the need for them to ensure that or necessary documents are found whether it's for audit purposes, whether it's for tax purposes and so forth. And also as I mentioned shortly, the deputy could also be uh certainly required to then provide information to the Court of Protection visitor and a visitor court of Protection visit, which sometimes will also be lawyers will be responsible for ensuring that the deputy and indeed the attorneys are carrying out the duties on my behalf appropriately diligently and in accordance with what the law and guidance is. So again, you can see the level of protection that is provided for me in those circumstances uh bearing in mind that if I of course lost capacity that we need to make sure that whoever is acting as my deputy and whoever is acting as my attorney is going to be acting uh in my best interests. And in terms of the deputy, there may well then be appointed to deal with property and financial affairs for me. And sometimes, although it's not very common, sometimes there may well be appointed to deal with health and welfare decisions for me as well. Now that then brings me onto the position with the help, a sort of lasting power of attorney. And as I mentioned, uh lasting power of attorney would be where it was. Somebody still has capacity. So in my case, if I wanted somebody to, whilst I still have capacity make financial decisions for me, uh then I could have an L. P. A drawn up for me for that regarding I can have a separate help were drawn up for me to also deal with health and care decisions for me as well. So effectively I love to help assess serving that purpose for me now under the mental capacity actually there are also other roles and bodies that we need to be familiar with soldiers. The Public Guardian and GOP G. The Office of the Public Guardian. So if it was to apply therefore uh for an L. P. A. To be put together for me and therefore I'm appointing attorneys to act for me in those circumstances. And that application to register the L. P. A. Would be to the L. P. G. The Office of the Public Guardian. And as I mentioned, we also need to bear in mind the role of the court Protection Visitors. So for example if I did have a deputy an example that I mentioned, then it's very important to ensure that that safeguard is there, that that deputy is acting in accordance with what's reasonable, necessary and due diligence and in my best interests. So the Court of Protection Visitors will then manage visits to clients in those circumstances and the court appointed deputies and others on behalf of the L. P. G. And all sort of court in those circumstances. Now we also in this context need to understand what the role is of the official solicitor, the OS. And this is where there's been this recent guidance in fact published Dated three February 2021 and published on nine July 2021. Such as recently. And this is where by it provides for uh the updated guidance insofar as the role and the purposes of the official solicitor. And what this is providing for is the uh positions for learning, appointment as litigation, friend and personal welfare decisions in the quarter protection including serious um medical treatment cases and also appointment as an advocate. Now very very important to be familiar with this and do not contain some very useful information guidance surrounding the official solicitors, litigation friends. So let me give an example on this. Um Let's say we've got a situation where you've got P who lacks capacity, let's assume. And a decision has been made. Sorry. An application has been made by say the health authority, the local authority, the care home nursing home for example, for P to have um Sadie covid 19 vaccination given to them. Um They are in a care home. Uh There is obviously a degree of risk. There is an element of vulnerability there and because P lacks capacity then of course not in a position as an adult and to consent in that regard or to refuse. And therefore this is where an application may be made. Now let's say P. Has not got an advance directive in relation to that matter. Let's say P has not for whatever reason had an L. P. A. So therefore doesn't have an attorney. So application is now being made then by the ah I say uh the care home in that situation for a one off declaration to enable the covid 19 vaccination. Now this is where the O. S. S. Team will then get involved. So this is where by this this particular note then comes into play. So the first one which is the appointment as litigation friend in personal welfare proceedings in the court protection including serious medical treatment cases and also the appointment of the U. S. As advocate of the court. So, this note will then be of of significance because this will enable P. In that situation to have um the benefit of not just of course legal representation but also to have a voice. Who would then be in a position to be able to put forward what um what that what that person is stating should be in the best interests for P. And this is where P. Would need a litigation friend because of course he is unable to give instructions directly to their lawyer in these circumstances. So they would need a litigation friend who is effectively then instructing a lawyer on their behalf. And what this guidance is about is the circumstances surrounding the OS as litigation friend for somebody who lacks capacity to conduct personal welfare proceedings as in this case. So it sets out the proceedings at the OS is usually invited to act in particularly matters relationships, serious medical treatment cases. And one of the key things in this guidance is the OS is criteria for acting as litigation friend is that the court cannot order the OS to act. The court can invite them. So it's an invitation that's made and the OS will act as litigation friend. But on the provider that first and foremost, there is sufficient evidence that he does lack litigation capacity to make that particular decision. And secondly, that the US is satisfied that in fact the OS will be appointed as litigation friend of last resort. So therefore there will be a need to look to see who else can act as litigation friend on behalf of P. To then be able to give instructions on behalf of P to the lawyer as to whether or not to consent to otherwise to the vaccination, an example that I've given. So it sets out to process as to how to invite us to act in these types of proceedings. So this is where it's very, very important when you have got court proceedings involving either one of applications or otherwise. Then of course the paying those circumstances needs to have a voice needs to have a litigation friend acting for them. And that's where the O. S. S. Team will then be certainly heavily involved in that regard. But remember, bear in mind the criterion so far as the appointment of the OS is concerned. And there is also the other practice now the officials listed as senior courts appointment in property and affairs