Swansea Bay University Health Board v P & Ors [2023] EWCOP 67

Decision around whether to discharge a deputyship which had been made by a district judge in favour of P's mother, C, which the health trust felt was not in P's best interests.

P has a number of diagnoses including significant learning disability, atypical autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, hypermobility, low muscle tone, bowel problems, neuralgia and hydrocephalus. It was common ground that he lacked capacity. P was living with C but a care package in place ceased and P was moved to an emergency residence so adequate care could be provided. C's role as deputy led to tension between her and the medical teams with no agreement on longer term care so the Health Board applied for discharge. 

HHJ Porter-Bryant discharges the deputyship, rejecting submission on C's behalf at [47]

"I were to accept the submissions made on behalf of C and proceed on the basis that discharge could only occur in the circumstances set out within 16(8), it would lead to a curious position whereby the court would have to be satisfied as to the conduct set out therein before making the order discharging even if such continued appointment were no longer appropriate or necessary for reasons other than conduct of the deputy. The Court of Protection is by necessity an agile and responsive court. It makes orders that reflect changing circumstances to promote the needs and best interests of P. It would not be consistent with that or the overriding objective if the court could not discharge a deputyship when the best interests of P require it, notwithstanding that there is not the conduct under s16(8)."

He goes on to note at [83] that while his decision may be an infringement of C's human rights it is an 'appropriate infringement'.

Read the judgment on Bailii