RSS Feed

Tag Archives: mental capacity act

Seeking costs against the Public Guardian in a financial safeguarding case

 

The Public Guardian and CT and EY 2014

 

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCOP/2014/51.html

 

As District Judge Lush observed, this is the first reported case where a costs order has been sought against the Public Guardian.

 

By way of quick background, CT is 85 and had a stroke a year ago, which later led to a diagnosis of dementia. There has been a considerable family schism, and CT is close to his daughter EY but not close to much of the rest of his family.

 

A month after his stroke, he entered into a Lasting Power of Attorney arrangement, appointing EY as his sole attorney.

 

In July 2014, the Public Guardian, having received a referral that EY was misusing the Lasting Power of Attorney, conducted an investigation and made an application to the Court of Protection under s48 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 for declarations about whether CT had capacity and if not what directions / declarations should be made about his affairs.

 

  1. The application was accompanied by a witness statement made by David Richards, an investigations officer with the OPG, who said that:

 

 

(a) in September 2013 CT’s son and daughter-in-law had raised concerns with the OPG.

 

(b) on 13 June 2013 CT had severed the joint tenancy of the matrimonial home and the adjoining property, which he and his wife also own.

 

(c) CT had ceased paying the utility bills on the matrimonial home; had stopped transferring housekeeping money to his wife, and had closed their joint bank account.

 

(d) in September 2013 CT applied to the Land Registry to register the matrimonial home in his sole name.

 

(e) on 30 September 2013 a Court of Protection General Visitor, Emma Farrar, saw him at Grays Court Community Hospital. She thought that CT possibly could suspend or revoke the LPA, but that he would require considerable support in doing so.

 

(f) Havering Social Services had raised a safeguarding alert.

 

(g) the OPG asked EY for an account of her dealings.

 

(h) EY replied her father still had capacity and that the OPG’s enquiries were an invasion of his privacy.

 

(i) in January 2014 the OPG commissioned a visit from a Court of Protection Special Visitor (Dr T.G. Tennent, DM, FRCPsych) but EY and her partner, who is employed by Moss & Coleman Solicitors, refused to let him visit CT.

 

(j) Dr Tennent was, nevertheless able to examine CT’s medical records, and in his report, dated 31 March 2103, he came to the conclusion that CT had capacity (a) to make the LPA and (b) to sever the joint tenancies, but that it was “impossible to offer any opinion as to Mr Todd’s current capacity in relation to the queries (c) to (j).”

 

 

There then follows a somewhat complex history, but the substance of it was that the expert who examined CT, Professor Jacoby, was of the view that CT’s capacity fluctuated, but that there were times and had been times when he had had capacity to make his own financial decisions (and thus the LPA wasn’t being used at all at those times)

 

  1. Professor Jacoby prefaced his assessment of CT’s capacity with the following preliminary remarks:

 

 

 

“I shall deal with the separate capacities as set out in my instructions which were taken from the directions order of 20 August 2014. Before doing so I wish to stress that I am relying on CT’s mental state as I observed it on 2 October 2014. However, I believe his mental state fluctuates both as regards his dementia and his episodes of delirium. I should make the following preliminary remarks:

 

 

(a) When he is delirious, in my opinion, he does not have any of the capacities listed below.

 

(b) When he is not delirious, but his dementia is more prominent, his capacities are weaker than when he is at his best.

 

(c) When he is at his best he does retain some capacities as described below.

 

(d) When he is at his best he is able to communicate his decisions, and I shall not comment further on this fourth limb of section 3(1) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

 

(e) When at his best I believe that his capacities can be enhanced by assistance in line with the judgment of Gibson LJ in Hoff et al v Atherton [2003] EWCA Civ 1554, in which he stated “it is a general requirement of the law that for a juristic act to be valid, the person performing it should have the mental capacity (with the assistance of such explanation as may have been given [my italics]) to understand the nature and effect of the particular act (see, for example, Re K (Enduring Powers of Attorney) [1988] Ch 310 at p. 313 per Hoffmann J.).” As I understand it, although I may be corrected by the court, giving assistance to persons with marginal capacities in order to enhance them is within the spirit of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.”

 

 

  1. Professor Jacoby concluded his report as follows:

 

 

 

“In my opinion, when CT is at his current best and not in an episode of delirium, he retains the capacity to manage his affairs and to revoke or make an LPA, but that his capacities would be enhanced by disinterested advice. His capacity to litigate is not totally lacking but is, in my opinion, below a sufficient threshold, and he would, therefore, require a litigation friend.”

 

If CT had capacity at the time when he made decisions to sever the tenancy, stop paying money to his estranged wife and so on, then this was not a matter for the Court of Protection. As we know, if a person has capacity, then they can make decisions for themselves that another person might consider foolish or ill-conceived.

 

EY sought that the application be dismissed and sought that the Office of the Public Guardian should pay the costs.

 

  1. On 14 August 2014 EY filed an acknowledgment of service, accompanied by a witness statement, in which she objected to the application and said that:

 

 

 

“The evidence in the attached witness statement shows unequivocally that CT had the capacity to make complex decisions in relation to his finances and property in September 2013. He underwent a further capacity assessment in November 2013 prior to discharge from hospital after nearly six months treatment and he was again assessed as having the capacity to make the very difficult and important decision as to his destination and future place of residence following his discharge. There has been no stroke activity since the incident in May 2013, nor any other event which might cause or signal a material change in his capacity since the last test was carried out some nine months ago. There is therefore no valid reason why he should not be presumed to have capacity at this time.”

 

 

  1. EY proposed that “the application be dismissed and the OPG be ordered to pay the respondents’ costs (including the costs of taking legal advice).”

 

 

In most financial disputes, the person who loses the case is at risk of being ordered to pay the other side’s legal costs. It is a little different in Court of Protection cases.

 

Firstly, the Court of Protection have a general discretion (subject to other Rules) Section 55(1) MCA 2005 provides that “Subject to Court of Protection Rules, the costs of and incidental to all proceedings in the court are at its discretion.”

 

In terms of those Rules, they are set out in the Court of Protection Rules 2007 – they can be simplified like this:-

 

  • Normally if the proceedings relate to property of a vulnerable person, the costs of the proceedings are paid by that person or his estate
  • That starting point can be departed from if the Court thinks it is justified, and can take into account the conduct of the parties.
  • Conduct can include a wide variety of things, including before proceedings began.

 

 

Property and affairs – the general rule

 

 

  1. Where the proceedings concern P’s property and affairs the general rule is that the costs of the proceedings, or of that part of the proceedings that concerns P’s property and affairs, shall be paid by P or charged to his estate.

 

 

Departing from the general rule

 

 

  1. – (1) The court may depart from rules 156 to 158 if the circumstances so justify, and in deciding whether departure is justified the court will have regard to all the circumstances, including:

 

(a) the conduct of the parties;

(b) whether a party has succeeded on part of his case, even if he has not been wholly successful; and

(c) the role of any public body involved in the proceedings.

 

(2) The conduct of the parties includes:

 

(a) conduct before, as well as during, the proceedings;

(b) whether it was reasonable for a party to raise, pursue or contest a particular issue;

(c) the manner in which a party has made or responded to an application or a particular issue; and

(d) whether a party who has succeeded in his application or response to an application, in whole or in part, exaggerated any matter contained in his application or response.

 

(3) Without prejudice to rules 156 to 158 and the foregoing provisions of this rule, the court may permit a party to recover their fixed costs in accordance with the relevant practice direction.

 

 

 

In this situation, EY argued that the Office of the Public Guardian had really jumped the gun – they had brought a case based on EY misusing the Lasting Power of Attorney, when closer investigation would have shown that the decisions complained of had been made by CT himself. If the Public Guardian had conducted the investigation properly, there would have been no application and thus CT and EY would not have incurred any legal costs.

 

District Judge Lush felt that things were more complicated than that – the assessment of capacity had shown that CT’s capacity fluctuated and thus there had been times when EY was (or ought to have been) exercising the Lasting Power of Attorney.

 

The Judge also felt that EY had been obstructive in the investigation, causing some of these problems as a result of her own actions.

 

  1. EY makes the point that she was not using the LPA because CT still had capacity, but even this is disingenuous. Professor Jacoby states in his report that “He is subject to recurrent episodes of delirium. … When he is delirious, in my opinion, he does not have any of the capacities listed below.” She should have been using the LPA during the recurrent episodes when CT lacked capacity.

 

 

  1. The point is made that CT’s capacity should have been presumed. The precise wording of section 1(2) of the Mental Capacity Act is that “a person is assumed to have capacity unless it is established that he lacks capacity.” The Court of Protection General Visitor believed that CT possibly could suspend or revoke the LPA, but that he would require considerable support in doing so. The reason why the OPG asked a Special Visitor to see CT was so that a specialist could look for objective evidence that would be sufficient, on the balance of probabilities, to establish whether CT had capacity or not and, accordingly, whether the Court of Protection had jurisdiction or not.

 

 

  1. EY would not allow the Court of Protection Special Visitor to examine CT because she mistrusted anything to do with the OPG. The Special Visitor’s report would have been provided to CT free of charge, from public funds, but EY insisted on instructing an independent expert, instead. This resulted in the proceedings being more expensive and protracted than they need have been.

 

 

  1. I have no real concerns about the OPG’s conduct. Any investigation will seem heavy-handed to the person under the spotlight, but the OPG’s conduct was by no means disproportionate and does not even approach the threshold identified by Mr Justice Jonathan Baker in G v E (Costs). The OPG certainly did not act in blatant disregard of the Mental Capacity Act processes or in breach of CT’s rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. Having regard to all the circumstances, it would be unjust to penalise the OPG by way of a costs order.

 

 

 

Bearing in mind the usual rule, the legal costs of all of the proceedings would be met by CT. The Judge, having been invited to look at costs, had to consider whether that approach would be fair and just, given the actions of EY.

 

(This must have caused a bitter taste – having asked for the Public Guardian to pay the costs, EY found herself at risk of having to pay a portion of the costs herself)

 

  1. There is no doubt about it. EY and her partner refused, without reasonable cause, to let the Special Visitor visit CT or even speak to him over the phone. Dr Tennent’s report of 31 March 2014 stated:

 

 

 

“Over the course of these conversations EY referred everything to her partner. Quite politely they told me that CT did not want to see me but would not permit me to speak directly with him. They would not provide me with the name or address of CT’s current general practitioner. As I understood it, they were of the view that although CT had made an LPA he was still capable of managing his own affairs and they were not using the LPA and therefore the OPG should not be involved with his affairs. They told me that they were in correspondence with the Office of the Public Guardian about the matter and that until this had been resolved they did not want me to visit their home.”