proceedings in the cop as well. This could be relevant in applications for a statutory well for example, so that's where that could come into play as well. Okay, so have a look at both of these when you get the opportunity. Okay, right now, what I want to now discuss with you is the position with excluded decisions. Um, what this is about is this there are certain decisions which one would uh sometimes assume may need to be made by the attorney and or their deputy in the case of court appointed deputies on behalf of P. But in fact there are certain decisions that simply cannot be made and the court will not be in a position to be able to authorize these because of the fact that they would be often against public policy. And they would also subject P to that level of vulnerability and potentially potential abuse. So these are set out within Sections 27, 28 and 29 of em see a prince principally. And I've summarized these for you on the first, then is marriage and civil partnership. So if you've got p uh who lacks capacity to enter into a marriage or civil partnership, for example, and it's not possible to have a declaration sought and obtained and ordered by the court which permits the attorney or the deputy to then consent two p entering into a marriage contract or super partnership with another. Because of course, as you'll appreciate, um there are certain obligations that arise from marriage. There's the matter right to consortium. There's various expectations insofar as that the marriage and marriage contracts. And because p an example I've given you, we'll assume lacks capacity to enter into a marriage. And of course, it would not then be permissible to enable them to contract marriage in those circumstances. So that's where that would be relevant. Similarly with a divorce. So for the same reasons, it would not be possible then to be able to get a declaration for the marriage to be dissolved or for civil partnership to be subject to a dissolution order and or circumstances. The same principle applies to when it comes to matters related to adoption. And interestingly also in relationship consent on the H. F. E. A. Human fertilisation and Embryology Act of 2008. So that if for example you've got P who now lacks capacity and is not in a position to consent to any form of assisted conception, for example, then generally speaking, it would not be possible for them to the attorney or a deputy to have an order made which will enable P to partake in the assisted conception. Whether that's, for example, the retrieval of sperm for example, or uh the the the provision of of of uh of uh provisions of the egg, for example, in those circumstances. Having said that there are exceptions to this, which I look at. And there is a recent case on this, which I'll take you through. And the same principle applies in relation to the position with vaulting. So before we start looking at some of the case law wants to now go through with the some of these statutory principles surrounding the court of protection. And there's this five principles that need to be familiar with. And Principal one is that which relates to the presumption of capacity now, and as an adult person is assumed to have capacity unless it is established that he or she lacks this. Okay, So an adult person aged age nova is assumed to have capacity unless it is established that they lack that capacity. So very, very important to bear that in mind. And this is particularly relevant than when we're looking at situations whereby you've got decisions that have been made going forward, whether by the attorney, by the by the deputy. Now the burden of proof is a pursuant to Section two subsection for the M. C. And the burden is actually on the personal persons who are trying to that suggests otherwise. So in the situation where you've got a will, for example, somebody is having a well made for them. And similarly, in the case of an L. P. A. Which has been put together for p uh the donor that in those circumstances um There is a presumption, but because they are 18 or over that are presumed to have capacity and the owner stays on the person who is trying to rebut that to show otherwise in the burden is on a balance of probabilities to show more likely than not that the person concerned does not have capacity. Okay, so in these cases we need to therefore bear in mind that if whether in court protection proceedings or otherwise somebody is raising the issue of capacity then the onus is on them to show that the person concerned does not capacity as opposed to a person concerned having to show that they do have capacity. The second principle is about maximizing capacity. And what we're looking at here is the situation where a person is not to be treated has been unable to make a decision unless all practical steps have been given to them to enable them to make those decisions without success. So what I mean by that is this if you've got a situation where this instructions have been taken from P. As to whether he will for example consent to a particular form medical intervention, then it's very important that all necessary practical steps are given to him to enable him to make that decision and without success. So, for example, if he has recently suffered from a stroke, for example, then it may be that that's had an impact on his speech. So he's unable to speak his night to be able to express himself and communicate in a way that he would have otherwise been able to do. So. So we can assume that he lacks capacity because it's unable to communicate through speech. We need to look see what other methods they are of him communicating whether it's in writing, whether it's through other means in that regard. Similarly, you've got situations where persons may be subjected to a brain injury that may be subject to intellectual uh disability. They may be subject to a psychotic illness, which therefore is such, that they are unable to be able to communicate uh in ways that perhaps what what would be considered as as ordinary. So, for example, if the uncertain medication um if the uncertain sedatives, for example, or the medication, and is it best to see the matter later times in a day when the effect of that medication has worn off? Is it better to see them in the context of their own home, for example, where they feel more comfortable or with their family or friends in those circumstances? So, those are the kind of practical things you've got to ensure that you implemented and put into effect to make sure that you're giving p the best possible chance of being able to communicate in those circumstances. Now, the third principle is about the so called unwise decision. We cannot assume that a person is unable to uh we cannot assume that person lacks capacity uh if they are making a decision which we regard as being unwise, okay, Because the test isn't whether you're making reasonable decisions and not. The test is uh for purpose of capacity is are you able to uh