The High Court discharged P.G. from wardship and appointed his sister, Ms. C, to support him with personal welfare, property and financial decisions. The order followed an application under section 55 of the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act 2015 and declarations about his decision-making capacity.
In a ruling delivered on 31 October 2024, Mr Justice Mark Heslin said the court had considered a consultant psychiatrist’s report and other evidence. The medical evidence was uncontested. The psychiatrist said P.G. could engage in discussions about simple healthcare decisions but could not understand or retain complex information in that area. She considered that he required support from a suitable person for welfare decisions, while he lacked capacity in relation to property and financial matters.
The court declared that P.G. lacked capacity in health and personal welfare decision-making unless a suitable co-decision-maker was available. It separately declared that he lacked capacity to make decisions about property and financial affairs even with the assistance of a co-decision-maker.
The ruling said P.G.’s expressed wishes, gathered with support from an advocate, were that his sister assist him and that no second medical opinion be obtained. Ms. C confirmed in writing that she understood the duties of a decision-making representative.
Ms. C was appointed as decision-making representative for property and financial affairs. She was also appointed for personal welfare decisions, but only until a co-decision-making agreement in that area is registered with the Decision Support Service. The court authorised her to take custody, control and management of specified assets held in a bank account, by the accountant of the Courts of Justice and in the General Solicitor’s committee account. She must account to the director of the Decision Support Service and cannot be reimbursed from P.G.’s assets for expenses incurred in the role.
P.G. is to continue receiving his Department of Social Protection payment into the account identified in the application. The arrangement must be reviewed by the representative within 12 months. The court also directed that his capacity be reviewed by the Circuit Court no later than three years after the order.
The judge said P.G.’s day-to-day life would not change and he would continue living where he was happy and supported. A reporting restriction order anonymises him. No order for costs was made.