Laura Davidson - Court of Protection
"Well regarded in the market, and noted for her academic excellence in human rights and mental health law. She is adept at handling serious medical treatment cases and disputes around the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatments." "She’s a doughty fighter.”
Chambers & Partners 2017
"A popular junior with a strong academic grounding in mental health law and human rights. She is frequently instructed in Court of Protection work by health trusts, local authorities and the Official Solicitor." "Extremely good. She is an effective, assertive advocate who is always entirely up to speed with the issues and knows how to get the result for her client." Chambers & Partners 2016
“Highly valued for both her strong commitment to cases and her academic background.” “It is difficult to find someone as grounded as Laura in mental capacity and mental health law, or as practical or positive. She is incredibly hard-working, dedicated and entirely approachable.” “She is very energetic and will go the extra mile.” Chambers & Partners 2015
"An extremely confident advocate who is endlessly energetic."
"A tough opponent who fights hard for her client." Chambers & Partners 2014
"Laura Davidson is a mental health and human rights expert. Sources commend her work for local authorities, and she also acts for trusts, individuals and the Official Solicitor. "Capable and feisty, you are pleased when she is on your side," said one instructing solicitor." Chambers & Partners 2013
"Laura Davidson is praised for the "technical precision" she applies to her instructions, her warm nature and the "tenacity" with which she approaches every aspect of her work. She is a noted authority on mental health and capacity legislation." Chambers & Partners 2012
Previously instructed in cases under the court’s inherent jurisdiction, she is now a frequent advocate in the Court of Protection. Laura appears regularly for the Official Solicitor, Trusts, local authorities and families in applications for declarations of incapacity and best interests, particularly in relation to health and welfare decisions. An indication of her expertise in the area of medical treatment can be seen from the following cases.
Laura is a Visiting Academic Fellow of the University of Cape Town, South Africa.
Laura has appeared for
• a Trust seeking urgent court authority to give a blood transfusion to a child Jehovah’s Witness involved in a road traffic accident;
• the Official Solicitor in respect of a prisoner on hunger strike;
• the Trust in two applications for the withdrawal of artificial nutrition and hydration from PVS patients;
• the family, opposing an application by a Trust for a catatonic woman’s pregnancy termination (subsequently withdrawn);
• the Official Solicitor where permission was sought to insert a PEG feeding tube for a non-consenting woman with secondary progressive multiple sclerosis;
• a local authority in a case involving a schizophrenic patient with grade three ovarian cancer whose family would not accept her condition and wished to remove her from the jurisdiction in order to arrange her marriage;
• the patient's brother and LPA in a case upon whether it was in the best interests of a sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease sufferer to continue with experimental treatment;
• a Trust seeking an urgent interim order by way of a four hour out-of-hours telephone hearing to permit the insertion of a naso-gastric tube for the provision of artificial nutrition and hydration with respect to a brain injured woman. This was granted notwithstanding the fact that she had pulled out other invasive lines repeatedly, her strongly held beliefs and written and oral statements made when she had capacity that she did not wish to receive life-sustaining invasive treatments, as well as the family's objections;
• a non-profit making public interest group seeking to intervene in a case brought by the family of a woman in a minimally conscious state who sought declarations that it was lawful and in her best interests to withdraw artificial nutrition and hydration.
Laura is happy to advise on all aspects of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards which came into force in April 2009 to plug the ‘Bournewood gap’. She receives regular instructions in relation to Deputy appointment and decisions about where those lacking capacity should reside. She has also advised as special Counsel to the OPG.
Laura provided training for Best Interests Assessors at the London Metropolitan University in anticipation of the DOLS, and was instructed on behalf of a local authority in one of the first challenges to a DOLS authorisation before the Court of Protection. Laura was Counsel for the Official Solicitor in the key case on deprivation of liberty transfers (DCC v KH & Others, Court of Protection, 11th September 2009). She also appeared for the Appellant in one of the first Court of Protection appeals - the significant case of In the matter of KS, 17th May 2010, LTL 1/11/2010 - in which an employed carer Applicant appealed against the usual costs order.