certainly have the information given to you, I able to analyze. Are able to weigh up, I able to consider it, I able to recall it and then I able to communicate it. And that decision that you're making does not necessarily have to be a wise decision for you to have capacity. Having said that, if somebody keeps making unwise decisions, and of course, that can then raise alarm bells as to whether or not that person does in fact have capacity or not. Okay. The fourth principle then, is one has to act in the best interests of p in those circumstances. Now, this is very, very important. And this is where I'm going to be looking at some of the case law with you in so far as this principle we're looking at, Section three will be looking at section four of the M. C. A. So when decisions are being made by the court, for example, when there are applications to court as to whether there should be any for medical intervention. For example, then if the court is of the view that P does lack mental capacity to make that decision, then the court is then being asked to basically make the decision on behalf of P. And that would be based on what the court believes is in P. S. Best interests now in deciding that on the section four, one of the factors the court will take into account amongst others is P. S past wishes and declarations. So when they if they did have capacity previously, what did they say, what would they have said in these circumstances? Because of course that's one of the factors which the court will consider and then looking at what's in their best interests which is what this is very very much focusing on and looking at that. Therefore you can see there's this checklist here under section four of the M. C. A. So that the judge in deciding then what decision to make making on behalf of P must ensure that there is non discrimination. So you can't discriminate against p on the basis of their age or the way they look or um or how they speak or the manner in which they speak. Because of course there is that element of discrimination and we wouldn't be in accordance with the Equality Act. We mustn't discriminate against persons like I say because of their age. We mustn't assume that they've reached a particular age and therefore what they are saying is one where they do not have capacity. That's certainly not the case at all. Also ask yourself if they can regain capacity. So if, for example, they've had an injury and they are in a situation where their capacity is in our fluctuating, take advice from a medic. Is it a case where they could have a lucid interval where during that time they do have capacity to make a decision, for example, or is it possible that they may even regain capacity? In which case is it better to hold off making this decision until such time as they have regained capacity? For example, that that may well be an option. So, it's worth contemplating that. So ask yourself if they can regain capacity, encourage participation very, very important. So again, if they do have loosed into the law throughout the day, there are different stages where there may be able to participate and encourage that because of course, you're then trying to gather what they wishes and feelings are, which of course are very, very relevant in these circumstances. And then there are special consideration for life sustaining treatment which I'll take you through later on. As I mentioned, this provision is very, very important. Consider peace parse wishes, feelings, beliefs and values. And many of the court decisions that have been made, the judges have tried very hard to try and ascertain what was peace views beforehand. So now that there is an application that's been made for them to have this particular vaccination for them to have this formal treatment. Well, what have they said before about this? What do you know about whether they would have consented otherwise to this at this stage? And as you can see, that's very, very significant, but also linked with that, you need to consider the views of other people. So what about their family? What about friends? What about other people who know them? What's their view And and and therefore the judge has to of course way that up amongst these factors as well. and in the final principle is principle five, which is what's known as the least restrictive alternative, sort speak. And this is where the court would then need to now way up the fact that if they are being asked to make a decision on behalf of P, which as you mentioned, has to be based on what's in P. S best interests, then the court must have regard to the fact whether what is being asked what can be achieved can and should be done in the least restrictive manner, respecting their right to freedom uh and autonomy in that regard, solved a minimum steps um to achieve their best interests should be achieved. So you can see the thinking behind this in that regard. Okay, so all of these five principles therefore need to be weighed up and then deciding uh the way forward in terms of the application that is before the court, that then brings me on to discussing with you in a bit more detail about what we mean by capacity. So what is the meaning of capacity and capacity? That is very decision person and time specific? So you can't say that somebody lacks capacity indefinitely or of a sustained period of time. It's it's based on at that at that particular time, it's based on that dependent upon that particular person. So one person may lack capacity uh in those circumstances, another person may not. And thirdly, it's got to be decisions specific, which is very, very important, which means that you may have a case where P has got capacity to litigate for example, and therefore to give instructions to a lawyer and to be able to weigh up the pros and cons and to understand that there may or may not be successful in this process. So they may have litigation capacity, but they may not have capacity to enter into a marriage. For example, they may not have capacity to have a well made for them. They may not have capacity to consent to their child being adopted, for example. So it's very, very important to therefore not assume that if person lacks capacity To do one thing that they lack capacity to do another because that's not the case at all. And when we often go to uh the expert, whether it's a psychiatrist, psychologist, or other assessors, whether it's the social work at independent social because otherwise then one of the things that they will be picking up on is what particular decision is it that he has been asked to make and therefore based on their particular attribute in terms of their psychotic psychological make up, in terms of any injuries that they sustained and in terms of at this moment in time, do they have capacity to make that decision or not? Okay. So there's two elements to it is first and foremost, um d what's known as the the diagnostic test and there's the functional test. So it's a two stage