The High Court has ordered the discharge from wardship of a woman identified in the judgment as H.M. and appointed Mr F as her decision-making representative (DMR) for personal welfare and property and affairs decisions. The court also declared that she lacked capacity to make decisions about health, personal welfare, property and financial affairs even if a suitable co-decision-maker assisted her.
Mr Justice Mark Heslin delivered the ruling on 28 June 2024 in an application under section 55 of the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act 2015. The General Solicitor, acting as H.M.’s committee, brought the application by motion in September 2023.
The judgment says H.M. was born in 1934, entered wardship in October 2017 and had lived in a nursing home since February 2016. The court considered an uncontroverted assessment by a consultant psychiatrist, Dr C, who assessed her in November 2023. Dr C reported that H.M. could not understand, retain, use or weigh relevant information, or communicate her understanding, in the areas assessed. The psychiatrist concluded that H.M. would continue to lack capacity even with a co-decision-maker’s assistance.
The court also considered a report from an independent social worker, Mr B, who had met H.M. in September 2023, and evidence about service of the application and efforts to explain it to her. The ruling records that H.M. expressed no view on choosing a DMR beyond saying “yes” when asked, and saying, “I am alright, I am in perfect health”.
The orders discharge H.M. from wardship and appoint Mr F as DMR. They authorise him, subject to the stated arrangements, to receive funds held by the Accountant of the Courts of Justice and in the General Solicitor’s committee account, as well as social protection and US pension payments. He is authorised to help protect H.M.’s right of residence in a property. The DMR must account to the Director of the Decision Support Service.
The court ordered that H.M.’s capacity be reviewed by the Circuit Court no later than three years from the order. It also made a reporting restriction order. No order for costs was sought.