 

 

  1. EY’s insinuation that a Court of Protection Special Visitor is neither independent nor impartial is both unwarranted and offensive.

 

 

  1. For me, the most striking feature of Professor Jacoby’s report was the repetition of a theme, which, like Ravel’s Boléro, rises in a continuous crescendo.

 

 

  1. In response to question (2) he said:

 

 

 

“Again, I consider that he would benefit from disinterested advice before making this decision.”

 

 

  1. He deliberately highlighted the word ‘disinterested’ by italicising it.

 

 

  1. In response to question (4), he said:

 

 

 

“Where more complex decisions are required he would, in my opinion, benefit from disinterested advice.”

 

 

  1. In his reply to question (5), Professor Jacoby said:

 

 

 

“I consider that at his best CT does retain the capacity to give instructions to his attorney in relation to his property and affairs, and that he would benefit from disinterested advice for more complex decisions.”

 

 

  1. In his conclusion, which I have set out in paragraph 23, he said:

 

 

 

“… his capacities would be enhanced by disinterested advice.”

 

 

  1. And in response to question (4) again, the professor actually ventured to say that:

 

 

 

“I am not making any comment here about the quality of the advice he now gets from EY because this is beyond my remit and I have no information on it anyway. However, because he is now dependent on her for his day to day care he might be more likely to accept her advice without more careful consideration.”

 

 

  1. I have never before read a report on someone’s capacity that has contained so many references to the need for ‘disinterested advice’. The only interpretation of this can be that Professor Jacoby believed that, although CT still has capacity in certain areas, he is being influenced by his daughter, and her advice is anything but disinterested.

 

 

[

 

The Judge decided that it would be wrong for CT to be ordered to pay EY’s legal costs, and EY would be responsible for her own costs

 

 

Decision

 

 

  1. If I were to apply the general rule for costs in a property and affairs case (rule 156), I would be required to order CT to pay the costs of these proceedings.

 

 

  1. The Public Guardian was seeking no order as to his own costs, whereas EY was seeking an order that her costs should be paid by the Public Guardian.

 

 

  1. For the reasons given above, and having regard to all the circumstances, I consider that a departure from the general rule is justified and I shall order EY to pay her own costs because her conduct, before and during the proceedings, has been aggressive and disingenuous and has resulted in both sides’ costs being far greater than they would otherwise have been.

 

 

  1. The overall effect is that I shall make no order for costs, though, having agreed to commission a report from a single joint expert, the Public Guardian and EY are jointly liable to pay a half of Professor Jacoby’s fee of £2,200 (£1,850 + VAT) for reading the documents, travelling from Oxfordshire to Essex, examining CT, and writing his report.

 

 

 

There is scope for a costs order to be made against the Office of the Public Guardian, if they behaved unreasonably in the course of the litigation, but this was not the case for it.

 

As my old law tutor used to say about Equity – “he who comes to Court must come with clean hands”

 

Beware the PLO my son! the jaws that bite, the claws that catch (Is the PLO coming to Court of Protection?)

 

Having opened with Lewis Carroll, I’ll digress to Bruce Springsteen – if you practice in the Court of Protection –  “You’d better not pout, you’d better not cry, you’d better watch out, I’m telling you why – the PLO is coming to town”

 

Cases A and B (Court of Protection : Delay and Costs) 2014

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCOP/2014/48.html

Mr Justice Peter Jackson  (I know, it is supposed to be Jackson J, but when there are two Jackson J’s, that just causes confusion) gave a judgment in two linked Court of Protection cases that had gone on an inordinate length of time and cost an inordinate amount of public money, and ended with this exhortation to the President  (who of course wears those two hats of President of the Family Division And President of the Court of Protection)

 

The purpose of this judgment is to express the view that the case management provisions in the Court of Protection Rules have proved inadequate on their own to secure the necessary changes in practice. While cases about children and cases about incapacitated adults have differences, their similarities are also obvious. There is a clear procedural analogy to be drawn between many welfare proceedings in the Court of Protection and proceedings under the Children Act. As a result of the Public Law Outline, robust case management, use of experts only where necessary, judicial continuity, and a statutory time-limit, the length of care cases has halved in two years. Yet Court of Protection proceedings can commonly start with no timetable at all for their conclusion, nor any early vision of what an acceptable outcome would look like. The young man in Case B is said to have a mental age of 8. What would we now say if it took five years – or 18 months – to decide the future of an 8-year-old?

 

I therefore believe that the time has come to introduce the same disciplines in the Court of Protection as now apply in the Family Court. Accordingly, and at his request, I am sending a copy of this judgment to the President of the Court of Protection, Sir James Munby, for his consideration.

 

Brace yourselves, Court of Protection folk, for “streamlining” and “case management” and “standardised documents” most of which will make you wish that you had taken a different career path – for example, rather than “Law” that you had decided to become a practice subject for CIA agents working on their interrogation techniques.

The Judge has a point here, we absolutely would not tolerate cases involving a vulnerable 8 year old taking 5 years* (*although see case after case of private law children cases that drag on for years and years) and costing this sort of money.

 

  1. In Case A, the proceedings lasted for 18 months. In round figures, the estimated legal costs were £140,000, of which about £60,000 fell on the local authority, £11,000 on a legally-aided family member, and £69,000 on the young man himself, paid from his damages.
  2. In Case B, the proceedings lasted for five years. In round figures, the estimated legal costs were £530,000, of which about £169,000 fell on the local authority, £110,000 on a family member (who ran out of money after three years and represented himself thereafter), and £250,000 on the young man himself, paid for out of legal aid.
  3. These figures are conservative estimates.
  4. Each case therefore generated legal costs at a rate of approximately £9,000 per month.

 

The Judge draws a comparison between taxi drivers and advocates (and not the usual “cab-rank principle” one)

  1. Just as the meter in a taxi keeps running even when not much is happening, so there is a direct correlation between delay and expense. As noted above, the great majority of the cost of these cases fell on the state. Public money is in short supply, not least in the area of legal aid, and must be focussed on where it is most needed: there are currently cases in the Family Court that cannot be fairly tried for lack of paid legal representation. Likewise, Court of Protection cases like these are of real importance and undoubtedly need proper public funding, but they are almost all capable of being decided quickly and efficiently, as the Rules require.
  2. In short, whether we are spending public or private money, the court and the parties have a duty to ensure that the costs are reasonable. That duty perhaps bites particularly sharply when we are deciding that an incapacitated person’s money should be spent on deciding his future, whether he likes it or not.

 

It is very hard to argue against that, and there can be little worse than burning through a vulnerable person’s money in order to protect them from financial or alleged financial abuse (see for example Re G, and the “94 year old woman subject to gagging order” case)

 

What drives up those costs? The Judge identified two major things – a search for a perfect solution, rather than a decent solution that carries with it some imperfections, and a tendency to deal with every concievable issue rather than to focus on what really matters.

 

A common driver of delay and expense is the search for the ideal solution, leading to decent but imperfect outcomes being rejected. People with mental capacity do not expect perfect solutions in life, and the requirement in Section 1(5) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 that “An act done, or decision made, under this Act for or on behalf of a person who lacks capacity must be done, or made, in his best interests.” calls for a sensible decision, not the pursuit of perfection.

Likewise, there is a developing practice in these cases of addressing every conceivable legal or factual issue, rather than concentrating on the issues that really need to be resolved. As Mrs Justice Parker said in Re PB [2014] EWCOP 14:

“All those who practice in the Court of Protection must appreciate that those who represent the vulnerable who cannot give them capacitous instructions have a particular responsibility to ensure that the arguments addressed are proportionate and relevant to the issues, to the actual facts with which they are dealing rather than the theory, and to have regard to the public purse, court resources and other court users.”

  1. There is also a tendency for professional co-operation to be dissipated in litigation. This was epitomised in Case A, where the litigation friend’s submission focussed heavily on alleged shortcomings by the local authority, even to the extent that it was accompanied by a dense document entitled “Chronology of Faults”. But despite this, the author had no alternative solution to offer. The role of the litigation friend in representing P’s interests is not merely a passive one, discharged by critiquing other peoples’ efforts. Where he considers it in his client’s interest, he is entitled to research and present any realistic alternatives.
  2. The problem of excessive costs is not confined to the Court of Protection. In his recent judgment in J v J [2014] EWHC 3654 (Fam). Mr Justice Mostyn referred to the £920,000 spent by a divorcing couple on financial proceedings as “grotesque”. In V v V [2011] EWHC 1190 (Fam), I described the sum of £925,000 spent by a couple who had not even begun their financial proceedings as “absurd”. Yet everyday experience in the High Court, Family Court and Court of Protection shows that these are by no means isolated examples: in some case the costs are even greater. There is a danger that we become habituated to what Mostyn J called “this madness”, and that we admire the problem instead of eliminating it.
  3. The main responsibility for this situation and its solution must lie with the court, which has the power to control its proceedings.

 

I hope that if there is going to be a committee or working group on solving some of the problems in the Court of Protection that they can co-opt Mr Justice Peter Jackson and District Judge Eldergill onto it – both of them are extremely sensitive and sensible Judges and the Court of Protection could do a lot worse than have its future steered by them.

Have we just given up on the notion of the Supreme Court being supreme?

 

After yesterday’s CM v Blackburn in which the Court of Appeal sidle up to the notion that the Supreme Court weren’t formulating new law in Re B, we now have the High Court in the form of Mostyn J just outright quibbling with their decision in Cheshire West.

 

In Rochdale v KW 2014 http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCOP/2014/45.html

 

Mostyn J was sitting in the Court of Protection and was faced with an application as to whether KW’s liberty was being deprived and if so ought the Court to sanction it.

  1. Katherine is aged 52. She is severely mentally incapacitated, to use the new language of the MCA; she is of “unsound mind” to use the old language of Article 5. She suffered brain damage while undergoing surgery to correct arteriovenous malformation in 1996[1], when aged only 34. This resulted in a subarachnoid haemorrhage and long term brain damage. She was left with cognitive and mental health problems, epilepsy and physical disability. She was discharged from hospital into a rehabilitation unit and thence to her own home, a bungalow in Middleton, with 24/7 support.
  2. In April 2013 Katherine was admitted to hospital. Her mental health had declined. In May 2013 she was transferred to a psychiatric ward, and later to another hospital. On 28 June 2013 she was discharged and transferred to a care home where she stayed until 14 April 2014, when she returned home. For appreciable periods between 28 June 2013 and 14 April 2014 Katherine’s confinement to the care home was not authorised under the terms of the MCA. On 26 June 2014 Katherine, acting by her litigation friend, made a claim for damages under Articles 5 and 8 of the Convention. On any view she had suffered an unlawful deprivation of liberty during those periods when her confinement was not authorised under the MCA. Her claim has been settled with modest compensation and a written apology. I approve the terms of the settlement.
  3. Physically, Katherine is just ambulant with the use of a wheeled Zimmer frame. Mentally, she is trapped in the past. She believes it is 1996 and that she is living at her old home with her three small children (who are now all adult). Her delusions are very powerful and she has a tendency to try to wander off in order to find her small children. Her present home is held under a tenancy from a Housing Association. The arrangement entails the presence of carers 24/7. They attend to her every need in an effort to make her life as normal as possible. If she tries to wander off she will be brought back. The weekly cost of the arrangement is £1,468.04. Of this £932.52 is paid by Rochdale and £535.52 by the local NHS Clinical Commissioning Group (“CCG”).

