Grounds 1 and 2: Cobb J erred in his formulation of the relevant information which the P needs to be able to understand, retain and use or weigh for the purposes of making the decision to use social media and the internet by importing limbs (iii) (offence to others by sharing media) and (vi) (potential to commit crimes by sharing media) from the case of Re A when they were irrelevant to the P's case. In so doing, he failed to strike an appropriate balance between protecting incapacitous individuals, and protecting their personal autonomy.
Ground 3: Cobb J erred in his formulation of the relevant information which the P needs to understand, retain and weigh in order to have the capacity to consent to sexual relations by importing limbs (iii) (right to say no) and (v) (prevention of sexually transmitted infections by use of a condom).
The LA's cross-appeal was, amongst others, as follows:
Cobb J reached a decision that the P had capacity to make her own decisions about residence without following the steps required in the statutorily mandated decision making process; in particular, by failing to address the questions of whether the P had the ability to understand, retain and use or weigh the relevant information, and by failing to address whether the P was engaging with support offered to her to outline the risks of living with Mr C.
The appeal was dismissed and cross-appeal allowed.
Read the full text of the judgment on Bailii