Yes, the Service Mangers did hold the so-called 'case conferences' in the absence if some of the relatives, who were unable to attend. They replied to the relatives' legal representative, who, too, was unable to attend the conferences because of prior commitments, saying that the conferences had to go ahead because of the time-scale for the closure if Leslie House and because the interests of those incapable of making their own decisions had to be safeguarded. In that regard, it would seem that the Service Managers refused to accept that the relatives and their solicitor had the interests of the residents at heart.

As far as the time-scale for the closure of Leslie House was concerned, the Church of Scotland could not close Leslie house as long as there were people living there, as there is no legal machinery to enable the Church to force people out of their home. What the Service Mangers had in mind was to help the Church force these old frail, vulnerable people from their home by trying to acquire Guardianship Orders in terms of the Adults With Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000. The so-called case conferences were simply part of the process, which would enable the Council to make application for the Orders. So much for protecting the interests of the residents. It was simply a case of the Church and the Council working together to enable the Church to get vacant possession of Leslie House.

The concept of Guardianship Orders is interesting - and frightening. If an individual does not have capacity in terms of the Act, for example, is incapable of making decisions or remembering decisions another individual, including the Council, who can claim an interest in the property, financial affairs or welfare of person who is incapable, can apply to the Sheriff for a Guardianship Order. If granted, the Order enables the person to whom it is granted to make decisions about the property, financial affairs or welfare of the person concerned. The Council wanted to acquire Guardianship Orders in terms of the welfare of the residents and the only item of welfare to which the Council wanted the Order to apply was to enable the Council to decide where the person may live. The Council did not want to seek any of the other duties or responsibilities that would normally be undertaken by someone who really cares about the person. The Guardianship Orders, therefore, were clearly no more than convenient legal instruments to enable the Council to force the old people from their home on behalf of the Church.

As it happens, a Guardianship Order of itself is not enough. In order to get someone removed from their home, the Council would have to invoke the provisions of Section 70 of the Act. That means that they would have to get a Warrant and then, on the strength of that Warrant, have a police officer apprehend the individual and remove him or her to a new home. In this day and age when civil rights are at the forefront of every political agenda, here we have the third largest local authority in Scotland prepared to have old, frail people suffering from dementia apprehended by the police and forcibly removed from their home. There are stories of Officers of the Board of Social Responsibility describing to staff how the police would be involved and how there would be ambulances standing by to cart the old people off.

As it happened, the case conferences were almost farcical. The Minutes were prepared by the Council and left much to be desired. None of that, however, is of any importance. The only important outcome is that the Council, as a consequence of the findings of the conferences, determined that it had to make application for Guardianship Orders, if the residents were to be protected.

In making an application for a Guardianship order a several reports are required. One from a medical practitioner, usually a GP, and another from a medical practitioner registered in terms of Section 20 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984, in other words, a psychiatrist who specialises in the psychiatry of old age. The Council commissioned such a psychiatrist, who was able to certify what everyone already knew, viz. that the eight residents who were the targets of the Council's applications for Guardianship Orders were incapable in terms of the Act

That psychiatrist prepared two reports. There is the one that was commissioned by the Council and which says that the residents are incapable. There is, however, another report, which was prepared on the initiative of the psychiatrist and which criticises the Council for what the psychiatrist sees as an abuse of the Act, in that it was never meant for the purpose to which the Council was seeking to put it. That report also expresses other views which would have gone a long way towards thwarting the Council's applications of Guardianship Orders.
Another report that is required in the course of making an application for a Guardianship Order is one from a mental health officer. The Council also obtained those reports. The Council employs all the mental health officers. They work for the Head of Social Work. They all supported the Council's applications and had no objections to their boss being made guardian. That is not surprising, but it is certainly interesting. It is also profoundly wrong that such reports are not from an independent authority.

In any event, the Council pursued the applications, which were first called in Court on March 12th. The Council, on that day, made separate application for the hearings to be in private (on the grounds that it may be necessary to reveal personal details of some of the residents.) There are those who may conclude that the Council was simply pursuing it desire to protect the residents. There may be others who might come to a different conclusion. In any event, the Council representatives didn't look too pleased when the Sheriff ruled that the hearings would be in private but that the media would be present as he was wanted justice to be seen to be done. The Sheriff also ruled that the hearings would be adjourned for a week to permit the relatives to take legal advice. It would seem that the Sheriff, too, was sensitive to the indecent haste that has been employed by the Council. It is important to say that the arguments about the Council's application that the hearings be in private and the relatives' application that the hearings be adjourned to permit them time to take legal advice were heard in private in the Sheriff's chambers and were at length. In the course of these arguments, reference was made to the critical report that had been prepared by the psychiatrist commissioned by the Council. The Sheriff did not announce his decisions until almost three hours had elapsed, subsequent to which a most surprising development transpired.

Out of the blue, the Council invited representatives of the relatives and their solicitor to talks with a view to finding a solution to the problem. Meetings took place on March 13th, and 14th and on April 30th. The applications for Guardianship orders were continued by the Council while the talks were ongoing. There are many disturbing characteristics of these meetings, the most serious being the failure on the part of the Council to produce Minutes and its failure also to produce terms of reference for individuals whose contributions were seen to be essential to finding a mutually acceptable solution. These shortcomings, however, are of no consequence meantime. What is of consequence is that the Council agreed to conduct multi-disciplinary needs lead assessments of the residents with a view to determining their needs and thereafter to seek to find a care provision, which met those needs. There was much toing and froing, but the outcome was that the remaining seven residents, (one had died during the time of the talks), on May 27th and 28th were moved by their relatives together with the staff with which they were familiar and, as far as possible, their furnishings and other personal effects into one of the Council's care homes.

It had taken a year, but finally the Council had done its job, perhaps only because the true levels of its ineptitude were about to be demonstrated in Court.

The Council ultimately abandoned the applications for Guardianship Orders.