As well as publishing frequent articles, Laura regularly lectures in this field, both through Chambers and more widely. She was an expert panelist on the DOLS at the recent Butterworths Mental Health Law & Practice Conference 2010 and spoke at the CLT Court of Protection conference on the subject of problem applications in December 2010. In February 2011 she was a speaker on the subject of the developing law relating to best interests at the Butterworths Court of Protection Conference. She is happy to provide tailor-made seminars to solicitors’ firms.
Having written a public law thesis on international mutual cooperation as part of her LLM at the University of Cambridge, Laura subsequently co-authored a book on the topic. She now advises regularly on international mutual assistance in civil matters, particularly in the realm of forced marriages and the anticipated removal of vulnerable adults from the jurisdiction. Where incapacitated adults have already been removed from the jurisdiction, she advises on the complex network of legislation, treaties, Conventions and international cooperation necessary to secure their return home, including the potential use of worldwide asset freezing orders. Given her expertise in this area, Laura is one of the Commonwealth Secretariat's legal experts on its roster for the Commonwealth Fund for Technical Co-operation. She is a Consultant for the government of Rwanda, and in 2013 spent seven months drafting the country’s first mental health law.
“Capacity to consent to or refuse psychiatric treatment: An analysis of South African and British law”, South African Journal of Human Rights, Vol.32, Issue 3, 11th January 2017, pp.457-489 (Article comparing UK and South African compliance with international human rights obligations in terms of the mental capacity of detained psychiatric patients). Read it here.
“Fact-finding hearings in the health and social context” (S.J. Vol.160, No.7, 23rd February 2016 (article considering the law on when fact-finding is necessary in Court of Protection proceedings and in those before a First-tier Tribunal (Mental Health) in the light of In the Matter of AG  EWCOP 78 and AM v Partnerships in Care Limited & Secretary of State for Justice (2015) UKUT 659 (AAC)).
"Cheshire West continues to be Troublesome”, (S.J.Vol.159, No.35, 22nd September 2015 (case comment on the Court of Appeal's view of the Court of Protection President's controversial ruling in Re X (Court of Protection practice)  EWCA Civ 599 on the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards). Read it here, with kind permission from the Solicitors Journal.
“False Imprisonment Part 2: Are our rights stronger in Europe?”, S.J. Vol. 159, No.27, 14th July 2015 (Second part of article on the implications of Lee Bostridge v Oxleas NHS Foundation Trust  EWCA Civ 79 for future claims for damages based on Article 5 of the ECHR). Read it here.
“False Imprisonment Part 1: A Right to Compensation”, S.J. Vol. 159, No.23, 16th June 2015 (Article on the implications of Lee Bostridge v Oxleas NHS Foundation Trust  EWCA Civ 79 for future claims for damages flowing from Article 5 of the ECHR (Part 2 in print on 14th July 2015)). Read it here.
“Fundamental Right to Liberty”, S.J. Vol. 159, No.22, 9th June 2015 (Case note and comment on Rochdale MBC v KW and Others  EWCOP 13). Read it here.
“Best interests: How the Supreme Court restored the law for incapacitated patients”, S.J., 8th January 2014 (Article on Aintree University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v James  UKSC 67 and the concepts of futility and intolerability in medical treatment cases).
“Deprivation of liberty: current approach leaves vulnerable clients with limited protection”, S.J., 20th November 2013 (Article on the new concept of comparator introduced into English law by Cheshire West & Chester Council v P  EWCA 1257 (Part III).
'Blurring the Boundaries', Private Client Adviser, pp.26-27, Dec. 2012/Jan. 2013 (Commissioned article on the successes and failures of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards). Click here to read the full article.
“The relevance of purpose in deprivation of liberty cases”, S.J. Vol. 156, No.29, 25th July 2012 (The significance of the emphasis on purpose in P & Q and Cheshire West & Chester Council v P  EWCA 1257 (Part II)).