 

We have here therefore

(a) a person who lacks capacity

(b) a person who is being cared for by the State  (albeit in the setting of a foster ‘home’ rather than in residential care)

(c) a person who tries to leave that accommodation and when she tries is prevented from doing so, and if she gets out is brought back

 

On the basis of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Cheshire West, this appears to be a deprivation of liberty, but Mostyn J felt otherwise.

I find it impossible to conceive that the best interests arrangement for Katherine, in her own home, provided by an independent contractor, but devised and paid for by Rochdale and CCG, amounts to a deprivation of liberty within Article 5. If her family had money and had devised and paid for the very same arrangement this could not be a situation of deprivation of liberty. But because they are devised and paid for by organs of the state they are said so to be, and the whole panoply of authorisation and review required by Article 5 (and its explications) is brought into play. In my opinion this is arbitrary, arguably irrational, and a league away from the intentions of the framers of the Convention.

 

Mostyn J goes on to conduct a philosophical exercise on the nature of liberty  (I can highly recommend Alex Ruck’s blog on the judgment – he says everything that I wanted to say, and far more elegantly http://www.mentalcapacitylawandpolicy.org.uk/js-mill-strikes-back-mostyn-j-takes-on-the-supreme-court/)

 

It is plain that Mostyn J is aware that he is bound by Cheshire West, although making it plain that he doesn’t himself agree with the Supreme Court, but he attempts to distinguish the case (in ways that frankly, one might consider the Supreme Court had already ruled on), concluding that this particular issue needs to be looked at again by the Supreme Court and granting leave to appeal in order to facilitate that.

  1. The opinions of the majority are binding on me and I must loyally follow them even if I personally agree with the view of Parker J and the Court of Appeal in MIG and MEG; with the Court of Appeal in Cheshire West; and with the minority in the Supreme Court[2]. There is a similarity between this case and that of MIG inasmuch as both involve so called constraints on an incapacitated person living at home. In determining the factual question I cannot take into account the benign motives of Rochdale in providing the care arrangement or of Katherine’s contentment with it. Nor can I take into account the designed normality of the arrangement in Katherine’s own home.
  2. As I have shown, a key element of the objective test of confinement is whether the person is “free to leave”. This is part of the acid test. “Free to leave” does not just mean wandering out of the front door. It means “leaving in the sense of removing [herself] permanently in order to live where and with whom [she] chooses” (see JE v DE and Surrey County Council [2006] EWHC 3459 (Fam)[2007] 2 FLR 1150 per Munby J at para 115, implicitly approved in the Supreme Court at para 40). This is the required sense of the second part of the acid test.
  3. I do not find the test of the Strasbourg court in HL v United Kingdom 40 EHRR 761, at para 91, where it refers to the “concrete situation” of the protected person, as being of much assistance. The adjective “concrete” means that that I should look for an actual substance or thing rather than for an abstract quality. That is to state the obvious. Plainly, I will be looking only at Katherine’s actual personal circumstances and not at any abstractions.
  4. Katherine’s ambulatory functions are very poor and are deteriorating. Soon she may not have the motor skills to walk even with her frame. If she becomes house-bound or bed-ridden it must follow that her deprivation of liberty just dissolves. It is often said that one stress-tests a proposition with some more extreme facts. Imagine a man in hospital in a coma. Imagine that such a man has no relations demanding to take him away. Literally, he is not “free to leave”. Literally, he is under continuous supervision. Is he in a situation of deprivation of liberty? Surely not. So if Katherine cannot realistically leave in the sense described above then it must follow that the second part of the acid test is not satisfied.
  5. By contrast MIG was a young woman with full motor functions, notwithstanding her problems with her sight and hearing. She had the physical capacity to leave in the sense described. She had sufficient mental capacity to make the decision to leave, in the sense described. If she tried she would be stopped. Therefore, it can be seen that in her case both parts of the acid test was satisfied.
  6. In my judgment there is a very great difference between the underlying facts of MIG’s case and of this case notwithstanding that in both cases the protected person lives at home.
  7. It is my primary factual finding that in Katherine’s case the second part of the acid test is not satisfied. She is not in any realistic way being constrained from exercising the freedom to leave, in the required sense, for the essential reason that she does not have the physical or mental ability to exercise that freedom.
  8. I am not suggesting, of course, that it is impossible for a person ever to be deprived of his liberty by confinement in his or her own home. In the field of criminal law this happens all the time. Bail conditions, or the terms of a release from prison on licence, routinely provide for this. However, I am of the view that for the plenitude of cases such as this, where a person, often elderly, who is both physically and mentally disabled to a severe extent, is being looked after in her own home, and where the arrangements happen to be made, and paid for, by a local authority, rather than by the person’s own family and paid for from her own funds, or from funds provided by members of her family[3], Article 5 is simply not engaged.

 

 

For me, Alex Ruck puts it perfectly in his analysis

 

Mostyn J’s conception of freedom to leave is fundamentally predicated upon a concept that of liberty that is dependent upon a person’s ability to exercise that right, either themselves or by another. A person who is severely physically disabled – and therefore house-bound – could not, on Mostyn J’s analysis, be considered to be deprived of their liberty. It is, however, extremely difficult to square that analysis with the conclusion of Lady Hale (with whom Lord Kerr agreed) that liberty must mean the same for all, regardless of whether they are mentally or physically disabled (see the discussion at paragraphs 33-36).

 

We are once again getting back to a conflation of two questions – whether someone is deprived of their liberty, with whether it is justified. Katherine’s circumstances almost certainly make any deprivation justifiable, but to say that her liberty is not deprived as a result of her physical and mental difficulties is at right angles to the decision of the Supreme Court in Cheshire West.

 

We shall see what they say, if the case finally gets to them, but given how long we waited for Cheshire West to be resolved, the prospect of further doubt in this area is not appealing.

{I myself like to ‘stress-test’ deprivation of liberty cases by looking back to L and Bournewood – I’m not sure L would be helped by this sort of formulation}

Tin-foiled again. Conspiracy and the Court of Protection

The Court of Protection case of A Local Authority v M and Others has it all.  A huge schedule of potential findings, a real barney as to whether a young man’s parents have been the victims of terrible circumstances and cover ups and abuse or whether they have been abusing their son, Andrew Wakefield (of all people),  homeopathic medicine, a conflict between “mainstream medical thinking” and “mainstream autism thinking”, a witness list of 91 witnesses including a request that a High Court Judge be called to give evidence, and not forgetting a period of time in which the parents wrapped various household electrical objects up in tinfoil.

 

It is a very involved and detailed judgment, and I’ve quoted from it extensively. There’s a lot that I haven’t included  (the judicial analysis of the efforts made to be fair to the parents and take into account that they were acting in person is very thorough and a good working model for other cases in the future, for example)

 

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCOP/2014/33.html

 

This is the background

 

 

  • M is a 24-year-old man who has been diagnosed with autism and a learning disability, although, as discussed below, that diagnosis is a matter of controversy. For the first 18 years of his life he lived at home with his parents – his mother, hereafter referred to as E, and father, A – where he was by all accounts generally looked after very well. His parents were and are devoted to him and have devoted much of their lives to his care. He attended local special schools and enjoyed a wide range of activities.
  • Until his late teens the family had no contact with the local authority. At that point, however, social services became involved because his parents were looking for a residential placement where he could continue his education. There is no evidence up to that point of any conflict between members of his family and those professionals with whom they came into contact. From that point, however, the picture changed and there has been almost continuous conflict, in particular between M’s mother, E, and the local authority. M’s parents assert that they have been subjected to a malicious campaign aimed at removing M from their care. The local authority asserts that M has been subjected to a regime characterised by excessive control exercised by E over every aspect of M’s life. More seriously, the local authority alleges that E has fabricated accounts of M’s health problems and subjected him to unnecessary assessments and treatments, as well as imposing on him an unnecessarily restrictive diet, with a range of unnecessary supplements. There have been several court proceedings concerning the family, culminating in this case, brought by the local authority in the Court of Protection, seeking orders as to M’s future residence and care. The local authority makes a series of allegations on which it asks the court to make findings. All those allegations are hotly disputed by the parents and this has necessitated a lengthy fact finding hearing. This judgment is delivered at the conclusion of that hearing.

 

 

This is what the Judge said about the central debate  (E being the mother of the 24 year old, and A being the father)

 

70. In the course of the hearing it became clear that E, and perhaps also A, see themselves as the victims of a network of three conspiracies. First, they assert that there has been a systematic conspiracy by the medical profession to conceal the truth about the effects of the MMR vaccine and its links with autism. Secondly, they assert that the employees of this local authority have fabricated a case against them with the aim of removing M from their care for financial reasons, to acquire control of his benefits and limit the amount of money the authority has to spend on him and, furthermore, has drawn into this conspiracy all the other professionals involved in this case – the staff at Y House, X College and N House and some of the doctors – all of whom they say are financially dependent on the renewal of future contracts with the local authority. Thirdly, they assert that the Official Solicitor, far from representing M properly in these proceedings, has used them as an opportunity to pursue an agenda of undermining the prospects of future litigation about the MMR vaccination and to that end has deliberately chosen experts (Dr Carpenter and Professor Williamson) whose views are known and who have been involved in similar cases in the past. They assert that the Official Solicitor and the local authority have attempted to attract political favour by bringing the MMR issue into this litigation.

 

71. I will return to this issue at the end of this judgment at this stage, I merely observe that, if the parents’ assertion about conspiracies is correct, it would amount to gross misfeasance in public office and the biggest scandal in public care and social care in modern times.

 

 

A core part of the parents case was that after their son had his MMR injection, he developed autism, and indeed at one point it was asserted by them that he had been in a persistent vegetative state for six months as a result.  The parents said that where the medical records did not bear this out, this was because they had been tampered with.

