Judgment considering whether it was in the best interests of P, a 22 year old with dyskinetic tetraplegic cerebral palsy, to undertake a 12 week period of intensive support and assessment at a rehabilitation centre. P’s capacity to make that decision was in issue but he had expressed a wish not to attend.
In this lengthy judgment, HHJ Hilder first reviews the facts of the case before moving on to the issue of capacity, which was evidently disputed at the hearing even though the Official Solicitor's position statement had indicated agreement between the parties. After reviewing the expert’s evidence, and rejecting counsel’s submission that more could be done to continue with psychological therapy recommended by the expert, she concluded that P was “presently unable, because of mental impairment from acquired brain injury and learning disability” to have capacity on the issue.
From there, the judge goes on to consider whether attending the rehabilitation centre would be in P’s best interests. She concludes that P has such strong wishes not to go that the benefits would be negligible and this was a magnetic factor in her decision that it would not be in P’s best interests to attend at this time, despite the observation that P may have not been so opposed to the plan if his mother had offered more encouragement.
Read the full 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