Summary of High Court (Wards of Court) Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

The Applicant applied to be discharged from wardship. The matter first came before Judge Heslin on 8 October. The Applicant's motion was grounded on an affidavit sworn on 24 September by the Applicant's solicitor. Medical evidence included a December 2024 report by the Court Medical Visitor (Doctor A) finding the Applicant lacked capacity to make personal welfare and property and affairs decisions unless assisted by a suitable co-decision-maker (CDM). A subsequent June 2025 report by a second consultant psychiatrist (Doctor B) found the Applicant did not lack capacity but recommended decision-making assistance. The Applicant's mother and brother (the notice parties) contended a decision-making representative (DMR) should be appointed; they filed affidavits (the mother and brother swore affidavits on 11 November). The Applicant, through counsel, accepted the Court Medical Visitor's opinion and sought an independent CDM rather than a DMR. The court declined the notice parties' request for a further (third) capacity assessment. The court made a declaration under s.55(1)(b)(i) of the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act 2015 that the Applicant lacks capacity in personal welfare and property and affairs decision-making unless assisted by a suitable CDM, and adjourned for practical steps to register a co-decision-making agreement.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether, for the purposes of the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act 2015, the Applicant lacks capacity in relation to personal welfare and property and affairs decision-making absent the assistance of a co-decision-maker.
2. Whether a decision-making representative (DMR) should be appointed instead of, or in addition to, a co-decision-maker.
3. Whether a further psychiatric assessment should be ordered where two consultant psychiatrists (including the Court Medical Visitor) have provided reports.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

• The Applicant did not challenge the Court Medical Visitor's report and consented to support in the form of a co-decision-maker (CDM).
• The Applicant sought an independent, wholly unrelated person to act as CDM and expressly did not seek a DMR.

Notice Parties' Arguments (Applicant's Mother and Brother)

• Based on long experience of living with the Applicant, they averred the Applicant is not capable of living independently and requires a DMR who could "guide and care for him".
• They proposed that one or other of them should perform the DMR role.
• They suggested a further (third) assessment of capacity should be directed.

Other Evidence / Parties

• The Applicant's long-term GP (Doctor C) opined the Applicant should have a court-appointed DMR and recommended the mother and brother as suitable, but the GP had not formally tested capacity and had not clinically assessed the Applicant in the last two years.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analysed the matter through the statutory guiding principles in s.8 of the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act 2015: presumption of capacity (s.8(2)); requirement to take all practicable steps to help the relevant person make decisions (s.8(3)); recognition that making an "unwise decision" does not by itself indicate lack of capacity (s.8(4)); and that interventions must minimise restrictions on rights and freedom of action (s.8(6)). The court gave weight to the two consultant psychiatrists' functional capacity assessments, noting neither recommended appointment of a DMR. The court rejected the notice parties' request for a further psychiatric assessment, given that neither the Court Medical Visitor nor the second consultant psychiatrist had indicated a DMR was required. The court observed the GP's recommendation for a DMR was based on long experience but lacked recent clinical assessment or a formal functional capacity test; accordingly, the court afforded greater weight to the psychiatrists' specialist opinions. The Applicant's clear preference for an independent CDM was treated as central pursuant to s.8(7)'s requirement to give effect to the relevant person's will and preferences where practicable. To minimise family discord and respect the Applicant's expressed wishes, the court determined an independent, unrelated CDM was the appropriate form of assistance. Applying s.55(1)(b)(i) of the 2015 Act, the court declared the Applicant lacks capacity in the specified areas unless assisted by a suitable CDM, and adjourned final orders to allow registration of a co-decision-making agreement.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The court declared, pursuant to s.55(1)(b)(i) of the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act 2015, that the Applicant lacks capacity in the areas of personal welfare and property and affairs decision-making unless the assistance of a suitable person as co-decision-maker is made available to him.

Implications: The court did not appoint a DMR and instead provided for the registration of a co-decision-making agreement with an independent CDM in accordance with the Applicant's wishes. The court adjourned final orders to permit the practical steps for registration. The opinion does not purport to establish new judicial precedent beyond application of the 2015 Act's statutory principles to the facts of this case.