In the Matter of SM [A Ward of Court] (Unapproved)

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns an application brought under section 55 of the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act 2015 ("the 2015 Act") relating to the discharge of the Respondent from wardship. The Respondent, born in 1982 and diagnosed with schizophrenia, was admitted to wardship in December 2021, with the General Solicitor appointed as committee of his person and estate. The Respondent currently resides at a placement managed by Company A (the Talbot Group) under court orders made pursuant to the court's inherent jurisdiction for his detention and care. These orders are subject to an upcoming review. The present application was initiated by motion on 26 October 2023, supported by an affidavit from a solicitor of the General Solicitor's Office outlining the Respondent’s diagnosis, living situation, medical evidence, and assets. Efforts were made to inform the Respondent, his carers, and his next of kin of the application. Medical evidence from a consultant psychiatrist dated 31 July 2023 assessed the Respondent’s capacity and recommended the appointment of a decision-making representative ("DMR"). The Respondent did not nominate any suitable person as DMR. Consequently, a social worker with relevant experience was nominated and approved by the President. The court was asked to make declarations regarding the Respondent’s capacity and to make orders discharging him from wardship with the appointment of the DMR to manage his affairs.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Respondent lacks capacity to make decisions regarding his health, personal welfare, and property and financial affairs, even with the assistance of a co-decision-maker;
2. If the Respondent lacks capacity, whether the court should appoint a decision-making representative to manage his affairs;
3. The appropriate scope and terms of any orders discharging the Respondent from wardship and appointing a DMR under 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 considered the uncontroverted medical evidence provided by the consultant psychiatrist, who diagnosed the Respondent with schizophrenia and concluded that he lacks capacity to understand, retain, and weigh information relevant to health, welfare, and financial decisions, even with assistance from a co-decision-maker. The court noted the Respondent’s current care arrangement and the positive environment at his placement. The absence of a suitable person nominated by the Respondent or identified by his carers to act as DMR was established through affidavits. Given these facts and the statutory framework under the 2015 Act, the court found it appropriate to declare that the Respondent lacks capacity in the relevant areas and to appoint a professional DMR to manage his affairs. The court also considered statutory provisions requiring the DMR to facilitate the Respondent’s input as far as possible and to account to the Decision Support Service. The court’s orders were tailored to ensure appropriate management of the Respondent’s welfare and financial matters, including arrangements for receipt of social protection payments and oversight of the assets held in the committee account.

Holding and Implications

The court’s final decision was to DISCHARGE THE RESPONDENT FROM WARDSHIP pursuant to section 55(5)(b) of the 2015 Act and to appoint a professional decision-making representative to manage the Respondent’s personal welfare and property and financial affairs. The court declared that the Respondent lacks capacity to make decisions in these areas even with the assistance of a co-decision-maker. The orders include reporting restrictions, authorization for the DMR to receive and manage the Respondent’s assets, and requirements for the DMR to account to the Decision Support Service. The Respondent’s capacity is to be reviewed by the Circuit Court no later than three years from the date of the order. The decision allows the Respondent to exit wardship while ensuring continued protection and management of his affairs. No new precedent was established, and the decision primarily affects the parties involved.