The High Court discharged a man from wardship and appointed a decision-making representative to assist with personal welfare and property and financial affairs, after finding no suitable co-decision-maker was available.
In a ruling delivered on 28 June 2024, Mr Justice Mark Heslin declared that the man lacked capacity in decisions about health, personal welfare and property and financial affairs unless the assistance of a suitable co-decision-maker was available. The court said no suitable person could take that role: staff at the service providing his care were legally barred from appointment, and another person he identified was unwilling or unable to serve.
The man, identified in the judgment only as B.D., was admitted to wardship in 2020. The court heard he has a diagnosis of moderate intellectual disability and diabetes and lives in a supported residence with round-the-clock care. A consultant psychiatrist assessed him in January 2024 and reported that he could not name his diagnoses or medication, or explain his financial assets. She said he lacked capacity unless supported by a co-decision-maker and did not require a decision-making representative if a suitable co-decision-maker could be appointed.
An independent social worker reported that B.D. was capable of household tasks including preparing food and helping with cooking and baking. The worker said his physical, social and emotional needs were being met and that he appeared happy. The judge also noted B.D.’s expressed wishes: to have his passport for a planned holiday in Portugal and ready access to money, including to buy an Xbox game.
The court appointed Ms A, an experienced solicitor and qualified mediator, as decision-making representative. She is required, so far as possible, to make decisions jointly with B.D. The representative was authorised to manage specified assets held by the Accountant of the Courts of Justice, the General Solicitor and the respondent’s bank and credit union accounts, and must account to the Decision Support Service.
The applicant was directed to arrange for B.D.’s social protection payment to be paid directly to him, with the arrangement to be reviewed by the representative within 12 months. The Circuit Court must review his capacity no later than three years from the order. The judge also prohibited publication or broadcast that would or might identify B.D. as a person with the conditions in question.