test whereby first and foremost, we need to ask ourselves whether there is that impairment or disturbance of their mind or brain uh and as a result of that, the second part is um that must an impact on the ability to make a decision in question at that moment in time, essentially. Okay, Just because there is an impairment or disturbance of the mind of brain doesn't necessarily mean that they are unable to make that decision. Okay. So really, really important. So there's the diagnostic contenders a functional test. So, for example, if somebody has had a brain injury, let's say they've been involved in a traffic accident, for example, let's say they've had a brain injury, then that in itself doesn't mean that they are unable to make a decision. They may be able to do so, but that's the second part of test. And does that impact on the ability to make that decision? And they are unable to make a decision? If one that may not be able to understand the information about the decision to be made, or they are unable to retain that information in their mind or they are not able to use a way of that information is part of the decision making process or they cannot communicate their decision. So it could be any one or more of these four factors. Okay, so let's give an example, let's say you've got somebody who then suffers from a form of dementia, for example, and therefore the diagnostic determination is uh they've they've got a situation where they could have got that illness, they've got that psychotic psychological uh position that they are suffering from dementia. That in itself doesn't mean the lack capacity. You then have to go into the functional part to see how as a result of dementia at that moment in time. Are they able to understand the information about the decision that needs to be made? Are they able to retain that information? Are they able to wait up? For example as part of decision making process? And finally are they able to communicate the information? And if any one or more of these is lacking then it may well be the case that that moment in time in terms of that particular decision bearing in mind the attributes of that person, they lack capacity. So you need to look at this and just looking at that for a moment, the positions surrounding communication. Their decision, as I mentioned earlier, this is where the 2nd principle comes into play because you must ensure that you give that person the best possible opportunity to be able to make that decision. So if that means that if they do have to have suffered from say uh a stroke for example then of course in terms of that being the diagnostic test and the functional element is how are they able to communicate or if they can communicate in writing? For example, if their speech has been affected as a result of the drug then they still of course have demonstrated that they've got capacity. This is where some of you will be familiar with the concept of locked in syndrome. And sadly, there are situations where sometimes people, because of their medical illness because of doing injury, uh injuries that have sustained otherwise, they are in a state whereby they are unable to communicate at all together. So even clasping the hand, even blinking, even being able to smile, even being able to nod is not possible. They have no ability to be able to control their muscles in such a way to be able to then signify consent or otherwise. And if somebody is in that locked in syndrome, then sadly in many cases they will not be able to communicate their decision. Now, this is where thankfully there's a lot of advancements in medical science as of now, July 2021 we've got a situation where there are advancements in medicine where they are certain caps that can now be worn by persons in these circumstances, so that that cap effectively has the brain signals in the brain functioning um basically being transposed to the Catholics and through the stimulation on the cap. And that in turn can enable your brain functioning to actually your thought process effectively to them being recorded somewhere, such as on a computer for example. So effectively your thoughts can be recorded to an extent. And even though there's still a lot of development to be doing this, you can see that this is a fantastic way of enabling people in those kind of situations to be able to communicate in that regard. So you can see the thinking behind us and the need for these significant advancements in technology. Now, as I mentioned earlier, we've got the position with deputies, court appointed deputies. And that would be absolutely vital in situations where a deputy made and apply to the court to invite the court and to make a declaration as to whether uh say the property issue were charged up. The house should be sold or purchased or mortgaged or rented to position with payment of expenses. Um decisions related to financial decisions, whether there should be a particular investment, for example, so it could be those provisions there. And this is where Section 16 of the M. C. A. Then looks at the position with the appointment of deputies for personal welfare and property and financial affairs. And there will of course, be some restrictions. So this is where the Mental Capacity Act principles come into play again, so that if somebody does become a court appointed deputy bearing in mind Principle five, which is in making a decision. The court should be working on the premise of making the least restrictive decision. And that's where deputies will sometimes not be necessarily able to make ongoing decisions, but only be in a position to be able to make maybe that one off decision in those circumstances, if that's what it felt necessary in the circumstances. So that's where that provision comes in. So, with the deputy, the court can make a declaration as to whether a person has capacity to make a decision. So let's say there is a conflict in the sense that it's argued by to say the say the local authority, for example, that p does not have capacity to make that decision but peace challenging that and hates the view that they do. Such conflict can then be put to the quarter protection for the court then to decide as to whether this person does or does not have capacity to make that decision. So that's where we got these wife declarations. That can be applied for to the quarter protection. The court can make a direction that particular act on in relation to a person who likes capacity is lawful or not. So that could be done particularly when he got issues relating to the steps that a donor so an attorney or deputy may take or wish to take or has taken. The court can make a decision on behalf of a person who lack of capacity. So if there is a situation where there is a conflict Between two a form to a more family members, for example, than the court can then be asked to make a particular decision on behalf of p and all circumstances. And as I mentioned courts, the court protection will