Application brought by the Local Authority seeking declarations and orders to enable safeguarding of AW, a 35-year old man living in residential care placement but where there are concerns about his capacity to decide on sexual relationships and other matters.
Application by the P's daughter to achieve his discharge from the care home where he is presently living and a declaration that it is in his best interest to be returned to his home with an appropriate package of support.
The LA was seeking declarations in relation to the P’s capacity in a number of areas of her life.
Applications brought under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 seeking section 15 declarations in relation to the P's capacity to make a range of relevant decisions and various best interests' determinations; and further seeking authority to deprive the P of his liberty at his accommodation and in the community. The applications were granted.
Judgement, following an earlier extempore judgment by Hayden J, concerning the framework of applicable law where the Court is faced with making an anticipatory decision that may result in the deprivation of P’s liberty should they lose a capacity in the future, where the matter was urgent and where the health of an unborn child was also at stake.
Applications to reconsider capacity rulings in relation to the P, particularly in relation to sexual relations and contraception and to review the best interests provisions in the light of any change that the court may make to the declarations.
Application which had been made under the streamlined procedure set out in Part 2 of Practice Direction 11A for authorisation of deprivation of liberty was not the correct procedure in this case.
The issue in this appeal was whether it is within the scope of parental responsibility to consent to living arrangements for a 16 or 17-year-old child which would otherwise amount to a deprivation of liberty within the meaning of article 5 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR), in particular where the child lacks the mental capacity to make the decision for himself.
Appeal against a decision which justified the P's deprivation of liberty was allowed.
The High Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction and authorised a deprivation of liberty in respect of the capacitous P.
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