Held, application granted. (1) Parliament had given effect to certain of the provisions of the Hague Convention on the International Protection of Adults (2000) by enacting section 63 of and Schedule 3 to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 which made it possible to apply for an order recognising and declaring enforceable protective measures made in respect of a protected person (“P”) by the High Court of the Republic of Ireland. Notwithstanding the superficial simplicity of the scheme, the Court of Protection had to be satisfied of numerous conditions before the declarations could be made and the court had to ask in the right order, and receive the correct answers to, 22 separate questions as set out in the attached blank checklist at Annex A. Furthermore, the Court of Protection was required to apply domestic law to five specific issues: (i) the joinder of P; (ii) whether P was heard in the foreign proceedings; (iii) whether P had capacity under sections 2 and 3 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to make the material decision or decisions; (iv) whether the measure was inconsistent with a mandatory provision of the law of England and Wales; and (v) whether the measure entailed a deprivation of liberty for the purposes of article 5, to which end the court had to be satisfied that objective medical expertise had established that P’s medical disorder was of a type and degree that warranted P’s compulsory confinement, that P had the right in the foreign country to challenge the detention, and that the detention was regularly reviewed by the foreign court (paras 21–43).

(2) In the present case, as the protected person was extremely unwell and in a placement which was unsuitable for her extensive and complex needs, it was plainly imperative that she was moved to a suitable placement as a matter of urgency. Since all the relevant questions had been answered correctly the court was fully satisfied that the order of the Irish High Court ought to be implemented by being recognised and declared enforceable and in those circumstances it would not be lawful to withhold a grant of recognition and a declaration of enforceability (paras 48–52).

Per curiam. On some procedural and allied points: (i) if the foreign court has given a fully reasoned judgment explaining the nature of the measure it has issued, and has summarised the evidence relied on in reaching its decision, then normally it will be unnecessary to place any other written evidentiary material before the Court of Protection when seeking recognition and enforcement; (ii) if the foreign court can be persuaded to address all the matters in the checklist in its primary judgment then that is likely to make the task of this court appreciably easier; (iii) the foreign judgment should explicitly deal with the question of habitual residence and cover all matters contained in the checklist; (iv) since the reciprocal order sought will almost invariably authorise the deprivation of P’s liberty such orders should be only be made by a Court of Protection permanent or deputy High Court judge following an attended hearing in court; (v) it would be perilous for applications under Schedule 3 to be routinely directed to be heard in open court but subject to a “transparency” order made under COP PD 4C, para 2.1 containing reporting restrictions and that issue needs to be resolved urgently either by the Rule Committee or by legislation; (vi) it is strongly in the public interest that decisions on applications under Schedule 3 are not rendered secretly and the court should, subject to submissions made by the press or any party, relax the prohibition in section 12(1) of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 to permit anonymous publication of the proceedings, the judgment and the order (para 53).