 

7. On 12th January 1991, aged just under 18 months, M was given the measles, mumps and rubella (“MMR”) vaccination. There is no record in his GP notes of any adverse reaction. In fact, there is no report of any adverse reaction to the MMR in any record relating to M for the next nine years. From 2000 onwards, however, M’s parents, and in particular his mother, have given increasingly vivid accounts of an extreme reaction to the injection experienced by M. There are descriptions of M screaming after having the injection, followed by six hours of convulsions, screaming and projectile vomiting. It is the parents’ case that the mother told their GP that he had had a bad reaction to the MMR but was told by him that she was an over-anxious mother and must be imagining it. When E called the GP a second time and said she was calling the emergency services, she was told not to do this, but went ahead because M was going in and out of consciousness. The paramedics and the GP had arrived at the same time, at which point M’s temperature was 104. The GP had told the paramedics to leave. Before going, they had told her that this was a case of meningeal encephalitis. The GP had been verbally abusive to E. The above account, given to Dr. Beck, a psychologist instructed as an expert witness in these proceedings, is similar to that given by the mother to a variety of professionals. She also gave a detailed description of M’s reaction to the MMR in the course of her oral evidence. One note in an “auditory processing assessment report” dated 31st October 2002 records E alleging that, following the MMR, M had remained in, “A persistent vegetative state for six months.”

 

8. The parents’ “chronology of health issues” prepared for these proceedings states that between January and June 1991 M was prescribed anti-inflammatories, antibiotics, antihistamines, decongestants and pain relief. There is no medical record of any such prescription, save for the decongestant. It is the parents’ case that the medical records have been tampered with in some way to conceal the true picture. They produced two copies of the medical records which purported to show a gap of some eight months between December 1990 and August 1991. In fact, the original records show that the next consultation after the MMR took place on 26th April 1991. It is the parents’ case that a page of the medical records was missing from the copies with which they had been supplied previously. The GP note of the consultation on 26th April 1991 records that E was concerned that M was a nasal breather and had thick mucous. He was prescribed a decongestant. The note also records that he had been uncooperative at the hearing test that day. According to E, in the summer of 1991 he started to receive homeopathy, reflexology and cranial osteopathy

 

It emerged that these parents had been involved in the Andrew Wakefield research that linked the MMR vaccine with autism (a claim that has not been able to be replicated by any other reputable researcher, and research that it later transpired was funded with a view to bringing litigation, and research that ended up with Andrew Wakefield being struck off.  Notwithstanding that, a number of people still believe him to be correct (I will point out that I am absolutely NOT one of them).  As one of the experts said to the Judge on some websites he is still talked of as a maligned hero.”

 

As M grew older, his difficulties increased and his mother E was reporting that he had been violent towards her as a result of his many medical conditions.

 

 

21. In his teenage years M started to demonstrate more difficult behaviour. He started having temper tantrums on a scale with which his parents struggled to cope. In her final statement E described this as “an unavoidable personality change” brought about because he was “dominated by testosterone and mercury.” Also in her final statement, E asserted that M became violent towards her at this time and as a result she got quite a “lengthy A&E record” because, in her words, “just about every rib in my body was broken, three with double breaks and my stomach muscle lacerated from my ribcage.” In 2007 M was prescribed lorazepam and then resperidone and was referred to the community mental health team. In August 2007 the parents wrote to that team stating that they had decided that it was not in his best interests for them to continue to be assessed by them. They stated:

 

“The medical profession does little to recognise the chronic medical disease that autism truly is … It is for this reason that we have consistently adopted a biochemical intervention approach and engaged a variety of privately funded specialists, all of whom have made a tremendous difference to the improvement to M’s quality of life and proven that autism is a treatable medical condition. Due to the constant rejection and dismissal of our conviction that we have continually faced, we have chosen only to tap into the NHS for diagnosis of secondary medical complications of a more general nature, local dietary advice and, where specialist expertise was available, in the form of Dr Andrew Wakefield.”

 

 

22 Meanwhile, E was continuing her campaign about the link between the MMR vaccine and autism. On 6th March 2008 she wrote a long letter to the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, the Right Honourable Jack Straw, MP complaining about the failure of the Legal Services Commission to fund the litigation, and making allegations of a conflict of interest against the judge who had dismissed the application against the Commission, asserting that the legal services and the judiciary had betrayed “our” children, warning that as a result they had been placed on “a permanent collision course with each and every public agency” and stating that they would take a number of measures to address their grievances. On 8th May 2008 she received a lengthy reply from the Head of Civil and Family Legal Aid, which was included in the documents produced by E and A in the course of the hearing, stating, inter alia:

 

“Due to the severity of these illnesses and that they were of the wider public interest, the Legal Services Commission initially invested £15 million in this case. Despite this investment, medical research has yet to prove a recognised link between the MMR vaccine and autistic spectrum disorder. Additionally, no link has been proved by any other medical body. There remains no acceptance within the worldwide medical authorities that MMR causes the symptoms seen in these children. Therefore, the litigation was very likely to fail. It was for this reason that the Legal Services Commission decided that it would not be correct to spend a further £10 million of public money funding a trial that is very unlikely to succeed, and withdrew funding for this case.”

The author of the letter added that a confidentiality clause surrounding the judicial review prevented him disclosing the exact reasons why funding had been withdrawn, but pointed out that the solicitors acting for the claimants were aware of the reasons and were at liberty to disclose them to the applicants.

 

The parents sought help from the Local Authority in caring for M

 

 

  • By this point M’s parents, who had hitherto managed without any assistance from social services, had contacted the local authority as plans needed to be made for M’s future when he left school. E and A identified a college in East Anglia which they thought would be the right option for M. Difficulties arose, however, as to the funding of this placement and M’s parents issued proceedings against the local authority, claiming that it was unreasonably refusing to fund the package of education and social care. The local authority’s case before me is that the placement could not proceed because the Learning and Skills Council was unable to fund the educational component of the placement because the establishment had not been approved by OFSTED and the local authority was unable to pay for the residential component of the placement because it had not been approved by the Care Quality Commission. In July 2008, M left school and, with the local authority’s support, attended a life skills development course locally for a year while the dispute between the local authority and his parents was resolved. The local authority has estimated that the package of care and support offered to M during this year cost the authority around £55,000. Negotiations between the local authority, the Learning and Skills Council and his parents continued and ultimately his parents identified an alternative college in the south of England – hereafter known as X College – which the Learning and Skills Council agreed to fund.
  • M started attending X College in September 2009. For the first few weeks he was driven to the college every day. In October he moved into a residential unit nearby with the assistance of the local authority – hereafter referred to as Y House. At first this placement went well but problems soon arose. E made a series of complaints about the standard of care given to M, including that he suffered repeated episodes of ringworm, other fungal infections, conjunctivitis and ear infections, including a burst eardrum. As a result, E spent three weeks staying in a nearby hotel to provide support for M. She was also concerned that certain assurances given about Y House prior to M’s arrival had not been fulfilled. In particular, having been told that the House, which was a new project, was intended for young people of M’s age, she was alarmed to find that older people with more extensive disabilities were accommodated there. Relations between E and the staff at Y House deteriorated. The staff expressed concern about the level of control over M exercised by his mother. She provided a strict dietary programme for M to be followed by the staff, regular health bulletins on his return to the unit after weekends at home and a list of all the treatments and supplements to be given to him. By this point, according to a list prepared by E and A, the range of biomedical interventions being supplied to M included a probiotic, six vitamin supplements, four mineral supplements, five trace elements, fatty acids, amino acids, enzymes and a range of homeopathic remedies. E and A said that this combination had been arrived at through the advice of the gastroenterology department of the Royal Free Hospital, the Autism Research Unit at Sunderland University, the Autism Treatment Trust in Scotland and a privately funded naturopath. They said that the reason for M taking this combination of supplements was “to address the autistic enterocolitis he suffers from.”

 

There was then some other litigation with E and A judicially reviewing the Learning and Skills Council about funding of a placement for M, that litigation being settled by the Learning and Skills Council

 

On 12th March 2010, E made an application to the Court of Protection to be appointed as M’s deputy (i.e this Court of Protection litigation was initiated by her).

 

It would be fair to say that the family and the Local Authority were not getting on well

 

 

28. In the summer of 2010, E and A made a formal complaint against the local authority comprising of a range of individual complaints about the placement, care provision and care management. According to E and A, the complaints made on this occasion amounted to a total of 236 individual complaints. At the hearing before me the local authority asserted that the total number of complaints made was many times more than those made in any other case. Some of the complaints were directed at MS and as a result she was withdrawn from the case. At the end of June, M’s case was transferred to a different locality team within the local authority and allocated to a team manager – JR – and a senior practitioner – LG. Those senior social workers have remained responsible for M’s case to the present day. The complaints were investigated by an independent practitioner. Nearly all of these complaints were not upheld. In his conclusion the investigator observed, inter alia:

 

“First and foremost, although a few of the complaints have been upheld, they arise from a genuine desire by E and A to do the very best they can for M and obtain the very best services that they can … They feel that their mission has meant having to fight every inch of the way against health and legal services and more recently social care services. This has no doubt influenced the extent to which they are able to work in partnership with the statutory agencies. As E and A have such clear ideas about all aspects of M’s life and believe that the conclusions they have reached about him are correct, it is understandable that they have difficulty in accepting the views of others where those differ from their own. In the current circumstances E and A are required to work alongside professionals in social care, medical services and residential care services. Those professionals will also have M’s best interests at heart, but may hold differing views about what is in his best interests. Where the professionals have wished to pursue their own views and approaches, they have found that they have had to be very clear and assertive. This has brought about an even more assertive approach in response and commonly this has led to communications which border on the unacceptable. Many of the complaints appear to arise from such circumstances.”

 

29. E and A did not accept the outcome of this investigation and asserted, inter alia, that the investigator had not been truly independent of the local authority and had not investigated the complaint properly.

 

There’s then a LONG history of medical issues, problems and investigations over the next three years, and I did promise that I would get to the tinfoil bit.

 

On 3rd March, KH informed the local authority that E had told him that she believed that M was suffering from an adverse effect to electromagnetic energies and she was wrapping electronic items in his bedroom in tin foil to protect him. On 12th March, according to KH, E told him that they had taken M to accident and emergency two days earlier because he was in an immense amount of pain. He had been diagnosed with what appeared to be brain seizures. On 19th March, according to KH, E said that M was now on three types of pain relief – paracetamol, ibupfofen and codeine – and this seemed to help. She thought he was suffering from either migraine clusters or brain seizures. On 4th April, JR and LG made an unannounced visit to the home. What happened on this visit is disputed. The social workers’ evidence is that they spoke to A but that E refused to come down to see them as she was busy upstairs and dealing with M. A told them he would ensure that M came to no harm. The social workers did not see M on this visit.

