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.
Application by the Police to have access to a psychological report undertaken on the P to inform them about his capacity to access the internet and social media. Application refused.
The court had to make a best interests decision in relation to the mode of delivery of the unborn child being carried by the P.
This hearing was listed to determine whether the P was able to make a capacitous decision to accept or refuse care, support and education.
Application in relation to the P's capacity to decide where she should live and whether she should continue to have contact with her abusive partner.
Appeal against a court decision that the P lacked capacity to make decisions about his residence and care. The appeal was allowed.
Application by the OS discharging a previous order for the instruction of a third independent expert psychiatrist, to assess the P’s capacity to make decisions about contact with other people. The court made the order sought.
Declarations were made that the P, who suffered from anorexia nervosa, did not have capacity to make decisions about her treatment for the condition, nor was it in her best interests to receive any further treatment.
Hearing to determine whether the P should be given CANH against his wishes.
The P has suffered post-traumatic stress disorder and depression having been granted asylum after escaping from his native Palestine. The P believed his date of birth to be 29 December 1994 but after 3 age assessments the Home Office determined that it was 29 December 1994. For the P, the removal of his date of birth was perceived as a fundamental violation of his own rights and an assault on his identity. The P made an application to help at a Nightingale hospital but his application was rejected because he did not give his biometric date of birth. This led to the P feeling that his situation was hopeless and he started to refuse food and drink. This hearing was to determine what treatment plan should be undertaken, including the option of feeding with sedation without the P's consent.
The court ruled that any treatment should only be undertaken with the P's consent. Loss of capacity does not override respect for personal autonomy. Every effort should be made, with the parents at the centre of the process, to persuade, cajole and encourage the P to accept nutrition and hydration. When the P says no to CANH his refusal should be respected. No must mean no!
Read the full text of the judgment on Bailii
There was a dispute as to whether the conclusions of a second independent expert psychiatrist should be accepted, and final declarations made in accordance with those conclusions.
Case summaries on every Court of Protection case & other relevant decisions with links to the full judgment where available.
Sign up for our free email alert
We do not share your details with any third parties and you can unsubscribe at any time
Useful books from Bath Publishing