also then be in a position to appoint a deputy to make decisions on behalf somebody who lacks capacity. So that's where the deputy ship applications then come into play. Now there's also the position in relation to welfare. So the court can make orders in relation to where a person is to live. For example, whether they are to live um continue to reside in their own property or whether they are to live in a care home. For example, otherwise this is where the copy decisions made in relation to authorizing deprivation as to their liberty. The court can make decisions as to what contacted for any peace to have with any specified person. So if there's a concern that if he has contact with a particular individual, individuals, they could be financially exploited, for example, and that's where uh that could be an application by say, the care home, the local authorities for that person not to have contact with those particular persons. And that's where you've got potential applications then for deprivation of liberty authorizations there, the court can be asked to give a direction that person responsible. PapI's health allows a different person take over that responsibility. So that could be relevant or that can make an order prohibiting a named person from having contact with P in those circumstances and also giving or refusing consent to carrying out a continuation of a treatment. So it could even be that where there could be applications for seizing life sustaining treatment or limiting what particular treatment is provided in those circumstances, particularly, we may have an advanced decision uh and an advanced directive and is then dispute as to whether it's valued or not. So we can look at in that context. So in practice, a welfare deputy may well be appointed, although it's not very common because what you'll find is deputies will often be highly reliant upon medical personal. Of course, making decisions based on what they perceive as being in p. S best interests. So it's not going to be common to apply for a welfare deputy to be appointed. It's more common to have a property and financial affairs deputy ship application. Having said that, the Court of Practice does give examples of where a welfare deputy may well be necessary. And it could be where there's a series of linked to welfare decisions, for example, that need to be made over a period of time. So it could be that uh and if it's felt that's in the best interests of P also, I've had cases where sometimes there's a history of family disputes or where you've got situations where uh you've got p who may need certain forms of treatment, say they are diabetic, for example. And there's a decision that needs to be made as to whether they are to have have certain forms of medical procedure because of the the infections that the diabetes is now causing them. Then that's where you could be in a situation where there's a dispute between the family members, some family members may consent. Others may oppose that particular treatment and that's where you may find a court of protection welfare deputies appointed so as to enable him or her then to make decisions on behalf of p based on obviously taking professional medical advice and therefore deciding on that basis what be in peace. best interests that could be in that situation. It could be where there is a risk of harm to peak if that decision is not made by the Welfare Deputy. But as you can imagine, there will be restrictions on the Welfare Deputy's powers to only do what is reasonable and necessary and at least restrictive in these circumstances. Now, it's not possible for a Welfare Deputy to refuse consent to life sustaining treatment. Only the court protection can make that decision. So that would have to be an application made to the court protection. And also the Welfare Deputy cannot restrain that person again is potentially decision that may need to be made by the quarter protection in those circumstances. That then brings me on to the issue of deprivation of liberty. And as your imagine, This has been a huge area over the last 10 years plus in particular. And like I say, the new mental capacity Amendment Act of 2019 will be bringing in yet further changes in so far as this is concerned. So this is where the so called dull orders coming to played a so called deprivation of Liberty orders. Yeah. And this is where these orders may then be necessary to authorize the restriction of liberty. And it's also by doing that by authorizing the restriction and the deprivation of that person's liberty by way of authority. It also is protecting that personal body from being liable in any criminal or civil actions. So this is where local authorities, care homes, nursing homes, health boards, health provision may then need to apply for a deprivation of Liberty order. Where such uh deprivation or restriction as to that person's liberty is opposed, for example, with a view to ensuring that they they authorize them by the court protection to carry out that level of restriction. And as long as there is no deprivation of liberty, there is no need for a formal authority to act. So the first thing we need to sometimes look at is their deprivation of liberty here, and that's very much based on individual circumstances of each case, is and if there is a deprivation than we look, need to look to see what authority is there for that, and if authorities required, and that's where the application may well need to be made to the court of Protection. So this is where we've had the deprivation of liberty safeguards, the dolls safeguards which have come into play. And just going back then, what do we actually mean by deprivation of liberty? And this is where Article five subsection one of the european Convention on Human rights comes into play because that convention, and at that particular provision under the european Convention guarantees all of us to have freedoms in so far has not been deprived of our liberty unless there is authority to do so. For example, if I was convicted or cautioned of an offense which allows a prison sentence to be imposed, or, for example, if I'm detained under the Mental Health Act under Section two, on the basis of Assessment for 28 days or treatment under Section three. And of course, the Mental Health Act of 83 allows the authorization for me to be detained in a in an institution for purposes of treatment or assessment in those circumstances. So, article five guarantees my right to freedom unless there is provision which enables my my liberty to be restricted on in those circumstances. And that's very much with this dull situation has come into play because if you have a situation where there is no criminal um provisions on the Criminal Law to enable uh my freedom to be restricted in that way for me to be detained. Or there is no provision in the Mental Health Act on what basis is my liberty then going to be restricted in those circumstances. And this is where there was this case