Court of Protection Hub
  • Home
  • Resources
  • Cases
  • News & Views
  • About the book
  • About & Advertise

Cases

​PB & RB (by her litigation friend the Official Solicitor) & London Borough of Haringey [2016] EWCOP 12

9/3/2016

 
​This case involved an application, pursuant to sections 21A and 16 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, for a review of the standard authorisation granted in respect of RB, who was 74 years old, had dementia and was living in a residential care home. RB, her son, sought primarily an order that she be returned home with a robust package of care.

The case was before District Judge Eldergill.
Facts
There was a long history of court involvement in decision-making on behalf of RB, dating back to 2011. In January 2013 RB was found by the court to lack capacity to litigate and to lack capacity to decide where to live, what care to receive from her family and other persons, and what level of contact to have with them. It was found to be in her best interests to reside alone at home in accordance with her wishes and receive a care plan in accordance with the court’s order. 

RB was admitted to hospital in November 2014 and discharged to the care home as a step-down placement, initially for a period of four week but she has resided there since. A standard authorisation was granted for her to be deprived of her liberty at the care home. Her son challenged this, maintaining that it remained RB’s wish to return home and that this would be in her best interests. He sought in the alternative to a return home that she be placed in a more independent placement with an appropriate package of care, although this was not really pressed because of a lack of availability. PB also sought the lifting of certain restrictions on him or at least their variation to allow him to visit his mother between 6pm and 12am on weekdays.

Law
The Judge carefully considered the following areas of law:
  • Articles 5 and 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights and the necessity and proportionality of any infringement of RB’s rights under them.
  • Section 4 of the MCA in relation to determining questions about what is in RB’s best interests.
  • The case of ITW v Z (2009) EWHV 2525 (Fam) and the guidance provided by Munby J (as he was then) with regard to the different considerations listed in section 4 (at para. 32) and the weight to be given to an incapacitated person’s own wishes (at para. 35). In relation to this latter issue, the Judge also considered what was said by Lady Hale in Aintree University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (Respondent) v James (Appellant) [2013] UKSC 67 and by Mr Justice Peter Jackson in Wye Valley NHS Trust v Mr B [2015] EWCOP 60.
  • The guidance of Peter Jackson J in The London Borough of Hillingdon v Steven Neary and Mark Neary and Others (2011) EWHC 1377 (COP) at para. 24 and that of the President in Re MM; Local Authority X v MM (by the Official Solicitor) and KM (2007) EWHC 2003 (Fam), (2009) 1 FLR 443 at paras. 115-121 in relation to the issue of the importance of long established family life.

Decision
The court found that it was in RB’s best interests to continue to live at the care home and that in the absence of a clear and consistent wish to go home, and given the finding that she would be sad to leave the care home and be less happy at her home, the factor of “magnetic importance” was RB’s happiness. 

Given PB’s recently improved conduct, all injunctions relating to him were discharged.

The court found that the four conditions relevant to the deprivation of liberty best interests requirement were satisfied, in that:
  1. RB was being detained in the care home for the purpose of being given care or treatment in circumstances which amount to a deprivation of her liberty, which was common ground;
  2. this was in her best interests;
  3. this was necessary in order to prevent harm to her, in that a return to her home would almost inevitably lead to a deterioration in her mental health and emotional well-being and she would be considerably less happy there than she is now in the care home;
  4. this was a proportionate response given the likelihood of her suffering harm and the seriousness of that harm. If she still had a clear and consistent wish to live at her home notwithstanding the limitations and complication of life there that would be a very powerful counter-consideration. However, the court did not believe that this was any longer the case.

Discussion
The primary issue was whether it was in RB’s best interests to remain at the care home or to return to her home. Key questions were whether her wishes and feelings remained the same as in 2013 and whether her needs had significantly increased.

The court’s view was that the nature, intensity, unpredictability and complexity of RB’s needs were not of a level which indicated a primary need for healthcare.  However, it considered that her need for emotional support and reassurance was less straightforward.

The court considered the degree of incapacity, the strength and consistency of RB’s views, the likely impact of knowing that her wishes and feelings were being overridden, the extent to which her wishes and feelings were rational, sensible, responsible and pragmatically capable of sensible implementation, and the extent to which her wishes and feelings could properly be accommodated within the court’s overall assessment of her best interests. 

The court’s view was that at the stage of her illness that RB had reached, it was likely that her happiness depended much more on how she lived than on where she lived and that the importance of where she lived was its impact on whether she had company, enjoyed the company, felt secure, cared for, content, had access to her family and so on. The court found that on the balance of the evidence RB is happy and content living in the nursing home, that she feels that it is home most of the time and that she does not want to leave and live by herself. The court found that although she could eventually readjust to living at home, she would be sad to leave her current carers and friends and that it was likely that she would feel anxious, more vulnerable, isolated and more depressed.

Of particular interest is paragraph 211 of the Judgment in which the Judge considered the importance of beliefs and values:

“The relevance and significance of an incapacitated person’s previous wishes, feelings, beliefs and values from a period when they had capacity varies from person to person. In a case where a devout Jehova’s Witness is unconscious and a decision is being made about whether a blood transfusion should be given, the person’s beliefs and values prior to becoming unconscious are of great significance. In a case such as RB’s they must be balanced against the person’s present wishes and feelings. In RB’s case I give more weight to my finding that she is happy and content at E Care Home and feels at home there than I do to speculation about what she would now make of her present situation if she briefly had the capacity to assess her current capacity and circumstances and was in possession of all relevant facts. I expect but cannot know that she would approach it as I have tried to do and would choose the option she feels is most likely to promote her happiness.”

Read the full text of the judgment on Bailii



Comments are closed.
    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

    RSS Feed


    More from Bath Publishing


    Browse

    Categories

    All
    Advance Decisions
    Assessments
    Best Interests
    Capacity
    Committal
    Contact
    Contempt Of Court
    Coronavirus
    Costs
    Deputies
    Disclosure
    DNA Testing
    DOLs
    End Of Life Decisions
    Fact Finding
    Finance
    Gifts
    Habitual Residence
    Human Rights
    Inherent Jurisdiction
    Injunctions
    International
    Jurisdiction
    LPA/EPA
    LPAs
    Medical Treatment
    Personal Welfare
    Practice & Procedure
    Pregnancy & Contraception
    Property
    Publicity
    Religion
    Reporting
    Residence
    Settlement
    Sexual Relations
    Statutory Will
    Sterilisation And Termination
    Travel

    Archives

    June 2025
    May 2025
    April 2025
    March 2025
    February 2025
    January 2025
    December 2024
    November 2024
    October 2024
    September 2024
    August 2024
    July 2024
    June 2024
    May 2024
    April 2024
    March 2024
    February 2024
    January 2024
    December 2023
    November 2023
    October 2023
    September 2023
    August 2023
    July 2023
    June 2023
    May 2023
    April 2023
    March 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    February 2017
    October 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015



Picture
This site is published by Bath Publishing Limited
www.bathpublishing.com
Manage your email preferences
Read the Bath Publishing Privacy Policy
  • Home
  • Resources
  • Cases
  • News & Views
  • About the book
  • About & Advertise