THIS ORDER IS VALID EVEN IF IT DOES NOT BEAR THE SEAL OF THE COURT OF PROTECTION (IN THE BOTTOM RIGHT HAND CORNER) ON ALL FACES
COURT OF PROTECTION
MENTAL CAPACITY ACT 2005
In the matter of
RICHARD GEOFFRY BROWNING-SMITH
ORDER AND DIRECTIONS
The substantive applications
The media applications
Developments since 14 June 2012
Habeas corpus application (Case No. CO/7416/2012)
Application to the European Court of Human Rights (Browning-Smith v the United Kingdom, Application No. 50758/12)
Other court proceedings
Emails to the Court of Protection
Misreporting of the court's order of 14 June 2012
Litigation capacity of Richard Bruce Browning-Smith
'(7) The court also reserves the right to take action in relation to the contraventions of previous orders, which includes dealing with those contraventions as contempts of court, but will have regard to Richard Bruce Browning-Smith's compliance and co-operation today and in the future before deciding whether any action is required, together with any new evidence of misappropriation and the matters referred to in section 4 (his father's best interests, including any wishes and feelings of his father).'
'As you are Chinese [sic] person you have no fear of being in contempt of UK court, or any repercussions thereof... Currently ESSEX COUNTY COUNCIL ARE FIGHTING THE UK MEDIA !!!!!! they have no chance in this case very easy for you to win.' (Email of 14 June 2012)
'Since the report on BBC1 about history of English Law & HABEAS CORPUS, I have carefully considered my position, and clearly state I do not agree to a special visitor arranging to see me.
As in the above program, the Star chamber court was eventually abolished, similar is already being considered of the COP. a court that has no Jury to prove guilt and to have powers of Life imprisonment Ridiculous' (Email of 23 July 2012)
7 remember seeing this neighbour in with my Fathers social worker ... he also told her I was a mental case, during that time he phoned me up
and threaten me on the telephone saying I was mistreating my father and when
he saw me next he would kill me.
He also told my Father that I was taking things from our house, this neighbour has CCTV pointing at my house, may 1 ask what business is it of his to keep me under 24/7 observation . He may say it is to protect his property, but my Fathers and my property are our concern not his.
fit J is through [the] greed and interference of a neighbour that I and my Family are in this predicament' (Email of 16 August 2012).
Property and affairs of Richard Bruce Browning-Smith
'All cases are conjoined financially .... In the COURT OF PROTECTION my finances are conjoined with my Fathers on the order of Judge ELDERGILL. This is the case of my finances on divorce and the accusations of ESSEX COUNTY COUNCIL
As you will appreciate this is a very high profile case, with all the MEDIA INVOLVED, I also attach for you an article from the paper about the case of my Father, and the fact that ESSEX COUNTY COUNCIL and myself are in a conflict at both the court of protection, and the HIGH COURT regarding false imprisonment of FATHER and their attempts to sell family heirlooms without court orders.
In the COURT OF PROTECTION my finances are conjoined with my Fathers on the order of Judge ELDERGILL. This is the case of my finances on divorce and the accusations of ESSEX COUNTY COUNCIL who have appointed themselves as my Fathers deputy, and are accusing me of talking between £7HK to £135k of my fathers money plus they are asking for costs. Worst case scenario the total involved is £150.000.00 this amount then means I do not have enough assets to cover my liabilities, in any payments as large as your fees ESSEX COUNTY COUNCIL, may want full details off you as to why'
Statutory Will application
Issues for the court to consider
Many issues have been raised by Richard Bruce Browning-Smith and many people and organisations have been involved by htm in their resolution. His solicitor has been of great assistance in trying to resolve matters and has provided a valuable public service. At least until recently, he appears not to have been paid regularly. Likewise, Essex County Council have spent an enormous amount of public time and resources trying to ensure that Richard Geoffry Browning-Smith's best interests are safeguarded. The general rule in property and affairs cases is that the parties' legal fees are chargeable to 'P's estate'.
Richard Geoffry Browning-Smith s funds are now limited. It is critical that the financial cost to him of these proceedings does not affect his future care options or exceed what is in his best interests.
Given that the main dispute is whether heirlooms need to be, and should be, sold, a Bleak House/'Jarndyce v Jarndyce' situation cannot be allowed to develop which results in them having to be sold in order to pay legal fees and costs incurred litigating over whether they need to be sold.
With regard to paragraphs (d) and (e), Richard Bruce Browning-Smith has the benefit of a solicitor through whom he can communicate with the court and if he chooses to write in person he can do so by letter. Filing and service by email requires the court's prior permission.
Because Richard Bruce Browning-Smith did not co-operate with the agreed assessment of his litigation capacity, the court proposes to hold a half-day fact-finding hearing to determine whether or not he has litigation capacity. He may give oral evidence at that hearing and call his care co-ordinator to give oral evidence on his behalf If he requires or wishes to call any other witnesses, he should discuss this with his solicitor.
If it is appropriate to appoint a Litigation Friend for Richard Bruce Browning-Smith, it may be that the parties can resolve some of the outstanding issues justly and fairly by a consent order, in which case a reasonable and proportionate amount of time and expense can be targeted on the issues which remain.
If it is not appropriate to appoint a Litigation Friend for Richard Bruce Browning-Smith, the court will need to take a robust approach
to some issues in order to ensure that the costs are proportionate to their significance and what his father can afford.
In the context of his medical condition, the court is concerned by the fact that Richard Bruce Browning-Smith has misused his father's money. As his solicitor reminded him. There is still to be a repayment by you to your father's estate at some point whether by agreement or by court order in the future.'
The court is also concerned by the possibility that he has, or is, incurring significant debts that he is or will be unable to meet, e.g. legal fees, and that his decisions here may be affected by an impairment or disturbance of the mind or brain.
If an application is made to the court for an interim deputy to be appointed for Richard Bruce Browning-Smith, at the half-day factfinding hearing the court will also consider whether there is reason to believe that he lacks capacity to manage his own property and affairs such that it is in his best interests for the court to appoint an interim deputy to manage them on his behalf
The court intends to be as compassionate as possible.
The issues here appear to include whether Richard Geoffry Browning-Smith lacks testamentary capacity; whether it would be prudent to make a statutory Will for him, so as to avoid upsetting and expensive litigation later; and what provision to make for grandchildren. The court will need to consider the situation concerning Lavender Cottage.
The court repeats that it has no reservations about the Joint Applicants attending hearings and receiving information about the proceedings, provided that nothing is published without the court's agreement. It is confident that the court and the parties can work together to ensure that the press's legitimate interest in the administration of justice is respected and, wherever possible, assisted.
THE COURT NOW ORDERS AS FOLLOWS
Court of Protection
Thomas More Building (4th Floor)
Royal Courts of Justice
London WC2A 2LL