Around this time M developed a small wound on his leg. His mother, having read two articles in the newspapers, came to the conclusion that he was suffering from Lyme disease. She consulted her GP, Dr W, who tried to reassure her that this was unlikely to be the case, but at her insistence tests were carried out in this country and subsequently at a clinic in Germany. This analysis revealed that M had one chemical marker consistent with Lyme disease. Dr W continued to reassure the mother, on the basis of his own experience of Lyme disease, that the overall clinical picture did not fit this diagnosis

It would appear to be at around this time that professionals moved from seeing E and A as very anxious carers of a young man with very serious health needs to beginning to look at whether M had such health needs or whether there was an element of factitious illness syndrome being played out here.

 

 

  • On 18th July 2013 the local authority started these proceedings in the Court of Protection seeking orders (1) permitting the authority to remove M from his parents’ home and either return him to Z House or place him in independent or supported living; (2) that he should not take supplements or medication unless prescribed by a doctor or considered necessary by his carers; (3) that professionals and care staff were not required to follow E’s instructions regarding M’s care and (4) removing E as his deputy. In the application the authority identified concerns about M being isolated from professionals, his apparent distress at his mother’s behaviour, the fact that he had been removed from Z House without agreement, the degree of control exercised by E over his life, the difficulties in E’s relationship with professionals and the allegation that had been made that E “may have Munchausen by proxy.”
  • On 23rd July, M attended the graduation ceremony at X College. On 25th July, District Judge Mort gave directions, including the reappointment of the Official Solicitor as litigation friend. E subsequently applied for the summary dismissal of the local authority’s applications, contending, inter alia, in a lengthy exposition of her case, that it was “a shameful and reckless attempt [at] retribution by persecution of us as a family” and made with the purpose of “sabotaging” the costs application outstanding from the previous court proceedings, and to detract from the complaints and other litigation which she and A had brought against the authority. Attached to E’s application for summary dismissal was a further document described as an “overview of M’s health”, listing the background of dental attention, including a reference to the x-ray of July 2012, which “indicated the swelling above UL6, advised to be sinuses”, a list of twenty illnesses and symptoms that M was said to have suffered since October 2012 and a further list of thirty-one illnesses, symptoms and treatments that he was said to have suffered, exhibited or taken in the past four months, including: “on movement body temperature drops/hands and feet freeze and become rigid”, “swelling of joints, hands and feet”, “projectile vomiting”, “excruciating pain and in waves, intensity and frequency likened to cluster headaches/migraines”, “uncontrollable temperatures”, “stabbing pain in the groin, “difficulty in urinating”, “uncontrollable sneezing”, “unable to have any volume/sounds on”, “simplest of movement causes exhaustion”, “on constant pain relief”, “now on concentrated oxygen for up to six hours a day”, “biomedical natural supplements have become life supporting.”. It was said that in the previous four months M had seen

 

“our GP on a weekly basis, an ENT specialist, a neuro-autonomic diagnostic specialist, a neuro-psychologist, a neuro-physicist, his neuropsychiatrist and his biomedical nutritionist.”

It was further said that M

“underwent an MRI brain scan and an EEG on the 2nd of May 2013, referred by neuro-physicist, and as a result of possible brain stem dysfunction, suspected internal destruction of his nerve endings and heightened/over-exaggerated reflex response and his nervous system was so obviously trapped in flight mode.”

It was said that his immune system had been “chronically compromised” as a result of his infection with bacteria associated with Lyme disease. E added that:

“blood is not interrogated further in this country, unlike the European laboratory in Germany. In this country there is a reliance upon a GP to clinically diagnose and treat this most debilitating disease but that does not allow for the fact that GPs prefer to avoid doing so, for reasons we are now endeavouring to determine. Meanwhile, our son continues to deteriorate at an alarming rate.”

It was said that E was having to massage his hands and feet for up to six hours a day. E added:

“the loss of this circulation and sensation has since been diagnosed as rheumatoid arthritis induced by his immune system turning in on itself and known as auto-immune dysfunction.”

Amongst other claims made, E also asserted that it had been suggested that M could be suffering from an electro-sensitivity disorder and as a result they had terminated all wireless transmissions in the house. E set out her case in detail as to what she had been told about the problems in M’s mouth, referring to a complete breakdown of all life support and systems, a black shadow on which the left sinus was sitting and an intolerable level of pain.

 

Andrew Wakefield crops up again here, it being said that when M had a tooth removed it was kept by mother in the freezer to send to him for analysis (ironically, one of the dental establishments involved here was the Tooth Fairy Surgery)

 

 

  • On 5th August 2013, M underwent surgery under general anaesthetic in which the two teeth were removed. The hospital notes for this admission reveal that, in summarising M’s medical history, E said that he had “tested positive for Lyme disease.” The two teeth were subsequently given to E, who stored them in her home freezer with a view, it is said, to send them for testing in America by Mr (formerly Dr) Wakefield. In a further email to Ms Haywood dated 11th August, E spoke graphically of the implications for M of the delay in treating the abscesses:

 

“This would not only explain the excruciating pain that [M] has experienced, and possibly on/off since October 2011 … that would have been horrendous for [M] to have had to cope with over the last year and just unbearable without intravenous pain relief. They also easily explained the neurological and blood poisoning problems that M has been suffering. Left undetected they can be fatal. Hence, they have said they have caught [M] in time but not soon enough to stop the bacteria produced by these abscesses from eating away at the body and affecting all life supporting systems. Apparently, the soft facial tissue is attacked first, along with the soft tissue of the heart and the lungs while they swell the brain and cause abscesses on it. While all this going on, apparently at the same time they eat the bone structure of the body – the knuckles and fingers and toes, the wrists, ankles, elbows, knees, shoulders and hips – as they make their way up the bones. So, all of this was well underway with [M].”

Miss Haywood was continuing to prescribe various protocols for M, and on 6th September she prescribed a general nutritional supplements protocol and a “Lyme disease protocol”.

 

[Let’s not forget here that the only medical professional who had given a view on Lyme disease was saying that M did not have Lyme disease]

 

On 3rd March 2014, the expert report had come in, and formed the view that this was a factitious illness case and M was removed into a residential home pending investigation and the Court determination of the case.

 

 

  • On 3rd March 2014, Dr Beck delivered her report to the solicitor representing the Official Solicitor, Miss Nicola Mackintosh. Dr Beck concluded that E suffers from factitious disorder imposed on others and that M is the victim of that disorder. She added that she could not:

 

” … rule out the possibility that E may pose a risk of harm to M in order to prevent her loss of control over him as a source for attention for herself.”

These conclusions led the Official Solicitor and the local authority to be concerned, first, that M might be at risk of harm remaining in E’s care and, secondly, and immediately, that he might be at heightened risk of harm when the report of Dr Beck was disclosed to the mother. The Official Solicitor made an application to me for directions in relation to the disclosure of the report to E and A. By the time the application came on for a hearing the local authority had applied for the immediate removal of M from the care of E and A and this was supported by the Official Solicitor. At the conclusion of that hearing on 6th March, I authorised M’s removal the following day, into an emergency placement at an establishment – hereafter referred to as “N House” – run by an organisation – hereafter referred to as “C Limited” – some sixty miles from the family home and in a different County, and ordered that he should reside there until further order.

 

Factitious illness cases (or what used to be called Munchhausen Syndrome By Proxy) are difficult cases. They are particularly difficult when the alleged victim does also have genuine medical conditions. They are difficult to run in care proceedings, when everyone has the benefit of free legal advice and representation. In the Court of Protection, these parents were on their own. They were representing themselves. An added complication was that part of the parents case was that they wanted to run a case that the MMR vaccine causes childhood autism  (bear in mind that when the Legal Services Commission as they then were, were envisaging funding the litigation on that issue alone, they’d set aside TEN MILLION POUNDS as a reasonable sum to thrash that issue out)

 

 

  • Asked to prepare a witness schedule, E filed a document which appeared to indicate that she wished to call, or at least rely on the evidence of, 91 witnesses at the hearing, including Keith J, who had heard part of the litigation involving MMR, and their MP, the Right Honourable Mr Michael Fallon, and for 48 witnesses to be required to attend for cross-examination.

 

  • One lesson of this case is that, if parties such as E and A are to be unrepresented in hearings of this kind, be it in the Court of Protection or in the Family Court, the hearings will often take very considerably longer than if they were represented. Denying legal aid in such cases is, thus, a false economy.
  • In total, the court papers filled some 33 lever arch files (court documents and file records) plus two further lever arch files of documents produced by E and A during the hearing. No doubt if the parents had been represented, it might have been possible to reduce this material into a core bundle, as I did myself at the conclusion of the hearing. Even those 35 files may not represent the totality of the disclosable documents that might have been produced. For example, no health visitor records were produced for the period of M’s early years. At a very late stage E alluded to the possibility that she may have copies of these records somewhere in the loft at her home. Furthermore, and despite my explaining the rules about disclosure on more than one occasion, I am not entirely satisfied that E and A have complied with their obligation to disclose all relevant documents, including those that do not support their case. At one point E’s medical records were produced and, when E objected to their disclosure on grounds of confidentiality, I conducted a public interest immunity examination to determine which pages of the records were relevant. In the event, I concluded that only 16 pages fell into that category, but E insisted on challenging the disclosure of some of those pages on the grounds that they would assist the other parties. This illustrates another consequence of parties appearing without representation in these cases, namely that the courts may have to devise new rules as to disclosure.
  • The list of 139 witnesses who the parents seemed to suggest should or might have to give evidence was, fortunately, considerably reduced. Even so, 32 witnesses gave oral evidence at the hearing: four members of the local authority social services team (LG, the current social worker, JR, the team manager, MS, the former case worker and MW, the head of adult services); MH, the chief executive of X College; staff involved with the running of Y House (CS, the first manager, PL, his successor, and RR, the regional operations manager of the agency); staff involved in running Z House (CH, the manager, and KH); staff involved in running N House (AA, the owner of the agency that runs that home, and AR, a care worker at that property); three friends of E and A with experience of caring for autistic people, one of whom is herself on the autistic spectrum; JB, a carer employed by E and A when M was at home; the family GP, Dr W; the family dentist, DC, and the locum who worked at the surgery, Ms Malik; practitioners who had been consulted by E in connection with M’s treatment (Shelley Birkett-Eyles, occupational therapist, Dr Julu and Juliet Haywood, the nutritional therapist); expert witnesses, namely Dr Beck, Mr McKinstrie, Dr Carpenter, Professor Williamson, Dr Adshead, Dr Aitkin and Mr Shattock, all instructed by E and A; M’s sister, S, and, finally, his parents, E and A themselves.

