The High Court has discharged a 50-year-old man from wardship and appointed a decision-making representative (DMR) to assist with decisions about his health, personal welfare, property and financial affairs.
In a ruling delivered on 21 June 2024, Mr Justice Mark Heslin declared under section 55(1)(b)(ii) of the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act 2015 that the man lacked capacity in those areas even if a suitable co-decision-maker were available. The ruling said the declaration was based on the evidence before the court.
The man, identified in the judgment only as C.J., had been admitted to wardship in July 2004. A consultant psychiatrist assessed him in December 2023 and reported that his moderate learning disability was lifelong and unlikely to improve. She said he could not demonstrate the ability to understand, retain, use, weigh or communicate relevant information for decisions about healthcare. Her report reached the same capacity conclusion for welfare, property and financial decisions, including with co-decision-making support.
The judge noted that the man accepted staff support when attending his GP, but the support did not restore his capacity to make healthcare decisions. The judgment also described evidence that he was content with his daily life and well supported by care workers. An independent social worker reported that he took part in activities at a day centre, attended an advocacy group and helped a local Tidy Towns committee.
The General Solicitor, who was committee of his person and estate, brought the application. The man’s three brothers were sent information about the application and invited to give their views; no response had been received by 8 May. When asked who he would want as his DMR, the man referred to one brother. The judgment said no family member had indicated they could take on the role, and no trusted friend or other person had been identified. The court approved the nomination of Mr O’C, an experienced solicitor, as DMR.
The orders discharge the man from wardship and remit him to management of his own affairs with the DMR’s assistance. The DMR must encourage and facilitate his input where possible, and may consider views from carers and others with a bona fide interest in his welfare. The DMR is authorised to manage assets held in an AIB account, while the man is entitled to assets held by the courts’ accountant and in the committee account. The DMR is not entitled to payment or expense reimbursement from those assets and must account to the Decision Support Service.
The court also prohibited publication likely to identify the man and ordered that his capacity be reviewed no later than three years from the order. The applicant did not seek costs. The judge said the decision would not change the man’s day-to-day life.