In the Matter of "A" AND In the Matter of the Inherent Jurisdiction of the Court AND In the Matter of an Application for Transfer out of the Jurisdiction AND In the Matter of an Objection by Family. (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

The respondent is an Irish citizen in his fifties with a complex set of needs including autism spectrum disorder, mild intellectual disability, schizoaffective disorder, and generalized anxiety disorder. He has been detained under wardship since June 2017 and is currently resident in an approved centre under the Mental Health Act 2001, operated by Company A. Following discharge from wardship under the 2015 Assisted Decision Making Capacity Act, the applicant, Company B, applied to the Court's inherent jurisdiction for orders mirroring those previously made under wardship, which were granted on 12 February 2025. The possibility of transferring the respondent to a specialist placement in the United Kingdom was a live issue at that time.

Company B now seeks authority to transfer the respondent to a specialist facility in the United Kingdom, where he previously received care between October 2016 and April 2018. The respondent subsequently moved between various placements, including a less restrictive stepdown placement which broke down due to behavioral deterioration, leading to his re-admission to the current facility in January 2022.

The respondent's family expressed opposition to the transfer, but despite being given the opportunity to file evidence, no affidavits were submitted. Some family members participated remotely in hearings and made submissions opposing the transfer.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Court should grant authority to transfer the respondent to a specialist placement outside the jurisdiction.
2. Whether the transfer is necessary and proportionate to vindicate and protect the rights of the respondent, a vulnerable adult lacking capacity.
3. The extent to which family opposition and the respondent's views should influence the Court's decision.
4. The Court's jurisdiction under its inherent powers to make orders concerning the respondent's care and treatment in the absence of suitable domestic placements.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

• The respondent has complex needs and presents significant risks to himself and others that cannot be safely managed in any placement currently available within the jurisdiction.
• Clinical evidence establishes that the current placement is inadequate and lacks the specialist expertise required for effective treatment.
• The proposed specialist facility in the United Kingdom is the only suitable option and has previously provided beneficial care to the respondent.
• The respondent lacks capacity to make decisions regarding his treatment and placement.
• The transfer is necessary and proportionate to protect the respondent's fundamental rights, including liberty, bodily integrity, and access to appropriate care.
• The Court's inherent jurisdiction permits orders to safeguard vulnerable individuals where no statutory framework is available.

Respondent's Family's Arguments

• The family opposes the transfer to the United Kingdom and prefers a suitable placement within the jurisdiction.
• Previous transfer to the United Kingdom was said to have been detrimental, and the respondent "hated" the prior placement there.
• Complaints were raised about the current facility, described as "atrocious" and "the worst place" the respondent has been.
• Concerns were expressed about access and the respondent's relationship with his aging father, questioning whether this would be the last opportunity to see him.
• Despite these submissions, no evidential affidavit was provided to substantiate any claims.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court carefully considered detailed and uncontroverted medical evidence from multiple expert clinicians, all of whom agreed that the respondent's complex needs and risks exceed the capacity of any available placement within the jurisdiction. The evidence established that the current placement is inadequate and that the only viable option is transfer to a specialist facility in the United Kingdom, which has previously provided beneficial care.

The Court noted the respondent's recent change of view, now expressing a wish to transfer, though it acknowledged his earlier opposition. The Court also took account of the family's opposition but emphasized that family members are not proxy decision-makers for the respondent.

It was underscored that the Court's inherent jurisdiction exists to protect vulnerable individuals lacking capacity where no statutory framework applies. The Court rejected the suggestion that it could direct an enquiry into past care, noting that no jurisdiction or evidential basis exists for such a direction.

Balancing competing constitutional rights, including liberty, bodily integrity, and equal access to care, the Court found that authorizing the transfer is both necessary and proportionate to vindicate the respondent's fundamental rights and to provide him with the treatment required.

The Court also ordered that the respondent remain in the current facility until a placement in the specialist facility becomes available, emphasizing the need for periodic and intensive review of the orders due to their impact on rights.

Holding and Implications

The Court GRANTED the application authorizing the transfer of the respondent to the specialist placement in the United Kingdom and permitted his detention and treatment there.

The direct effect of this decision is to facilitate the respondent’s transfer to a facility capable of meeting his complex care needs, which cannot be met domestically. The Court emphasized the necessity and proportionality of the orders to protect the respondent’s fundamental rights. No new precedent was established beyond the application of the Court’s inherent jurisdiction to these facts, and the decision underscores the limitations of domestic care options for certain vulnerable individuals.