of H. L. and UK, this case in 2004 uh by the european human rights uh court. And basically what happened here was H. L, who was the subject of the proceedings. He never attempted to leave the hospital I was in, but his carers were prevented from visiting him in order to prevent him from leaving with them. Uh and the court decided that even though he was not prevented from leaving because you were restricting who had access to who was able to see him and then preventing him from leaving with his family in those circumstances, the court regarded this as him being deprived of his liberty. And it was unlawful because they had been no authority obtained to enable this to be done. And that's what led to a widespread consultation which led to the mental capacity act. Provisions on this come into effect on one April 2 1009. And what that provided for was this? It said that it was now gone now regarded as being a lawful to deprive a person who lacks capacity, so who's incapacitated of their liberty. Unless there was a court of protection orders or in these circumstances such as NHL, where even though he was not prevented from leaving per se, but there was that constant supervision and control. And effectively he wasn't for all intensive purposes, free to leave with members of his family. Then that would constitute a deprivation of his liberty and therefore unless consented to unless that consent was provided which he couldn't provide because of lack capacity, you would need to ensure that there was a cop or a quarter protection or to authorize that deprivation by failing to obtain the cardboard. And that's where they could be criminal and civil remedies then against the local authority and the hospital board in those circumstances. So what's required in these circumstances? If if you then look at sections for A. And B. Of the M. C. A. Is there is a need then for this quarter protection order known as the doors or the deprivation of Liberty safeguards order. Okay. And that's where that provision came into effect and you've got the colder practice than which provides some very useful guidance. Then alongside this provision of the act and the procedure for this is such that the application would be made by managers of hospital care home. For example, applications could be made by local authorities and local health board, for example, family members can sometimes apply as well. And as various provisions, there's what's known as the urgent authorization and also the standard authorization. So the way that could work then is this, you've got the accompanying practice direction which accompanies party 11 of the quarter protection. We was up 22007 and as amended in 2017 so that you've got practice stretching in Lebanon a known as the Deprivation of Liberty Applications. Now, part one of this Relates to applications and the section 21 a related to a standard or urgent authorization under schedule A one. Uh This could be relevant whereby in these cases, what you could happen is a situation where you've got to say the hospital or the local authority in that situation. Ordinarily, they would be able to use the standard process whereby the local authority in that situation will be able to then exercise their authority to uh restrict peace, liberty in those circumstances as long as it's in their best interests and it's the least restrictive. But if by doing so, P is contesting all members of the family other and that's where there may well be then a cop application. And that could be pursuant to Section 21 A coming to play here. Now it could be uh the standard or the author or urgent authorization. And the urgent authorization could be where there is a need for p to be placed, say, in a care home. And so you've got the family who were objecting to be going into the care home in those circumstances. So this is where there could be an urgent application that can even be made via telephone to a judge for directions or even an interim or have been made before the main substantive application is then heard. So that's where that provision can come in. We've then got the other Provisions which is on the part two of dispatches direction, which relates to applications in section 16 to a for an order authorizing deprivation of Liberty under section four way present to what's called a streamlined procedure. Now this could be relevant where there is a need to authorize the deprivation of P in the community, for example. So if you've got a situation where they need to be in a situation where they are in their own home in the family home, but there are restrictions placed upon them. They are locked in for their safety for a period of time, for example. And such applications are what's known as under streamlined procedure. Following these leading cases reacts and others, uh these 2014 decisions where buying those circumstances, there will be a paper application in many cases, uh and whether you then getting that authorization more times are not, his applications will be by way of consent because the family members uh would would seek for there to be court approval to enable that level of restriction to be implemented. As long as of course it's authorized then they would and be protected in that regard. Okay. And there's been a lot of case law surrounding this area over the years. So there was this leading authority api against Cheshire West and Cheshire Council of 2014 and this is where P and Q against. So we cancelled 2014. And basically what these cases then decided was that a person will be regarded as deprived of their liberty if they are under constant supervision and control and not free to leave. So in that situation if if you've got a situation where even though they're not locked in into the room as such a winter the center but they are allowed to leave but then um they are expected To return after a period of time. And if not say the police might be called in those circumstances or those restrictions in terms of who they can associate with in what circumstances or the subject to constant supervision and control their checked on so every 30 minutes and so forth. Then in those circumstances, what these cases decided was that that would be regarded as a deprivation of their liberty which would then need to be authorized. So these cases decided that many people are thereon considered to be deprived of the liberty if they are receiving care and treatment in these types of circumstances. And the case itself, P and Chechen case itself involved one whereby P. Was born with cerebral palsy And down syndrome, required 24 hour care To meet his personal needs until he was 37 years of age. He lived with his mother who was his main carer and her health began to deteriorate and that's where the local authority were concerned that his mother was unable to continue to look after him. So this is where the local authority then applied to quarter protection uh for a doll order to argue that it was in his best interest for him to be