The High Court has declared that a man in his 50s lacks capacity to make decisions about healthcare, personal welfare and property and affairs, even with assistance from a suitable co-decision-maker. It ordered his discharge from wardship and appointed a decision-making representative (DMR) to assist him.
Mr Justice Mark Heslin delivered the ruling on 10 June 2024 under the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act 2015. The application was brought by the General Solicitor, who had acted as committee of the man’s person and estate since 2019. The man had been admitted to wardship in 2007.
A consultant psychiatrist assessed him in January 2024. Her report said he could communicate his wishes about healthcare but could not understand, retain or weigh relevant information. She also concluded he lacked capacity in decisions about daily living supports and about property and finances, even if a suitable co-decision-maker were available. The court said that evidence was uncontroverted; the man was told he could seek a second opinion, but none was sought.
The judge said the man was happy in his group-home placement, where he had lived since 2021, and considered the care there suitable for his needs. An independent social worker also described the home as welcoming and relaxed and reported that the man had good relationships with staff.
The man said he did not want a family member to act as his DMR and expressed a preference for an independent advocate. No suitable representative was identified by him, and the President approved the nomination of an experienced solicitor, identified in the ruling only as Ms H.
The court ordered that the man be discharged from wardship and that his affairs be managed with the assistance of the DMR. The DMR must encourage and facilitate his input where possible and may consider the views of those involved in his care or with a genuine interest in his welfare. The court also authorised him to receive the assets listed in the application and required the DMR to account to the Decision Support Service.
The ruling prohibits publication that would identify the man as suffering from the condition referred to in the proceedings. His capacity must be reviewed no later than three years from the date of the order. No order for costs was sought.