I've now written something about the judgment and I'll be interested to hear what you think. Please do consider leaving a comment on the blog (there are no character limits)

openjusticecourtofprotection.org/2025/04/25/r...

In my view, it's absolutely right that the standard of justification for them is high. As the court notes, patient treatment is a matter of legitimate public interest.

We will write something @openjusticecop.bsky.social once we've all digested the judgment; we might not agree between ourselves

I have a lot of sympathy for these concerns, and the Supreme Court recognised them too - it accepts the use of injunctions during proceedings and doesn't completely rule out indefinite injunctions. That being said, indefinite injunctions are such a serious infringement of free expression

Thank you!

I think that's a sensible start. It can be coupled with ensuring that the signs (with adequate text size of course) don't just drop off halfway to the actual courtroom

Thank you! I'm glad it wasn't just the eyes of a first time visitor who found it bewildering. My suspicion was that the maps are only helpful if you already know where you're going. Perhaps they're not even too much help then

Thank you! All these months later, I'm still surprised by just how small the signs are. Quite the oversight