Vaccine hesitancy and the Court of Protection: who decides?

27 April 2021 by

Informed consent to medical treatment is at the heart of the vaccine debate. Consent is also at the centre of most of the cases that come before the Court of Protection. So now we have a very specific problem: what happens, if someone lacks capacity under the Mental Capacity Act, and their family for whatever reason objects to the Covid vaccine?

In the latest episode of Law Pod UK, Rosalind English talks to Amelia Walker of 1 Crown Office Row about three recent cases that came before the COP where the “protected person” (incapacitous under the Mental Capacity Act) was due to be vaccinated, but family members objected. Here are the citations to the cases discussed and the relevant statutes:

E (by her Accredited Legal Representative, Keith Clarke), Applicant v London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (Respondent) and W (2nd Respondent) [2021] EWCOP 7

SD (Applicant) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (Respondent) [2021] EWCOP 14

NHS Tameside & Glossop CCG v CR (by his litigation friend CW) [2021] EWCOP 19

Mental Health Act

Mental Capacity Act 2005

For more posts about the Covid vaccine, see here.

Law Pod UK is available on Spotify, Apple PodcastsAudioboomPlayer FM,  ListenNotesPodbeaniHeartRadio PublicDeezer  or wherever you listen to our podcasts. 

Please remember to rate and review us if you like what you hear.


  1. Michael says:

    Andrew, that’s just a long-winded way of saying, “I’m all right, Jack”. When the British government was murdering the disabled – pushing them into poverty and to suicide ( – no one cared; instead, the Tories got re-elected to do some more killing. Ain’t it a shame that many of the 65%+ oldies who voted Tory are now on the receiving end of that killing? Live by the sword, die by the sword!

    Here are several more reason why no one sensible would take these experimental vaccines:

    “These NHS Staff Were Told The Swine Flu Vaccine Was Safe, And Now They’re Suffering The Consequences”

    “Ministers lose fight to stop payouts over swine flu jab narcolepsy cases”

    “Swine flu vaccine can trigger narcolepsy, UK government [FORCED TO CONCEDE]”

    “Boy who said he developed narcolepsy after swine flu vaccine settles court case”:

  2. Mike Hersee says:

    Oh, Ye of *unquestioning* faith in the medical establishment. Firstly, I do agree that, from one set of data that I looked at, in the relatively short term, people who are already pretty healthy (ie, you have to be healthy to be chosen for the first clinical trials of a medical treatment – I’ve been a test patient on two) seem to have some protection from the severest clinical effects of Covid-19, regardless of whether the patient is subsequently diagnosed covid-19-positive or not based on somewhat spurious and unproven tests. So that does appear to represent a significant clinical benefit – in the short term at least, and for those who are already the healthiest among us. However, if you know anything about the history of medicine, it is capable of serious blunders – not just by individuals but by whole branches of medicine even – cardiac arrhythmia, for example. And even though when doctors are reminded, or even made aware for the first time, of previous medical blunders, their usual response is, “Ah, but we know more now”. However, that is based on the presupposition that the sole reason for medical blunders happening previously is that medical knowledge had not advanced enough. The reality is often that whole groups of doctors leapt to conclusions based on insufficient evidence, then either force-fitted the incoming data into their new model of reality, or rejected the data, for far too long, and rejected counter-evidence out of hand.

    Just to remind you that all of the vaccines are regarded as experimental for the next couple of years, and that actual protection of people around you has not been demonstrated yet, to the best of my knowledge.

    And it wouldn’t be the first time that fraudulent data was used to gain approval for a medical product. The woman who was the data gatherer for the original trials of AZT said on video subsequently, “I saw the most horrible abuses…. while AZT is on the market, people are being betrayed”. As almost all the subsequent evidence showed, even though doctors – as has happened before – ignored evidence that didn’t comport with their new beliefs.

    I’ve been involved in several legal cases involving virology. Virology is a low-quality branch of medicine, using sub-standard meaning for terms like ‘isolation’ and ‘cloning’, precisely *because* people have unquestioning faith in it, and there is no effective external moderating influence that will keep the quality high. Medical journals can certainly not be trusted to maintain quality. For example, a few years ago a client of mine was given evidence that purported to show the drug medical professionals wanted her newborn child to have were safe. I saw numerous distortions and uncorrected errors in the paper, and wrote an analysis of it showing that the projected outcomes were actually the opposite of the effect claimed and in a potentially proscribed dose could cause serious brand damage. The professional pathologist read my analysis and declared it excellent without reservation.

    I haven’t listened to the podcast yet, I haven’t had time, but *If* the majority of the people who are the subject of these cases are elderly, then according to some sources of information, old people are ‘dropping like flies’ after being vaccinated, possibly depending on which vaccination they’ve had. That should not be a huge surprise given that older people are much more susceptible to strokes at least.

    George Santayana is credited with the statement, “Those that do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it”. What I’ve learnt is that, ‘those who do not learn from medical blunders of the past are doomed to have the same mistakes repeated on themselves’. I suggest it’s too early to be sure there aren’t potentially serious long term adverse consequences, aside from blood clots.

  3. Andrew says:

    Time for some common sense here. Vaccination against a highly infectious illness does not only protect the vaccinee if that is the word; it protects the people who come into contact with the vaccinee, and that’s especially important in the context of those living in residential care.

    The interest of the community must prevail and that means the jab. It’s no different in principle from chlorinating the water and we should not let the tinfoil hat brigade block either process.

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals Anne Sacoolas anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board care homes Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs costs budgets Court of Protection crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy diplomatic relations disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control hague convention Harry Dunn Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy procurement Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions prostituton Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation refugee rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism The Round Up tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Weekly Round-up Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: