In the Matter of P.G., A Ward Of Court and In the Matter of an Application Pursuant to Section 55 of the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act 2015 (As Amended) (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns an application pursuant to section 55 of the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act 2015 (as amended) regarding the discharge from wardship of the Respondent, a single gentleman born in 1956 with a severe intellectual disability. The Respondent was admitted to wardship in October 1993, with the General Solicitor acting as committee of his person and estate. He has been in full-time residential care and recently moved to a residential care placement near family with the support of disability services.

The application was brought by the committee based on an affidavit sworn by a solicitor, which included medical and social evidence. The court was tasked with determining the Respondent's capacity to make decisions in relation to personal welfare and property and financial affairs, and whether he should be discharged from wardship with appropriate supports in place.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Respondent lacks capacity to make decisions regarding personal welfare and health, and if so, whether he requires the assistance of a suitable co-decision maker.
2. Whether the Respondent lacks capacity to make decisions concerning property and financial affairs, even with assistance.
3. Whether the Respondent should be discharged from wardship and have a decision-making representative appointed 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's analysis was grounded on the uncontested medical evidence provided by a consultant psychiatrist, who diagnosed the Respondent with a severe intellectual disability, a permanent condition resulting in significant cognitive impairments. The psychiatrist's report indicated that the Respondent is capable of engaging in simple healthcare decisions with assistance but lacks capacity for complex health decisions and property and financial matters. The Respondent requires support as a co-decision maker for personal welfare decisions but lacks capacity regarding property and financial affairs even with assistance.

The court also considered the affidavit evidence regarding the Respondent's assets, the absence of any enduring power of attorney or advance healthcare directive, and the Respondent's expressed wishes, including his choice of his sister as decision-making representative (DMR). The court was satisfied that service requirements were met and that the Respondent's views were ascertained and respected.

In accordance with the 2015 Act, the court made declarations on the Respondent’s capacity and appointed the sister as DMR for property and financial affairs and temporarily for personal welfare decisions until a registered co-decision-making agreement takes effect. The court imposed conditions consistent with statutory obligations, including duties on the DMR to encourage input from relevant persons and to account to the Decision Support Service.

Holding and Implications

The court DISCHARGED THE RESPONDENT FROM WARDSHIP under section 55 of the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act 2015.

The Respondent was declared to lack capacity in health and personal welfare decisions unless assisted by a suitable co-decision maker, and to lack capacity in property and financial affairs decisions even with assistance. The Respondent's sister was appointed as decision-making representative for property and financial affairs and temporarily for personal welfare decisions until a co-decision-making agreement is registered.

The decision allows the Respondent to manage his own affairs with appropriate supports, reflecting his wishes and promoting his autonomy while ensuring protection in vulnerable areas. The court ordered a review of capacity within three years due to the permanent nature of the Respondent’s condition. No order for costs was made, and liberty to apply was granted for any arising issues. The ruling does not establish new precedent but provides a tailored resolution consistent with the statutory framework and the Respondent's circumstances.