 

The parents stated that no fewer than 13 of those professionals had lied to the Court and that the allegations of factitious illness had been cooked up by professionals to pay them back for the successful judicial review litigation about funding a placement for M at college, and that the case had been fabricated for financial reasons rather than any genuine concern by professionals that M was at risk.

 

An interesting issue was in relation to three witnesses called by the family whose expertise was in alternative medical treatments. They had been providing assessments and treatment for M, who was an adult, with no understanding of whether he was consenting or had capacity to consent.

 

  • he last group of witnesses about whom I wish to make specific mention before turning to the evidence are the three alternative medical practitioners called by E and A: Shelley Birkett-Eyles, Dr Julu and Ms Haywood. Mrs Birkett-Eyles is an occupational therapist and Director of Hemispheres Movement for Learning Limited, a private occupational therapy practice specialising in the assessment and treatment of children and young adults with learning and developmental difficulties. She has seen M on several occasions since 2010 and, amongst other things, ran a training day at X College on the topic of sensory processing. Dr Peter Julu describes himself as a specialist autonomic neurophysiologist and consultant physician. Juliet Haywood is a nutritional therapist who has been advising E on M’s diet for the past four years.
  • My impression of Mrs Birkett-Eyles was that she was a responsible practitioner working within the proper confines of her particular field, although, as will be clear later, the reliability of her opinion as to treatments given to M was challenged by Dr Carpenter. I was more concerned about the evidence given by Dr Julu and Ms Haywood.
  • Dr Julu told the court in oral evidence that his field of interest is not yet part of mainstream medical training in England and that he is the only autonomic neurophysiologist in Europe. I was not satisfied from his evidence that his purported specialism is a legitimate field of medicine and, again, the reliability of his assessments and treatment recommendations for M were challenged by Dr Carpenter. In her supplemental closing submissions filed this morning, E said that the lack of knowledge amongst those challenging Dr Julu’s evidence is “startling, as it is easily accessible on the internet.”
  • Ms Haywood, whose professional qualification is a diploma from the College of National Nutrition, has played a major role in advising E in recent years. The papers contain a number of emails passing between E and Ms Haywood and it is clear from reading them that there are others which have not been disclosed. I am satisfied that in the course of her involvement with the family Ms Haywood has given advice that went well beyond her expertise. One glaring example was Lyme disease when, on her advice, given after seeing a photograph of a mark on M’s leg, E sent urine samples abroad for further testing. Subsequently, Ms Haywood confidently expressed an opinion on the interpretation of the results of those tests. She has no chemistry or other qualification that equips her to do so. I was also concerned that Ms Haywood had prescribed the dietary protocol for M without seeing him and with no independent knowledge of his medical history, content to rely solely on what she was told by E; for example, that M had a chronic gut disorder. In contrast to Mr Shattock’s Sunderland Protocol, which recommends the systematic testing of diets and supplements individually, Ms Haywood was content to prescribe a dietary programme without testing each individual component separately. She did not agree with the NICE guidelines as to the impact of diet on autism. She had forthright views on many things, saying, for example, at one point that she did not like Cancer Research UK. I was left with a profound anxiety about Ms Haywood’s influence on E and her role in the treatment that M has received.

 

 

None of the three witnesses had received any training on the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and it was clear from their evidence that none of them had given proper consideration to the question whether M had capacity to consent to their assessments or the treatment they were prescribing. The family GP, Dr W, also admitted in his oral evidence that he only made a detailed study of the Act and the Code of Practice when he was told that he would be giving evidence in this case, and he identified a number of learning points about the Mental Capacity Act arising out of his involvement in these proceedings. Mr Bagchi reminded me in his closing submissions of the concerns expressed in the House of Lords’ Select Committee on the Mental Capacity Act 2005 Post-Legislative Scrutiny Report on the implementation of the Act, dated 30th March 2014, about the general lack of awareness by the general public and professionals of the principles and workings of the legislation. This case has highlighted the urgent need for all health professionals, including those practising in alternative and complimentary medicine, to familiarise themselves with the Act so that they can apply its principles and procedures when they treat a person who lacks capacity, as most of them will at some point.

 

[I had a quick look on the internet, as recommended by E, into autonomic neurophysiology, and found this paper submitted by Dr Julu himself – in which to my mind he is asserting that there is scientific proof for the efficacy of homeopathy. So he is either an eternal optimist, someone who is not necessarily as scientifically rigorous as one might hope*,  or he is about to win a Nobel prize. I could not possibly comment as to which is more likely  http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/homeopathy/ucm2002.html ]

In summarising the capacity issues in the case, the Judge begins with “M’s diagnosis is a matter of some controversy”  – which is a masterpiece of understatement.  The Judge boils it down to M having had childhood autism.

Reaction to the MMR

 

  • The issue of M’s reaction to the MMR vaccination and whether it was the cause of his autism lies at the heart of this case. E and A insist that M had a devastating reaction to the MMR, that his autistic traits date from that time and that this provides clear evidence in support for the Wakefield theory. On the other hand, it is alleged by the Official Solicitor, in particular, but also supported by the local authority, that E and A have fabricated the account of M’s reaction to the vaccine and thereby falsely sought to establish a link between the vaccine and his autism.
  • As I stated more than once during the hearing, this case is not an inquiry into whether there is a link between the MMR vaccine and autism. The relevance of this issue is whether the account given by E, in particular, of M’s reaction to the MMR, is true. Nonetheless, it is necessary to outline briefly the expert evidence that I have received about the possibilities of a link.
  • I have already described the history of the controversy in the summary above. The prevailing medical view is as set out information published by the World Health Organisation – actually produced by E in the hearing – which states that:

 

“The overall evidence clearly indicates no association of MMR vaccine with either inflammatory bowel disease or with developmental delays, including autism.”

This accords with the opinion given by Dr Carpenter. Nevertheless, there is a substantial body of opinion to the contrary, including parents of autistic children and some alternative medical practitioners.

 

  • Dr Carpenter reached the conclusion in his report that the diagnosis of M’s autism as having been induced by the MMR vaccine is inconsistent with the independent contemporary evidence and, therefore, not viable. He notes that M’s parents did not link his apparent regression to the MMR injection until after the publication of Dr Wakefield’s paper in 1998. Dr Carpenter has carried out, as requested, a full analysis of the medical records and found that the first account of M deteriorating immediately after the MMR vaccination was not given until 2001. E’s subsequent accounts of M’s reaction to the vaccination – of a child developing normally prior to the vaccination and thereupon having seizures, screaming fits and declining into a vegetative state for six months – is incompatible with the other records. There is no mention of adverse effects or any reference to a bad MMR reaction in the GP records. Dr Carpenter notes that a few months after the MMR, the GP records show M being described as hyperactive, which Dr Carpenter points out is inconsistent with the account of his being in a vegetative state. When a change of GP took place a few months later, there was no note of any recent adverse event being recounted to the new doctor. If M had been in a severely regressed state at this time, Dr Carpenter would have expected this to have been mentioned to the new GP. Furthermore, 21 months after the MMR, when giving a detailed account of his development to Dr Baird, no mention was made by the parents of any deleterious reaction to the MMR. On the contrary, their account concentrated on an earlier deterioration after an illness at age 10 months – seven months before the MMR was administered. In cross-examination by E, Dr Carpenter said that any adverse reaction to the MMR vaccination which had caused a regression in M’s development would have been recorded in his 24 month developmental check and it was not. What was recorded was not regression, but a lack of progress.
  • After the allegation of an adverse reaction to MMR was eventually recorded in 2001, it became more dramatic in subsequent accounts. Thus, in 2001 the description was: “Distressed after injection. Had fever. Eyes glazed, dilated and fixed.” E’s account became more florid over time, with references to screaming, jolting, spasming and a persistent vegetative state. In her final statement she said that: “M died within six hours of the MMR.” In the witness box she gave a full account of the events on the day on which the MMR was administered and M’s reaction to it. E acknowledges in her final statement that she uses certain words and phrases in her own particular way. For example, for her the phrase “vegetative state” means “slipping in and out of consciousness, not responding and appearing lifeless.” And her use of the word “died” to describe what happened to M means “stopped breathing and lost consciousness”. For E, her use of these words and phrases is as valid as the way in which they are used by medical professionals.
  • For some time E has alleged that part of M’s medical record is missing. The inference that she invited the court to draw was that pages had been deliberately removed to conceal contemporaneous records of his reaction to the MMR. It is now clear that no part of the records have been removed. One page of the records was missing and copies produced by E and A, but the original record was intact. I am not going to speculate on the reason why the copies produced by E and A are incomplete.
  • If M had an experienced an extreme reaction to the vaccine, as now alleged, it is inconceivable that E and A would not have sought medical advice and thereafter told all doctors and other medical practitioners about what had happened. As I put it to E in the course of the hearing, there are only three possible explanations for what has happened. The first is that E did give the account to Dr Baird and all the other practitioners at every appointment, but each of them has negligently failed to record it. The second is that she gave an account but all the practitioners have chosen not to include it in their records. That is what E maintains has happened, alleging that the whole of the medical profession is deliberately concealing the truth about the MMR vaccine. The third is that E has fabricated, or at least grossly exaggerated, her account.
  • Mass negligence can obviously be discounted. In my judgment, it is also completely fanciful that the whole of the medical establishment had decided to act deceitfully in the way alleged by E. I therefore conclude that the account given by E as to M’s reaction to the MMR is fabricated.
  • For the purpose of this case, it is unnecessary to make any finding as to why it has been fabricated. It is unnecessary to explore whether E truly believes that M reacted in the way she now alleges. It is notable that A also, apparently, adheres to the same account, although he is noticeably more reticent in his evidence about it. The key point for the purposes of this case is that E has fabricated her account of a crucial aspect of M’s medical history and thereafter relied on this false account to direct the course of his future treatment.

