Court of Protection Hub
  • Home
  • Resources
  • Cases
  • News & Views
  • About the book
  • About & Advertise

Cases

A Local Health Board v AB [2015] EWCOP 31

13/5/2015

 
This case was the final hearing of an application by A Local Health Board (‘LHB’) to perform two operations on the Patient (‘P’), the first being dental surgery to extract P’s back teeth and, after a short time to ensure there was no infection, then to perform a cardiac operation.  As the P was an in-patient detained under section 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983 (‘MHA’) there was an issue as to whether or not the court had jurisdiction under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (‘MCA’) to deprive P of her liberty in order to undergo the operations or whether or not the court should be making declarations under its Inherent Jurisdiction. 
The Facts
P was a woman of 34 years and has a serious heart and life threatening condition; the only recommended treatment was surgery. P also has mental health problems; since her childhood years P has been diagnosed with mild/borderline learning disabilities. She also has a working diagnosis of autism and a schizophrenic illness.

The court gave the LHB permission to make the application. The matter was heard in public but the court imposed reporting restrictions. P was represented by the Official Solicitor (‘OS’). P’s Independent Mental Capacity Advocate was present but did not make oral representations.

Concerns
The court heard from two independent experts; the consultant cardiac anesthetist, and P’s responsible clinician. The concerns were:-
  • There was no other treatment recommended other than surgery to repair the aneurism and the use of a tissue aortic valve replacement was the treatment of choice;
  • The tissue valve may degenerate and could require further replacement in 8-15 years time but developing techniques may remove the need for further surgery;
  • If a mechanical valve was used there was a risk of blockage if warfarin was not taken properly (a drug to thin the blood). There was a likelihood that if P did not take this medication and the valve was to jam P would die. If she were to have an accident and was not able to control the bleeding (because of the warfarin) that risk could be fatal;
  • Although P had been diagnosed with an abnormal hearth rhythm with an abnormal connection between the two main heart chambers at childhood this was not the cause of her current problem;
  • P was diagnosed with a swelling at the aortic root and without surgery there was a risk of rupture and almost instantaneous death. P was already beyond the hinge point and was lucky not to have had a rapture;
  • There were mortality rates associated with surgery but these are far less than the risk of dying from a ruptured aneurism. 

Objections
P objected to the surgery for fear of not waking up and that she may die during surgery. P knew that as she had a heart condition from childhood and that nothing has happened as a result of that.  P did not agree that she had a heart problem that needs to be treated. However P did state that she did not want to die and would be ‘rescued’ under emergency surgery. P’s views were relayed through the medics and the OS. The OS on P’s behalf supported the declarations that P did not have capacity to conduct the proceedings or whether or not to undergo the operations.  

P’s parents took a neutral view and left the decision to the court.

The Law
The court considered the interaction between the MHA and the MCA. Section 4A and section 4B of the MCA allows the court to deprive a person of their liberty who lacks capacity as long as it is the best interests of that person, and where it is necessary to give life sustaining treatment (section 4B).

Section 16(2)(a) of the MCA allows the court to make decisions concerning a persons personal welfare. However where the person is subject to a regime under the MHA they are ineligible to be deprived of the liberty under a section 16 MCA order (see schedule 1A paragraph 2 of the MCA for an example of who is ineligible). 

The court considered whether P will be ineligible under MCA even if P was given leave under section 17, with or without conditions, of the MHA to attend hospital for surgery. The court also considered that there would be additional restraints under the principles in Cheshire West and Cheshire Council v P [2014] AC 896 meaning that P would be deprived of her liberty.  

The court could make declarations under the Inherent Jurisdiction to bridge the gap between the two legislative provisions (referring to A NHS Trust v A [2013] EWHC 2442 (Fam) starting at paragraph 89 (see paragraph 59 to 62 for the analysis)).

The court undertook a Best Interests Assessment as per paragraph 4 of the MCA although it was using its power under its Inherent Jurisdiction.

Decision
The court found that P did not have capacity to litigate, nor was she able to understand and weigh up the information regarding the benefits and the risks of the operations being proposed.

It was agreed at the beginning of the hearing that P’s status as a patient under section 3 of the MHA would exclude the Court of Protection powers due to the provisions in Schedule 1A of the MCA paragraph 2. As the illness was physical and not linked to P’s mental disorder this would prevent treatment under the MHA.

The court made the necessary declarations under its Inherent Jurisdiction.

Discussion
The court made it clear that section 4B governs life-sustaining treatment in an emergency only, not where the court has time to consider the matter fully for elective surgery (see paragraph 49) and it was appropriate to consider a section 16 order.

As section 16 (2)(a) could not come into play as P was detained under a regime pursuant to the MHA, and that the detention of P for surgery does not fall within the relevant provisions of the MHA, then it was left to the court to make declarations under its Inherent Jurisdiction.

As P’s treatment required detention for a physical purpose and not a mental purpose the provisions of the MHA do not apply and the court concluded that P also fell outside the scope of the MCA.

This case highlights the gap between the two differing legislative provisions of the MCA and the MHA but highlights the use of the court’s Inherent Jurisdiction.

The court did undertake a balancing act when assessing the positive and the negatives of whether or not P ought to have the surgery and assessing what was in P’s best interests.

Read the full text of the judgment on Bailii


Comments are closed.
    Case summaries on every Court of Protection case & other relevant decisions with links to the full judgment where available. 

    Support the Hub
    This site is free to access but if you find it useful then please consider a contribution by way of support for our work.  Click here to contribute.

    Sign up for our free email alert

    We do not share your details with any third parties and you can unsubscribe at  any time

    RSS Feed


    More from Bath Publishing


    Browse

    Categories

    All
    Advance Decisions
    Assessments
    Best Interests
    Capacity
    Committal
    Contact
    Contempt Of Court
    Coronavirus
    Costs
    Deputies
    Disclosure
    DNA Testing
    DOLs
    End Of Life Decisions
    Fact Finding
    Finance
    Gifts
    Habitual Residence
    Human Rights
    Inherent Jurisdiction
    Injunctions
    International
    Jurisdiction
    LPA/EPA
    LPAs
    Medical Treatment
    Personal Welfare
    Practice & Procedure
    Pregnancy & Contraception
    Property
    Publicity
    Religion
    Reporting
    Residence
    Settlement
    Sexual Relations
    Statutory Will
    Sterilisation And Termination
    Travel

    Archives

    May 2025
    April 2025
    March 2025
    February 2025
    January 2025
    December 2024
    November 2024
    October 2024
    September 2024
    August 2024
    July 2024
    June 2024
    May 2024
    April 2024
    March 2024
    February 2024
    January 2024
    December 2023
    November 2023
    October 2023
    September 2023
    August 2023
    July 2023
    June 2023
    May 2023
    April 2023
    March 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    February 2017
    October 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015



Picture
This site is published by Bath Publishing Limited
www.bathpublishing.com
Manage your email preferences
Read the Bath Publishing Privacy Policy
  • Home
  • Resources
  • Cases
  • News & Views
  • About the book
  • About & Advertise