23.20The short answer is that the fact that Court of Protection proceedings are on foot does not alleviate the obligations upon the local authority (or NHS body) where they have reason to believe that P has suffered harm or is at risk of harm. However, while they should take such steps as are immediately necessary to meet the situation, it is likely always to be necessary to bring the matter back to court if they will involve a substantial change in P’s circumstances (for instance, where they are living).

23.21One specific requirement in such case was identified by McFarlane J (as he then was) in Enfield LBC v SA and others.1[2010] EWHC 196 (Admin), [2010] COPLR Con Vol 362. Where there are extant Court of Protection proceedings, then in the absence of an absolutely pressing emergency (using that phrase in an extreme sense), McFarlane J held that any question of whether or not P was to be the subject of an ‘achieving best evidence’ interview2ie an interview carried out by police officers with a possible view to criminal proceedings, complying with the guidance set down in Achieving best evidence in criminal proceedings: guidance on interviewing victims and witnesses, and guidance on using special measures, Ministry of Justice, (now) 3rd revision, 2011; available at: www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/victims-and-witnesses/vulnerable-witnesses/achieving-best-evidence-criminal-proceedings.pdf. must be raised with the court and be subject to a direction from the judge. He noted that where the substance of the interview might relate to allegations that another party to the proceedings (or someone closely connected to a party) had harmed P then there would be good grounds for the matter being raised, at least initially, without notice to that party. However, in every case, he held, notice should be given to the Official Solicitor or any other person who acted as P’s litigation friend.3Enfield LBC v SA at para 46.