 

Lyme disease

 

  • The clear evidence of Dr W, the family GP, was that M did not have Lyme disease. Although he was not instructed as an expert witness, it is significant that Dr W’s clinical practice has included experience in rural areas where he has come across cases of this condition, which is caused by a tick bite. He advised that it is a diagnosis based on biochemical testing in the context of the overall clinical picture. I therefore conclude that he has the expertise to give a definitive opinion as to whether M was suffering from it, and I accept his evidence that M was not.
  • E, on the other hand, did not accept Dr W’s view and persisted in obsessively pursuing her theory that M was suffering from this disease. Her unshakeable view was based initially on two newspaper reports of women who were diagnosed with the disease that had gone undetected for some time. She thought the mark on M’s leg had been caused by just such a bite. Her fears were stoked by comments from Ms Haywood, speaking about a matter in which she was completely unqualified, who warned that testing carried out by British laboratories was inadequate. At her suggestion, E therefore insisted that samples be sent abroad. The results suggested that one marker consistent with, though not diagnostic of, Lyme disease was present in one sample. On this basis E maintained that M had indeed had that condition and continued to include it in summaries of his health history. For example, when he was admitted to hospital in August 2013 for the dental extraction, E said that he “had tested positive for Lyme disease”.
  • I accept Dr W’s evidence. M did not have Lyme disease. This is yet another example of E giving a false account of M’s medical history. In this regard she was supported by Ms Haywood, who showed no doubt in the witness box about her ability to express an opinion about Lyme disease without having any appropriate qualifications.

 

 

 

Tooth abscess/sinus problems

 

  • On 21st June 2012, E took M to the family dentist’s surgery suffering from pain. The regular dentist, DC, was not at work, so M was examined by a locum, Ms Malik, who works regularly at the surgery. Ms Malik had not originally been scheduled to give evidence at the hearing before me but was located at the last minute and duly called by the Official Solicitor.
  • Ms Malik’s computerised record of the examination stated that M had complained of pain and that E had been informed by his support worker that he had not been eating well on the previous day. On examination she found slight tenderness in tooth upper left 6. An x-ray was taken and revealed that he had an area of periapical infection. Ms Malik was shown the x-rays in the witness box and confirmed the diagnosis. The records indicate that she told E that M needed to be assessed urgently for extraction or root canal treatment under general anaesthetic and that E said that she would like to monitor it for now as M was unable to have a local anaesthetic. The records further indicate that Ms Malik offered antibiotics for M, but E declined. Ms Malik said that she had told E to make a further appointment to see DC when he returned to the surgery.
  • It is E’s case that Ms Malik has given a false account of this examination. E says there was no mention of any periapical infection or abscess, but instead Ms Malik had told her that there was a problem with M’s sinuses. She denies that there was any talk of root canal treatment or extraction or that antibiotics were offered. E put this version to Ms Malik in oral evidence, who emphatically stood by her evidence: she had not mentioned sinuses.
  • Two days later after M was examined by Ms Malik, E called an out of hours doctor about M because he had pain and facial puffiness. When M was examined by the doctor, E reported that he had been seen by a dentist who, according to the doctor’s record, said he had sinusitis. In court, E denied using the word “sinusitis” but said that she had told the doctor that the dentist had said there was a problem with his sinuses. According to the doctor’s note, on examination the doctor did not detect any definite tenderness in the sinuses, but after E said that M would not definitely say if there was tenderness, the doctor recorded the diagnosis as “likely sinusitis” and prescribed antibiotics. When M returned to X College and Z House on the Monday after Ms Malik’s examination, a diagram was provided (now at page N202 in the bundles) showing the sinuses and recording that the x-rays taken on 21st June had indicated no tooth or gum infection or decay, no nerve irritation, but swelling of the sinuses and pressure from a ruptured wisdom tooth. This was completely at odds with what Ms Malik said she had advised E. On 27th July 2012, M was seen by a different dentist at a surgery close to Z House. On examination nothing untoward was detected. It seems likely, as suggested in evidence by Ms Malik, that the antibiotics prescribed by the out of hours doctor on 23rd June temporarily alleviated the symptoms. E requested that no radiographs be taken at the examination on 27th July. In oral evidence, Ms Malik told the court that a clinician would need to see x-rays to diagnose the presence of abscesses.
  • In due course, on 23rd May 2013 – some 11 months after Ms Malik’s examination – E took M to a different surgery not far from the family home called The Tooth Fairy Holistic Centre, where x-rays confirmed the presence of periapical areas in upper left 6 and 7, indicating the presence of abscesses – confirmed by a surgeon to whom M was then referred and who then subsequently extracted the teeth under general anaesthetic.
  • E’s case is that Ms Malik is lying about her examination on 21st June 2012 and that she somehow altered the communication on the computer record. I completely reject that submission. I found Ms Malik to be an utterly truthful and a reliable witness. At one stage in the hearing, E suggested that the records had been falsified and Ms Malik had lied to the court because DC was concerned about his surgery being sued for negligence. For that reason, DC was called by the Official Solicitor, although in the event E did not put it to him that he had falsified the records. When DC gave evidence, he described Ms Malik as an excellent clinician to whom he had entrusted his patients as locum for many years. I accept Ms Malik’s account of the examination and what she said to E. Amongst the many revealing details is her note that E had told her that M could not have a local anaesthetic. It has been E’s case that she is allergic to local anaesthetics following an incident when she was younger, for which there was no independent evidence, and that this has been inherited by M. Ms Malik’s note, therefore, contains something that E must have told her.
  • It follows that this is yet another example of E giving a false account of part of M’s medical history and thereafter relying on this false account to direct the course of his future treatment.
  • In this instance, it is possible to trace the consequences for M of this fabricated account. In ignoring Ms Malik’s advice, failing to make an urgent appointment with DC on his return, taking M to another dentist, failing to give a full or accurate account to that other dentist and expressly declining further x-rays which would have been likely to reveal the abscesses, E was solely responsible for allowing M’s infected mouth to go untreated for over a year, thereby condemning him to further pain and suffering as the area of infection gradually got worse. Throughout the period of 14 months between Ms Malik’s examination and the eventual surgery to extract teeth, M suffered pain, repeatedly described by E, which Ms Malik advised in evidence was probably caused by the abscesses. Meanwhile, as I find, E pursued other increasingly extreme theories for the causes of M’s pain, none of which has any basis in fact, at a time when she knew or ought to have known that the cause of the trouble was the dental infection which she was concealing.
  • On any view, this was deplorable and dangerous behaviour. M was and is a highly vulnerable young man, totally incapable of communicating his needs. E was his deputy and carer. He was dependent on her. She failed to protect him and acted in a way that was plainly contrary to his interests.

 

Other examples

 

  • The history shows other examples where E gave descriptions of M’s health, notably to KH, but also to others, for which there was no independent supporting evidence. These include that M had lost sensation in his hands and feet; that he was suffering from an adverse effect to electromagnetic energies; that he had been diagnosed with what appeared to be brain seizures; that his urinary system had shut down; that he was finding it difficult to walk very far; that M’s immune and nervous system were down; that he had tumours in his gum sockets; that he had been diagnosed with chronic blood poisoning; that he had a black shadow sitting on his left sinuses that he had black gunge oozing from every orifice. Other diagnoses put forward by E and dismissed by Dr Carpenter were: rheumatoid arthritis; heavy metal poisoning (based again on an isolated test result when such a diagnosis turns on repeated elevated levels); and a defective blood brain barrier. I share Dr Carpenter’s astonishment at reading E’s account of how M had attended a cranial osteopathy appointment which:

 

” … had focused on the contorted membranes between the two frontal lobes, apparently where the optical and auditory brain stems sit. The twist in the central membrane was significant for most of the treatment to be spent on it and it would appear to have come from M’s head overheating, obviously trying to release body heat.”

 

  • Many of these were repeated, along with others, in the document entitled, “Overview of M’s health” which E attached to the application at the start of these proceedings seeking the summary dismissal of the local authority’s application. I find that these were all false, or at least grossly exaggerated accounts of M’s symptoms. During the period June 2012 to September 2013, when this crescendo of false and exaggerated reporting took place, M was subjected to a large number of different tests, examinations and assessments, a number of which were invasive and all of which took up his time which would have been better occupied elsewhere.
  • It is unnecessary to go into these or other examples in any greater detail. The local authority’s case on this aspect is plainly proved. I find that E has stated that M is suffering from numerous conditions, the overwhelming majority of which are not true, and has subjected M to unnecessary tests and interventions, and/or lied about his illnesses or tests.
  • Relying on the professional view of Dr Beck, supported by Dr Adshead, it is asserted by the local authority that this amounts to factitious disorder imposed on others. I shall return to this assertion at the end of the judgment. Before doing so, it is appropriate to consider the other findings sought by the local authority.

 

 

In relation to the alternative therapy treatments given to M, at the behest of his parents, the Judge was sympathetic that for carers of a person with autism, the fact that there is no cure makes them willing to seek help from anywhere they can and that there are plenty of people willing to provide such help for a fee. The Judge was at pains to point out that this was not a hearing to rule on the efficacy or otherwise of  any individual form of treatment or therapy. What was of relevance here was the sheer volume of them and the intrusive impact on M’s day to day life

 

 

  • By and large, it is the sheer range and number of the treatments and their indiscriminate use on an incapacitated person that gives rise to concern, rather than the risk of any harm befalling the individual. I accept Dr Carpenter’s evidence that there is no evidence that cranial osteopathy, rheumatology, colloidal silver or homeopathy generally are clinically beneficial. In the case of some treatments, they may have been harmful. I accept, for example, Dr Carpenter’s evidence that there may be concern about the use of auditory integration therapy. He quoted NICE as finding no good evidence that such therapy works. Research Autism quoted research evidence to say that such therapy was not helpful in improving perceptions of autism, although it may be of limited use in the help with sensory problems. Dr Carpenter was concerned, however, that people with hearing loss or infection or damage to the inner ear should not be treated in this way. Dr Carpenter observed that, for M, who has recurrent ear problems, such therapy was potentially dangerous. Equally, he was concerned about the use of oxygen therapy. In his report, his concern was about the use of hyperbaric oxygen therapy, which is associated with risks to ear and teeth, and would have been potentially risky to M. Throughout the hearing, E stated that the oxygen therapy had not been hyperbaric, although I note in her final statement E said at paragraph 245 that M “uses a hyperbaric oxygen chamber for health reasons.” The main concerns about oxygen therapy in M’s case were, first, the sheer degree of interference with the life of an incapacitated adult required to have oxygen administered to him for up to six hours a day and, second, the question of the theoretical process for the therapy provided by Dr Julu – neurodevelopmental dystautonomia – which is not mentioned in any international classification known to Dr Carpenter.
  • I accept Dr Carpenter’s opinion that there is no evidence that any of these treatments were individually beneficial for M and that collectively they were intrusive and contrary to his best interests. M’s life was increasingly dominated by the programme of treatment to the exclusion of other activities. I find that E has implemented a programme of diet, supplements and treatments and therapies indiscriminately, with no analysis as to whether they are for M’s benefit, and on a scale that has been oppressive and contrary to his interests. She has exercised total control of this aspect of M’s life.
  • I stress, again, that I am not making any definitive findings on the efficacy of alternative treatments generally. That is not the subject of these proceedings, which are about M. I do, however, find that: (1) there is no reliable evidence that the alternative treatments given to M have had any positive impact on people with autism generally or M in particular and (2) the approach to prescribing alternative treatments to and assessing the impact of such treatments on people with autism in general and M in particular has lacked the rigor and responsibility usually associated with conventional medicine.
  • This demonstrates the fallacy of E’s belief that there are two parallel approaches to the diagnosis and treatment of autism – “mainstream medical” and “mainstream autism” – each of which is equally valid. The evidence in this hearing has demonstrated clearly that there is one approach – the clinical approach advocated by Dr Carpenter – that is methodical, rigorous and valid, and other approaches advocated by a number of other practitioners, for which there is no evidence of any positive impact and which (in this case at least) have been followed with insufficient rigor. Whilst each treatment may be harmless, they may, if imposed collectively and indiscriminately, be unduly restrictive and contrary to the patient’s interests. These disadvantages are compounded when, as in several instances in this case, insufficient consideration is given by the practitioners to the question of whether a mentally-incapacitated patient has consented to or wishes to have the treatment.