living in accommodation arranged by the local authority. So there was a cop order obtained that it was in his best interest when accommodation provided. Body local authority and where he was placed was he was living in this particular house. It wasn't a care home, but it was more of a bungalow and it was shared with other residents. But there was staff on duty during the day, one walking member staff throughout the night. He received 98 Hours additional 1 to one support each week to help him believe the house whenever he chose to. So again, even though uh, he was allowed to leave, there was still that level of constant supervision and monitoring and he wasn't free to leave, as in the sense that he was expected to return at that time. He went out on a club pub and the shops or his mother regularly. He could walk short distances but needed a wheelchair to go further and he needed prompting with daily tasks around the house and around around replacement terms of eating personal hygiene. An intervention was needed to deal with the company's behavior. And this is where Mr Justice baker, who heard the case. The application did say that these arrangements that he was subjected to did amount to deprivation of liberty and therefore the local authority were right. And then seeking for this to be authorized. He was regarded as being complete under control of staff said house. He could not go anywhere or do anything without their support and assistance. And that's very much what really this was about and that was that level of constant supervision and monitoring and steps required to deal with these challenging behaviour. Little clear conclusion that he was deprived of his liberty. It was felt that he was an interest for him to continue to be placed in that unit and and that would be meeting his best interests. Uh And on appeal. In fact, the Supreme Court favored the approach by mr Justice baker. So this was an example of where that deprivation of liberty then needed to be authorized. Now, as a result of this area, there has been a lot of developments surrounding the issue of Deprivation. And there was a law commission report of May 2017 which looked at proposals to uh increase the level of safeguards for p in circumstances where they are deprived of their liberty. And that's what led to this New Mental Capacity Amendment Act of 2019 as I mentioned. And this act was due to come into effect uh last year, in fact 2020. But of course COVID has had a huge impact on on this act of being able to be fully implemented in terms of the regulations and the guidance. Um so now it's Due to be implemented, in fact in April 2022 at present. Uh So this will introduce these liberty protection safeguards LPS S which will replace the deprivation of liberty safeguards. So we will be replacing the deprivation with these liberty protection safeguards for the L P S. S that's going to be referred to. There's going to be a new model for authorizing deprivations in these cases, known as these LPS S like say this was due to be coming to affect middle of last year but it hasn't largely because of Covid and impact that has had. And the doors as we know that we were alongside LPS S for a year after implementation it's anticipated. So As of now, July 2020 one, we're still waiting for the guidance, sunday regulations on this and a new code of practice. But one thing this will provide for is a lot more safeguards and uh certainly protection for p in these circumstances going forward. Okay, just for the last part of that, I just want to spend a little bit of time on going through some case law with you and developments relating to uh sometimes one off applications and declarations that are being sought from the quarter Protection. And one such case was a case of y against a Healthcare NHS trust. uh this 2018 decision. And you remember earlier, I said that the CIA cannot be used to deal with certain excluded provisions under sections 27 28 29 of the CIA such as Consenting to any form of assisted conception under the FIFA 2008 to human fertilisation and embryology act. But I did say that there are situations where there could be exceptions to that. And this was one such case Where this very tragic case involved one where um you had a husband and wife who had a child and they always sought for a second child. Uh and suddenly they were struggling to conceive naturally. So they both received went to a fertility clinic and they both received assistance in relation to assisted methods of conception. In terms of looking at alternative methods of ensuring that they can have a child born to them. And uh they signed an esso consent forms for enabling uh the wife's eggs for example, to be preserved for husband's sperm to be retrieved if necessary. And they did have discussions between themselves and signed requisite consent forms so that if either of them, they had provided the gamut sold speaker night, if either of them had then died, that the other person could then use the gamut to enable then a child to be born to then be a sibling then for the existed for the other child. So those discussions had already taken place and there was provision in writing for that. The circumstances were very tragic in that on one occasion the husband was going to work on his more pet and sadly he was involved in a carmax in the world traffic accident where he was hit by head on by Laurie and he suffered catastrophic injuries including very serious brain injury where the hospital said that time he's being functioning was minimal and he would not be surviving. In fact, he had very little time before he would sadly pass away. And this is where as much as of course it was incredibly devastating for his wife. One of the things that she did think about was that she did seek for a declaration uh where despite his now incapacity because he was now lacking capacity and therefore his inability consent. Was it lawful? And he's in his best interest for his sperm to be retrieved and stored prior to his death. And this is where the application has been Made on the Section 16 of the ACA so that basically a suitable person should also be able to sign the relevant consent form for the storage Of his sperm. So this is where section 15 comes into play, which is the discretionary power, which the court protection has to make declarations as to whether a person has or lacks capacity to make a decision. In this case, Whether a person has or lacks capacity, make decisions as described here and lawfulness or otherwise of any axle as to in this case the retrieval and the storage of his sperm. And the court did say that in terms of the H. F. E. A. Is concerned. Schedule three of the act is deals with the consent to our use of storage of gametes. Embryos are human, mixed embryos in the consent of carefully drawn and for obviously public policy reasons though that people are not then manipulated and abused in these circumstances. So you can see that this is where the court has been