The High Court discharged S.M. from wardship and appointed a professional decision-making representative to manage decisions about his personal welfare and property affairs, after declaring that he lacked capacity in those areas even with the assistance of a co-decision-maker.
Mr Justice Mark Heslin delivered the ruling on July 3, 2024, on an application under section 55 of the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act 2015. The judgment says S.M. was admitted to wardship in December 2021, with the General Solicitor acting as committee of his person and estate.
The court considered an assessment by consultant psychiatrist Dr H, who examined S.M. in July 2023. Her report concluded he could not understand, retain, use or weigh information relevant to decisions about health. She reached similar conclusions concerning welfare and property and financial decisions, and said he lacked capacity even if a suitable co-decision-maker were available. The evidence was uncontroverted for this application; the judge noted that no second opinion had been sought.
The application evidence said no suitable family member or friend was known to be available as a representative. S.M. did not identify someone he wished to nominate when asked, according to an affidavit described in the ruling. Mr M, a social worker with experience working with vulnerable adults in healthcare settings, had been nominated with the President’s approval and was appointed by the court.
The orders discharge S.M. from wardship and appoint Mr M as decision-making representative for personal welfare and property affairs decisions. The representative may receive assets held in the committee account once details are provided for an account in S.M.’s name under the representative’s custody and management. The judgment also directs the committee to arrange for S.M.’s Department of Social Protection payment to be made directly to him, with the representative to review that arrangement within twelve months.
The representative must account to the Decision Support Service. The court ordered reporting restrictions and directed that S.M.’s capacity be reviewed by the Circuit Court no later than three years from the order. No application for costs was made.
The ruling concerned the wardship discharge application only. It states that separate proceedings under the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction, including orders for S.M.’s detention at his placement for his safety, welfare and treatment, would not be affected. Those orders were due for intensive review from July 24, 2024.