In the Matter of SD [A Ward of Court] (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns an application brought under section 55 of the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act 2015 ("the 2015 Act") by the General Solicitor for the discharge of the Respondent, a 70-year-old single gentleman with an intellectual disability, from wardship. The Respondent was admitted to wardship in November 2005 and currently lives with his first cousin and the cousin's spouse, who have provided longstanding support. The General Solicitor acts as committee of the Respondent's estate, while the cousin is committee of his person. The application was issued on 6 February 2024 and is supported by affidavits and medical evidence, including an assessment by Dr. K and an independent social worker's report. The court's role was to consider whether the Respondent retains capacity in various areas of decision-making and to make appropriate declarations and orders under the 2015 Act.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Respondent lacks capacity in the areas of health and personal welfare decision-making and if such incapacity can be remedied by the assistance of a co-decision-maker.
2. Whether the Respondent lacks capacity in relation to property and financial affairs even with the assistance of a co-decision-maker.
3. The appropriate declarations and orders to be made under the 2015 Act concerning the Respondent's capacity and discharge from wardship.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully examined all evidence presented, including medical assessments and social reports. Dr. K's uncontroverted medical evidence established that the Respondent has a permanent intellectual disability due to congenital hydrocephalus, resulting in impaired cognitive functioning. Specifically, the Respondent has difficulty understanding and using information to make decisions in health and welfare areas but would have capacity with the assistance of a co-decision-maker. Conversely, the Respondent lacks capacity in financial and property matters even with such assistance.

The court also considered the Respondent's expressed wishes and the role of his cousin and spouse, who provide significant support. The Respondent's consent to the appointment of a co-decision-maker for health and welfare decisions and an independent decision-making representative (DMR) for financial affairs was noted. The court relied on statutory provisions in the 2015 Act, including the possibility of discharging the Respondent from wardship upon appointment of appropriate representatives and the procedural mechanism allowing a temporary DMR appointment to cease upon registration of a co-decision-making agreement.

In balancing these factors, the court concluded that the Respondent requires a co-decision-maker for health and welfare decisions but an independent DMR must be appointed for financial decisions. The court imposed a time limit of three months for registration of the co-decision-making agreement to ensure clarity and avoid open-ended arrangements. The court also ordered periodic capacity reviews and set terms for the remuneration and expenses of the DMR consistent with the statutory framework.

Holding and Implications

The court's final decision is summarized as follows:

• The Respondent lacks capacity in health and personal welfare decision-making unless assisted by a suitable co-decision-maker.
• The Respondent lacks capacity in property and financial decisions even with co-decision-maker assistance.
• The Respondent is discharged from wardship pursuant to section 55(5)(b) of the 2015 Act.
• An independent solicitor is appointed as decision-making representative for financial affairs.
• The Respondent's cousin is appointed as a temporary decision-making representative for health and welfare decisions until a co-decision-making agreement is registered within three months.

The direct effect of this ruling is to formalize support arrangements around the Respondent's decision-making consistent with his needs and wishes, while enabling his discharge from wardship. The court emphasized that the Respondent's day-to-day life and living arrangements will continue unchanged and commended the support provided by his family. No new legal precedent was established; the ruling applied the statutory framework to the facts before the court.