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

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns an application under section 55 of the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act 2015 (as amended) regarding the status of the Respondent, who is currently a ward of court. The Respondent, a 50-year-old unmarried man with a moderate learning disability, was admitted to wardship in July 2004. The General Solicitor acts as committee of his person and estate. The application was brought by motion on 7 November 2023, supported by an affidavit from Attorney Duffy, setting out the Respondent's circumstances including his diagnosis, living arrangements under a local authority tenancy, and limited family contact. The application seeks a declaration concerning the Respondent’s capacity and potential discharge from wardship with appointment of a decision-making representative (DMR).

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Respondent lacks capacity to make decisions concerning his health, personal welfare, property, and financial affairs.
2. If the Respondent lacks capacity, whether this incapacity persists even with the assistance of a suitable co-decision-maker.
3. Whether it is appropriate to appoint a decision-making representative (DMR) to manage the Respondent’s affairs and to discharge him from wardship.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

• The Respondent has a lifelong moderate learning disability and is unlikely to regain decision-making capacity.
• Medical evidence from Dr. C indicates the Respondent lacks capacity in healthcare, personal welfare, and financial matters, even with assistance from a co-decision-maker.
• The Respondent is well-supported in daily life but this support does not restore decision-making capacity.
• No suitable family member or trusted person has expressed willingness or ability to act as DMR.
• Appointment of an independent, experienced solicitor as DMR is appropriate.
• The Respondent’s capacity should be reviewed within three years.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court carefully considered the medical evidence, including a detailed psychiatric report confirming the Respondent’s lifelong moderate intellectual disability and inability to make informed decisions in key areas of his life. The Court acknowledged the Respondent’s well-supported and active lifestyle but distinguished this from the legal standard of decision-making capacity, which the Respondent lacks. The absence of any suitable family member or trusted person willing or able to act as DMR led the Court to approve the nomination of an experienced solicitor to fulfill this role. The Court emphasized the statutory obligations on the DMR to encourage the Respondent's participation as far as possible and to consider views of carers and interested parties. The Court also noted the importance of protecting the Respondent’s dignity and autonomy while ensuring appropriate management of his affairs.

Holding and Implications

The Court made the following DECLARATION: the Respondent lacks capacity to make decisions concerning his health, personal welfare, property, and financial affairs, even with the assistance of a co-decision-maker, pursuant to section 55(1)(b)(ii) of the 2015 Act.

The Court ordered:

• Publication prohibitions to protect the Respondent’s identity.
• Appointment of the nominated solicitor as the Respondent’s DMR for health, welfare, and financial matters.
• Discharge of the Respondent from wardship with management of his affairs by the DMR under statutory obligations.
• Authorization for the DMR to manage the Respondent’s assets and receive relevant case documents.
• Directions for financial administration and accounting to the Decision Support Service.
• The DMR will not receive remuneration or expenses from the Respondent’s assets, being a professional panel member.
• A review of the Respondent’s capacity is to occur no later than three years from the order.

The decision directly affects the Respondent by transitioning him from wardship to assisted decision-making under the 2015 Act, with ongoing protections and support. No new legal precedent was established.