The High Court has admitted a 19-year-old man, identified as JD, into wardship after finding he lacked capacity in decisions about his mental health treatment, residence and behaviour.
In a judgment delivered on 24 August 2022, Ms Justice Niamh Hyland said JD’s history over an extended period showed that he could not adequately understand or weigh the consequences of decisions in those areas. She stressed that the conclusion was based on the evidence in this case and that JD’s capacity could change. The court directed that it be reviewed within two years.
The HSE applied to have JD admitted to wardship under the Lunacy Regulation (Ireland) Act 1871. JD opposed the application through his Guardian ad Litem. The inquiry hearing took place on 17 August 2022. The court had made interim orders concerning his detention and treatment while the inquiry was pending.
The judgment records differing psychiatric opinions. A psychiatrist who gave evidence for JD considered that he had capacity, while HSE witnesses and the court’s Medical Visitor identified concerns about his decision-making. The judge considered JD’s statements alongside his conduct over time, including repeated difficulties taking medication and persistent aggressive and sexually inappropriate behaviour at his residential placement. The judgment also records that he strongly wished to return to [X] and live independently near family and friends.
The judge found JD lacked capacity in decisions concerning his mental health, place of residence and behaviour. She said the evidence showed a marked gap between his stated goals and actions that could undermine them. She did not treat a decision as incapacity merely because it might be unwise; her conclusion was that JD did not understand relevant information or could not use or weigh it appropriately.
The court also considered his future activities and daily living. It noted that JD required substantial support and had declined opportunities to work on independent-living skills. The judge said the available evidence was limited on those issues and reached no conclusion about his capacity based on cognitive functioning.
In deciding whether to exercise its discretion to admit JD to wardship, the court found this was in his best interests and proportionate. The judge said wardship would provide a legal framework for his care, including any placement involving detention if required safeguards were in place. The order admitted JD to wardship. The court did not identify a committee in this judgment and said it would hear from the parties on that question.