The High Court continued existing orders for a man in his 70s who lives in a nursing home and has vascular and alcohol-related dementia. Mr Justice Mark Heslin ruled on 6 June 2024 that the orders remained necessary, proportionate and in the man’s best interests.
The ruling followed a review under Part X of the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act 2015. At an earlier review on 25 April, the court made no order under Part X but continued orders made under its preserved wardship jurisdiction on 7 December 2023. The application before the court was to continue those orders. The man’s representatives did not object.
At the April hearing, the man’s son made verbal allegations about incidents at the nursing home and raised concerns about its distance from the family, a possible move, and being denied a visit. The judge directed the son to provide an affidavit by 15 May setting out the factual basis for the allegations. He did not file one and did not attend the June hearing. The judge said the allegations were unsupported by evidence before the court.
The court considered a report from the nursing home’s person in charge, dated 31 May. It said an investigation into events on 26 December 2021 found no evidence of physical abuse by staff; the Chief Inspector of Social Services was satisfied with the investigation and closed the matter. A separate investigation into an alleged incident on 20 July 2023 found that another resident had reacted involuntarily after the man touched his hand, making contact with his face and hand. The Chief Inspector was also satisfied with that investigation and closed the matter.
The nursing home report said the man had expressed a wish not to receive visitors on 21 July 2023. The person in charge decided that visitors, including family, should not see him that day. The judge said the man’s expressed wish was reasonably capable of being respected and that the evidence showed it had been respected.
Medical reports described his need for continuous care and the risks associated with leaving residential care. One doctor said a change of environment could harm his mental health and that the nursing home was about 18 kilometres from his family. The judge said there was no evidence the man himself wanted to move to another nursing home, and declined to direct enquiries into an alternative placement.
A solicitor who met the man on 4 June reported that he wished to go home and did not want to attend the review in person or online. The judge acknowledged his wish to return home but concluded that his condition and care needs made that impossible. The ruling also said family should not encourage him to return home, citing evidence that this caused distress and self-harming behaviour.