asked to make a decision uh a best interest decision. And of course when we're then looking at that we have to look at section for the M. C. A. Which is what was known about his beliefs, what was known about his previous wishes before he lost capacity. And this is what the court was satisfied that in fact both he and his wife had spoken about this. They had received treatment. They had received counselling and it was clear enough under facts that in fact both he and his wife had agreed that if for one of the reason either of them one was not able to uh consent in the future. For whatever reason if they were to die. For example then they would wish for the other parent to be able to use their Ganymede. With a view to that enabling a child to be born thereafter. So the court was prepared enable on the facts given his pre existing. I wish to be satisfied that in fact um the sperm could be retrieved and stored for the purpose of than enabling his wife than to have a further child going forward. So you can see it's a very difficult case. But at the same time you can see how the principles of the M. C. A. Were appropriately applied in the circumstances. Now. As your appreciate, there's been a number of cases which have had to look at the issues surrounding uh the coronavirus vaccine for covid 19 and any cop applications. And once such application was earlier this year, this was a case of e by her credited legal representative in the London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham. And this particular case involved mrs. E, who's 80 years of age. And the issue is whether or not she should receive the COVID-19 vaccination. She had a diagnosis of dimension was diagnosed with schizophrenia some 20 years previously and she had lived in a care home since March last year. So her representatives applied for a declaration under section 15 of the M. c. a. For There to be a declaration that it was lawful and also in her best interests to receive the COVID-19 vaccination as early as it was possible. And the court did say that in determining what was in MRS ease best interest bearing in mind. Of course, Section four of the act is one has to look at Insofar as is reasonably practicable the position relating to any past and present, where she's beliefs and values, which could make them have influenced her decision. Now here, prior to her diagnosis of dementia, she had willingly received A flu vaccination. She had also received a vaccine for swine flu in 2009. So the court was satisfied. And in line with public health advice if in the past, when she's had capacity, she had consented to those forms of vaccinations. And despite objection by a member of her family to to this vaccine, the court on Balance felt that it was in her interests to enable the COVID-19 vaccination to be given to. And therefore such a declaration was made pursuant to section 15 of the act, and therefore for her to have to receive the vaccine as soon as possible. And one of the case I just wanted to pick up on today's this other recent case, which really looks at the issue of whether the court can impose an amputation upon somebody when that person has previously objected, was They had capacity. So this was the case of an NHS Foundation trust against zero day, which was recently handed down again also in 2021. And this case related to Zadeh Who's 53 years of age. And the court was asked to make a decision as to whether it was in her best interests um as to whether she was to have uh an amputation above the knee of her right leg uh because because of her medical condition. And this was a case whereby she suffered from the serious effects of um of diabetes type two diabetes, which previously had led to her having two of her tolls having to be removed because of the significant infection. And now there was a serious risk to her. Um amputation didn't go ahead above the knee. That was a serious risk of an infection spreading around around the rest of the body and therefore what was felt it was in their best interest to have the amputation. And in terms of looking at her medical history, the course, satisfied that she had previously been opposed to any form of amputation and this is why she had capacity. And therefore, even though her capacity now had varied, she'd had situations where, for example, she had capacity and she lost it. So the point at which her tolls her to tolls had to be removed was a point at which he did not have capacity. The court in applying to test our best interests. Said that of course we have to take into account amongst other factors and the section four had previously expressed views and this is where the court did say that this case was somewhat different to other reported cases in that um, we in on the facts of this case, it was known that today's long standing capacities, which is were and had been clearly expressed unlike previous decisions, such as the pain in acute hospitals trust case of earlier this year, where there was a persistent to misguided belief by the patient that they would improve for that surgery and diminished that way to otherwise. But here it was very clear, um, that she had made it very clear that she would not want this and she understood the risk she was taking. So the court did say that there was not the presence of persistent capacitive wishes which existed in this case, uh, sort of court. Uh, this case was not about someone choosing to die. This was about someone who basically wished to take chances of the judge say and therefore enjoy what they could perceive as their standard of living independently and with dignity, even if it may be for a short period of time. So unbalanced. The court were heavily persuaded by uh, that a previous expressed views and they found balance. The court decided against enforcing the treatment, the amputation upon Zita and did not regard as that being in a best interests. Yeah, Okay. So well done for coming to the end of this first part of recession. So you can see, I've covered a fair bit of time so far with you. Looking at the role of the quarter protection. We've looked specifically at the position of deputy ship and we looked at some of the elements of powers of attorney and also looked specifically at the different types of applications that we may need to be making. We've looked at the issue of capacity what that is a diagnostic functional test. We've looked at the key principles and I spent some time looking at some of the developing case law with you in the next session. I'm going to be spending some more time going through with you the position with applying for L. P. A. S. I'll be taking you through somebody procedure for that and also applying for Deputy ship. And also I'm going to be spending some time going through with you the position with advanced directives and also the statutory will thank you very much indeed for listening. I hope it has been a useful session for you and I'll speak to you soon. Thank you. Bye for now.
01:15:37
