The court had to make decisions in relation to whether the P had capacity to make decisions about his engagement in AEA and in relation to his contact with people he meets online.
The P has interests relating to certain sexual practices including autoerotic asphyxiation ('AEA'). Capacitous individuals engage in AEA notwithstanding that it is an inherently dangerous practice which carries a very real risk of acquired brain damage or unintentional death. Many capacitous individuals engage in contact with strangers on the internet or on social media which puts, or may put them, at risk of physical, sexual, emotional or psychological harm. The P is subject to very invasive restrictions which are necessary to protect him and to ensure his life is not unnecessarily endangered. The issues to be determined related to the P's engagement with AEA and the restrictions to which he was subject.
The court concluded that the P does not have capacity to make decisions in respect of engaging in AEA nor in respect of contact with people he meets online. The LA were instructed to draft a care plan for the court's approval which:
i) enables the professionals and the court to be better informed about the impact of the P's ASD on his life and his functioning;
ii) enables the professionals and the court to better understand how the P can be supported to gain capacity to make decisions about these two issues; and
iii) permits the P sufficient autonomy of decision making and respects his right to a private life whilst balancing the need to protect him from harm.
Read the full text of the judgment on Bailii
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
More from Bath Publishing