WG, R (on the application of) v Leicester City Council

MR JUSTICE CRANSTON: This is an application for judicial review. The background was set out in my judgment on 24 September 2010, [2010] EWHC 2608.

There are a number of preliminary matters I need to deal with at the outset. The first is that the court received a letter recently from Irwin Mitchell which indicated that that firm had been approached by the claimant in this case. It set out the background of the contact which it had had with the claimant although it noted that the claimant had repeatedly ignored requests to have a meeting. Nonetheless, it requested that this hearing be adjourned for two weeks so that the firm could to examine in greater detail the assessment by the psychiatrist, to which I will refer in a moment. This morning the claimant has told me that she has disinstructed Irwin Mitchell. It was never on the record.

The second preliminary matter is that part of my order of September where I said that the court could not contemplate claims or defences filed by persons who are not prepared to reveal their true identity. This, as I explained in my judgment, does not mean that people who litigate cannot, in special circumstances, hide behind anonymity. They can. A regular feature of this court is that cases are litigated under the initials of people. However in this case, for the reasons I explained in my earlier judgment, it is necessary for the claimant in this case to reveal her true identity to the court. It did not have to be done in public. The claimant has had a number of conversations with members of the Administrative Court Office, who have drawn this part of the order to her attention. She has not revealed her true identity. She explained to me this morning that she regards the name "Ann Barnes" as her name, albeit that it is not her original name, and that her need to conceal her true identity is as a result of her health problems. The fact is that the claimant has not complied with that part of the order I made.

Let me turn to substantive matters. Subsequent to the hearing in September, and the order consequent on that hearing, the council have conducted a community care assessment. That assessment is dated 10 November 2010 and followed an assessment by two psychiatrists, to which I will shortly refer. The community care assessment was conducted by Mr Bill Hines, who is with the council. In the standard form for an assessment, he attempts to answer the various issues posed. These relate to matters such as the reason for the referral, the wishes of the person being assessed, the needs of that person, the abilities that they have to look after themselves and to matters such as accommodation, health and social needs.

The conclusion which Mr Hines' assessment reaches is that the claimant in this case does not have any community care needs. Mr Hines adds that he is unable to identify any risks arising from the withdrawal of the services provided by the council and which I described in outline in the September judgment. In the course of the assessment Mr Hines describes how, since September, the council has provided hotel accommodation to the claimant, as well as attempting to provide her with maintenance payments.

The report which resulted from the visit of the two psychiatrists to assess the claimant was prepared on 22 October 2010 by Ms Lin Lam, who is an approved mental health practitioner. The report she prepared followed the visit by Dr Bagat and Dr Minjagi to the hotel where the claimant was residing. There is no need to detail the background to why that assessment was triggered. Suffice it to say that the manager of the hotel was concerned about the claimant's behaviour.

The report by Ms Lam details the nature of the interview, in particular the difficulties encountered when she and the psychiatrists assessed the claimant. The upshot of that assessment is the conclusion of both doctors present that the claimant was not experiencing any form of mental disorder and that her actions were down to her own personality and behaviour. There was therefore no recommendation made to detain the claimant under the Mental Health Act. Alternative support to enable her to be safe from harm in the event of eviction from the hotel was suggested. The report by Ms Lam also sets out other details about the claimant, for example, that she was argumentative, non-compliant and had unrealistic expectations of the support to which she was entitled.

At a very late stage, shortly before this hearing began, the claimant e.mailed me comments in relation to both the community care assessment and the mental health assessment. In relation to the former, she raises issues such as the use of the name "Ann Barnes", which I have already addressed. She also explains why she did not provide details of her last permanent address in 2007, when the council began to provide her with bed and breakfast accommodation. She also explains the treatment she received from Dr Cross, to which I referred in my previous judgment. In particular she says that her failure to register with a GP is attributable to her fear of doctors, a point which she underlined to me this morning.

The claimant rehearses the conclusions which Dr Cross made in 2007 in relation to the conclusion of the report that she has displayed over a period of years an unwillingness or inability to engage with the assessment process. She invokes Dr Cross' opinion to explain that this is attributable to her health problems and in particular identifies the recent contact she had made with an advocacy service. She contends that should she be able to work with an advocate she will receive adequate medical and other treatment. She explains that the late engagement with the advocacy service is because she had been registered for some time and had only recently come to the top of the list. I note the council's contention that over the years she has displayed a significant resourcefulness in challenging them and that her account in relation to the advocacy service is exaggerated.

In relation to the mental health assessment, her critique is that the report by Ms Lam does not accord with what happened at the time, and that she has a recording of the engagement she had with Ms Lam and the two psychiatrists which supports that contention. She asserts that she does have a mental health problem, and that the report is simply, as she describes it, an isolated snapshot of what occurred when the psychiatrist visited. Should she be provided with an advocate it would be possible, she says, to engage properly with mental health and other medical services.

In my view there is no way that permission can be granted in this judicial review. The fact is that the challenge was to the failure of the council to provide a community care assessment. That assessment had not been undertaken for a considerable period because of what the council - in my view, rightly - contends was the behaviour of the claimant. However, that assessment has now been conducted. Although because of the difficulties which Mr Hines had in conducting it it was not as complete as would normally be expected, that is an obvious consequence of the claimant's attitude and behaviour. The plainfact is that over a period the council has attempted to assess the claimant. Those attempts had been frustrated by her own actions. I accept the council's case that she has simply failed to co-operate with its attempts to allow her to be assessed.

I have already addressed the issue of the claimant's failure to reveal her true identity and the reasons that it is necessary for her to comply with the order. I also underline the point I made in my previous judgment that a considerable amount of public expense has been incurred by the council over the last three years. At a more general level, it is necessary, as I have said in my previous judgment, to draw a line because there are other needy people in the community. It is no longer possible for the claimant to behave in the way she has and expect the courts either to grant interim relief or to adjourn matters.

Consequently I refuse permission. I also order that unless the claimant is prepared to identify herself as I indicated in the September order she should not be able to bring any further legal actions in this court.

MR SHARLAND: Can I ask for one further matter? At the previous hearing the order included an order for an expedited transcript of your judgment to be produced at public expense and sent to the claimant and the defendant. Can I ask for the same order today?

MR JUSTICE CRANSTON: Yes.

MR SHARLAND: I am grateful.