Factual and Procedural Background
This opinion concerns an application under section 55 of the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act 2015 ("the 2015 Act") regarding the discharge of a respondent from wardship. The respondent, born in 1967, suffered a serious accident in youth resulting in a mild intellectual disability and profound deafness. He was admitted to wardship in 1987. The respondent's sister, acting as committee of his person and estate, initiated the present application by motion on 17 July 2023 seeking a declaration on the respondent’s capacity and, if appropriate, the appointment of decision-making representatives (DMRs). The respondent resides in supported accommodation and declined to participate in the hearing, expressing a wish not to be involved. The court considered multiple affidavits from the applicant, including medical evidence, and service affidavits confirming the respondent was informed of the proceedings.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the respondent lacks capacity to make decisions in relation to health, personal welfare, and property and financial affairs.
- If the respondent lacks capacity, whether this incapacity persists even with the assistance of a suitable co-decision-maker.
- Whether it is appropriate to appoint decision-making representatives to act on behalf of the respondent.
- Whether the respondent should be discharged from wardship pursuant to the 2015 Act.
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 began by addressing the respondent’s absence, concluding that proceeding without him did not cause injustice as it was his expressed wish not to participate. The court then considered the statutory framework under section 55 of the 2015 Act, which requires declarations on the respondent’s capacity status and, if necessary, the appointment of decision-making representatives.
Medical evidence from a consultant psychiatrist was pivotal, providing an uncontested opinion that the respondent permanently lacks capacity to make decisions concerning health, welfare, and financial matters, even with assistance. The court accepted this evidence as conclusive.
The court also considered affidavits regarding service of the application papers and communication efforts, confirming proper notice and explanation to the respondent with appropriate accommodations for his deafness.
Affidavits from the respondent’s sister and niece supported the appointment of both as joint and several decision-making representatives, reflecting the respondent’s will and preference and ensuring continuity of care and management of affairs.
Given the permanent nature of the respondent’s incapacity, the court found it appropriate to discharge him from wardship and vest decision-making authority jointly in the appointed representatives, subject to statutory duties and oversight mechanisms, including review of capacity within three years.
Holding and Implications
The court DECLARED that the respondent lacks capacity to make decisions concerning health, personal welfare, and property and financial affairs, even with assistance from a co-decision-maker.
The court ORDERED the discharge of the respondent from wardship and the appointment of the respondent’s sister and niece as joint and several decision-making representatives under the 2015 Act. The decision-making representatives are authorized to manage the respondent’s assets and affairs, subject to statutory duties and oversight by the Decision Support Service.
Costs were ordered in favor of the applicant to be adjudicated if not agreed.
The ruling has the direct effect of transitioning the respondent from wardship to a supported decision-making regime, reflecting both his incapacity and his expressed preference, without establishing new legal precedent.