"Turning back the clock", S.J. Vol 156, No. 22, pp.10-13, 6th June 2012 (Article on 1976 case, Engel v Netherlands, and subsequent unhelpful court interpretation of the factors to be considered when determining whether or not restrictions amount to a deprivation of liberty).
"Close Comfort”, S.J. Vol. 155, No. 14, pp.14-15, 12th April 2011 (Article on the recent Court of Appeal decision in MIG and MEG which considers the relevance of a benign purpose behind restrictions on liberty). Click here to read the full article.
“Last Resort”, S.J. pp.23-24 (Bar Focus), October 2009 (Article on the fine line between deprivation of liberty and restraint under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the DOL Safeguards). Click here to read the full article.
“The right to decide?”, S.J. Vol.152, No.12, pp.14-15, 25th March 2008 (Article on advance decisions and their apparent inapplicability to detained patients).
“Mental health and mental capacity: the new overlap”, S.J. Vol.151, No.45, pp.1520-1522, 30th November 2007 (Article on the application of Mental Capacity Act principles to detained patients).
“PVS Patients and Medical Welfare Applications: Wakening the Dead”, Counsel, June 2007, pp.2-4 (Article on recent developments likely to affect High Court applications for the withdrawal of treatment from PVS patients).
“Conscious Decisions”, S.J. Vol.151, No.13, p.424, 30th March 2007 (Article on fMRI research relating to apparent consciousness in the vegetative state).
“Miracle Cure?”, S.J. Vol.151, No.7, pp.217-218, 16th February 2007 (Article on new rousing medication which increases consciousness in some PVS patients).
Ph.D (Cantab): “An examination of the rights of the mentally disordered in English law in the context of Articles 3 and 5(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms”
M.Phil (Cantab): “An examination of the rights of the mentally disordered offender in the English criminal justice process: public protection, risk and dangerousness”
LL.M (Cantab): International Human Rights, Environmental Law, International Commercial Litigation (papers), Public Law (Thesis): “The development of international mutual assistance in criminal matters with particular reference to the letter of request”
Bar Vocational Course, Inns of Court School of Law
Advanced Dip.Law (Distinction)
XZ v The OPG  EWCOP 35;  All ER (D) 189 (May) (Challenge to the OPG’s refusal to register a Lasting Power of Attorney with respect to property and affairs on the basis that certain provisions were invalid).
The London Borough of Redbridge v G, C and F  EWCOP 17, COP (final Judgment following a 4 day fact finding hearing in a complex case which began under the inherent jurisdiction involving a vulnerable old lady and whether or not (i) her live-in carers had abused her, and (ii) it was in her best interests to continue to have them provide her with care) - See more here.
Re G (Adult)  EWCOP 1361 (satellite litigation in the Redbridge case before the President, Sir James Munby, pertaining to the issue of whether or not G had the capacity to have contact with the Press, and refusing a novel application by the Press Association to become a party and arguments on the interrelationship of Articles 8 and 10 of the EHCR)
RK v BCC, YB and AK  EWCA Civ 1305 (Court of Appeal decision as to whether or not parents could consent to their child’s deprivation of liberty on their behalf under s.20 of the Children Act 1989)
SMBC, WMP, RG, GG, HSG, SK and SKG, Court of Protection (Birmingham), 14th June 2011 (application for dismissal of proceedings and permission to withdraw as a party on the basis of a lack of evidence of incapacity)
PH v A Local Authority, Z. Ltd, and R (2011)  EWHC 1704 (Fam), Baker J. (urgent application under the DOLS concerning a patient found by the independent neuropsychiatrist to have capacity to make decisions about where he resided, contrary to the unanimous opinion of PH’s treating team)
In the matter of KS (2010), 17th May 2010, LTL 1/11/2010 (appeal by a carer Applicant against the usual order as to costs)
DCC v KH & Others, CoP, 11th September 2009, LTL 13/1/2011 (the key case on deprivation of liberty transfers)
A Hospital v SW  EWHC 425 (Fam)
In Re K (A Child) (2006) 2 FLR 883