One of the most insightful sessions at this year's MCA Conference was delivered by District Judge Anderson, who offered attendees a personal perspective on life as a judge sitting in the Court of Protection. As she was careful to emphasise throughout, her comments reflected her own experiences rather than the views of the judiciary as a whole. Nevertheless, the session provided a valuable opportunity for practitioners to consider how court processes are experienced from the other side of the bench.

A recurring theme was the collaborative nature of Court of Protection work. Judge Anderson spoke warmly about the high standard of practice she encounters across the jurisdiction, recognising the contributions of social workers, healthcare professionals, advocates and legal practitioners. She reflected that, despite often approaching difficult issues from different angles, those involved in Court of Protection proceedings are generally united by a common aim: achieving the best outcome for the person at the centre of the case.

The session also provided a helpful reminder of the practical pressures faced by judges managing substantial caseloads. Judge Anderson observed that late filing of position statements, draft orders and other key documents can make preparation more difficult and reduce the time available to focus on the substantive issues in a case. Similar observations were made in relation to applications for expert evidence and third-party disclosure orders, with an emphasis on ensuring applications are sufficiently detailed to enable effective case management and informed decision-making.

Participation was another key theme. Reflecting on the use of DLE and COP5 forms, Judge Anderson noted that processes familiar to professionals can sometimes be difficult for family members to navigate. She emphasised the importance of ensuring that family members are able to engage meaningfully in proceedings, highlighting the valuable insight they can provide into P's wishes, feelings, values and lived experience. The COP 5 is more comprehensible to an unrepresented family member whilst, at the same time, enabling the judge to consider any application for joinder.

The discussion also covered the format of hearings. Whilst recognising the accessibility and efficiency that remote hearings can offer, Judge Anderson suggested there remains an important place for in-person hearings, particularly where family members are involved. Her reflections served as a reminder that different cases require different approaches.

Attendees also heard Judge Anderson's thoughts on the Northen Irish case (“AGNI”), transparency and judicial visits. She reflected on some of the practical challenges arising from the developing framework concerning the new test for what amounts to a deprivation of liberty, while noting the importance of balancing open justice with the sensitive nature of Court of Protection proceedings. She also spoke positively about judicial visits, describing them as a valuable way of gaining a fuller understanding of P's circumstances and helping to ensure that P remains at the centre of the court's decision-making.

For practitioners, the session offered a rare and valuable insight into the realities of decision-making in the Court of Protection. Judge Anderson shared a series of practical reflections drawn from her own experience of managing cases and making decisions. The overarching message was a simple but important one: effective Court of Protection proceedings depend on collaboration, clear communication following the Rule of the Court of Protection, thus allowing for a continued focus on the individual whose life is affected by the decisions being made.