 

Factitious illness

 

 

  • f it was established that E has exaggerated M’s condition and/or made false claims about illnesses that he does not have and/or given him medication that was unnecessary and/or obstructed a normal relationship with health care professionals, Dr Beck and Dr Adshead both concluded that it would then follow that factitious disorder imposed on other people has taken place. Both Dr. Beck and Dr. Adshead observed that the degree of contradiction between E’s claims and the medical records record indicates a pattern of abnormal illness behaviour which seems to have escalated in the last few years. The nature of the diagnoses put forward are couched in increasingly dramatic narrative terms but are not supported with corroborative medical evidence.
  • Dr Beck believes that the underlying driver for the mother’s factitious disorder is that she is suffering from narcissistic personality disorder. Dr Adshead agrees with Dr Beck that there are significant features of personality disorder in E’s presentation, mainly narcissistic and histrionic features, and, in addition, Dr Adshead suspects that she may have some feature of an emotionally unstable personality disorder. As a psychiatrist, Dr Adshead reported that she had seen no evidence that E suffers from a severe mental illness. Dr Beck and Dr Adshead both thought that M’s health care and his identity as an illness sufferer is a key part of his mother’s relationship with him and that M’s health status clearly dominates that relationship. Dr Beck expressed the view that the mother’s desire to find other people to blame appeared to serve functions for her. First, it distracts from her own shame (self-imposed) and, secondly, it draws attention to her and her own needs. Dr Beck concluded her first report by observing that, whilst she did not doubt that E loves her son, she does not believe that she is capable of putting his needs above her own.
  • Dr Adshead advised that, if the facts are proven that support the accounts of factitious disorder imposed on another, together with a diagnosis of personality disorder, this provokes questions of further future risk and how the relationship between carer and a dependent other should be managed in the future. In her experience, the risk of harm to the dependent other is real, especially if the carer has no insight, although the nature of the harm may not necessarily be severe or dangerous. Having seen there is a real risk, it should be fairly clear that the risk can be managed if E is prevented from being the person responsible for M’s care. Once a carer is removed from the role of a carer, there is usually no danger in the carer and the dependent other spending time together. Dr Adshead advises, however, that in such circumstances there must be a proper health care plan put in place, overseen by a senior health care professional. It is Dr Beck’s recommendation that all of M’s health needs hereafter should be overseen by the local authority. Dr Beck agreed that there would be the real risk of an emotional mental and physical nature were M to return to live with E. She also believed that M’s access to opportunities to make choices and grow as an individual would be curtailed
  • .
  • I accept the opinion evidence given by Dr Beck and Dr Adshead. I find that E’s behaviour amounts to factitious disorder imposed on others. It was suggested by E in the course of the hearing, relying on material available on the internet, that the diagnosis was made without justification, as a means of attacking mothers of children with autism with a view to removing them from their care. I have no reason to believe that there is any basis for this assertion, but it certainly does not apply in this case. I am sure that the diagnosis of factitious disorder in this case is valid.

 

 

CONCLUSIONS

 

  • This court acknowledges the enormous demands placed on anyone who has to care for a disabled child. Even though such carers are motivated by love – and I accept that both E and A love M and are deeply devoted to him – the burdens and strains on them are very great. Every reasonable allowance must be made for the fact that they love their vulnerable son and want the absolute best for him. Every reasonable allowance must be made for the impact of these burdens and strains when assessing allegations about the parents’ behaviour. However, having made every reasonable allowance for those factors, I find the behaviour exhibited on many occasions, by E in particular, was wholly unreasonable. I agree with the insightful observation of the independent investigator appointed to consider the parents’ complaints in 2010 quoted above. E and A do feel that their mission has meant having to fight every inch of the way, against health and legal services and, more recently, social care services. This has influenced the extent to which they are able to work in partnership with statutory agencies. As they have such clear ideas about all aspects of M’s life and believe the conclusions they have reached about him are correct, it is understandable that they have had difficulty in accepting the views of others where they differ from their own. However, their attitude and approach has far exceeded anything that could be considered as reasonable.
  • E’s friends admire her determination to stop at nothing to get M the care, support and long-term achievement he deserves. Unfortunately, I find that this determination has led her to behave in a devious and destructive way, relentlessly criticising, occasionally bullying, repeatedly complaining about those who do not follow her bidding. Throughout this hearing she has repeatedly accused the local authority of pursuing its own agenda. I find that it is she who has an unshakeable agenda to follow her own course in pursuit of her own beliefs about M’s condition and how it should be treated.
  • E’s allegations of multiple conspiracies are a fantasy. It is nonsense to suggest that there has been a conspiracy by large numbers of the medical profession to conceal the truth about the MMR vaccine. It is ridiculous to suggest that the local authority has pursued a vendetta against E and set out to remove M from his family for financial reasons and that the staff at the various residential homes have fallen into line and in some cases perjured themselves under financial pressure from the local authority. It is delusional to suggest that the Official Solicitor has been motivated in this case by an agenda designed to prevent a revival of the claims arising out of the MMR and to that end suborned experts. The tone of these outlandish claims by E has become increasingly more strident as the case progressed, culminating in the documents filed after the conclusion of the hearing in which she expresses outrage at the conduct of the local authority and the Official Solicitor at the hearing on 6th March, in terms that are barely coherent. In their final submissions, E and A have made a number of further attacks on the integrity of the Official Solicitor, all of which I reject. It is unnecessary to go into any further detail. They are wholly misconceived.
  • The critical facts established in this case can be summarised as follows. M has autistic spectrum disorder. There is no evidence that his autism was caused by the MMR vaccination. His parents’ account of an adverse reaction to that vaccination is fabricated. The mother has also given many other false accounts about M’s health. He has never had meningitis, autistic enterocolitis, leaky gut syndrome, sensitivity to gluten or casein, disorder of the blood brain barrier, heavy metal poisoning, autonomic dysautonomia (which, in any event, is not recognised in any classification of medical conditions), rheumatoid arthritis or Lyme disease. As a result of E maintaining that he had these and other conditions, she has subjected M to numerous unnecessary tests and interventions. He did have a dental abscess for which E failed to obtain proper treatment and caused him 14 months of unnecessary pain and suffering. E has also insisted that M be subjected to a wholly unnecessary diet and regime of supplements. Through her abuse of her responsibility entrusted to her as M’s deputy, she has controlled all aspects of his life, restricted access to him by a number of professionals and proved herself incapable of working with the local authority social workers and many members of the care staff at the various residential homes where M has lived. This behaviour amounts to factitious disorder imposed on another. In addition, E has a combination of personality disorders – a narcissistic personality disorder, histrionic personality disorder and elements of an emotional unstable personality disorder.
  • Despite her serious conclusions about E’s personality, it is Dr Beck’s view that these parents have a lot to contribute to their son if they are capable of offering the care and support he needs under the guidance of an overarching programme of care coordinated by the local authority. I agree that they would have an enormous amount to offer their son if they could work in collaboration with the local authority social workers and other professionals in M’s best interests. I have not given up hope that this may be achieved. Such an outcome would be manifestly to M’s advantage. It will not be achieved, however, unless E and A – in particular, E – can demonstrate a fundamental change of attitude. If this does not happen, this court will have to take permanent steps to restrict their involvement in his life.

 

 

 

* If you are thinking that the word ‘quack’ appeared in any of my previous draft wordings for those three options you would be deeply wrong and misguided. Shame on you, you dreadful cynic.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Somerset v MK – conduct of a Local Authority and deprivation of liberty

 

 

This is a Court of Protection case, involving a 19 year old “P”.

 

Somerset v MK – Court of Protection,Deprivation of Liberty ,Best Interests Decisions ,Conduct of a Local Authority 2014

 

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCOP/2014/B25.html

 

P is aged 19, she was born on 10/10/1994 and has severe learning disabilities and autism spectrum disorder. She has almost no verbal capacity and communicates through gestures and via PECS

 

In May 2013, P presented with bruising on her chest and was examined by a paediatrician

 

His report (G25) said: “the bruising is felt to be comparable with a blow / blows to P’s anterior chest with a significant force or fall onto an object… this would be an unusual injury pattern to have been self-inflicted but if this was the case then it would be expected that such self-harm, which would have been demonstrably significant and painful, would have been witnessed”.

 

 

Sadly, when considering how those bruises came about, nobody seemed to have grasped the significance of the report from the school two days earlier of P being observed to hit herself hard and repeatedly on the chest.

 

The Judge notes,with a degree of acidity, that it seemed to only be when the papers in the case were sent by the Local Authority to leading counsel that the two matters were linked and the Local Authority ceased to seek a finding that P had been injured by her parents.

 

The belief that P was not safe with her parents was what had led the LA to remove her and deprive her of her liberty, and hence to make the application authorising that deprivation of liberty. Initially it had been for two weeks respite, but that stretched on and on, to over a year.

 

16. In addition the LA changed its position on the factual issues so that it was unlikely to pursue factual findings with regard to the injuries sustained by P. Previously the chest bruising seemed to form a vital part of the LA case and one might, for instance, have expected findings being sought about a perpetrator or perpetrators and failure to protect but now it was clear that no such findings were being sought. It is also clear from the document that the significance of the reported hitting by P of herself in the chest on 21/5/13 had been realised (the class trip evidence had not yet been identified). I suspect the realisation of the significance of this evidence in any Finding of Fact hearing and the instruction of very experienced leading and junior counsel just prior to this document being filed are not entirely coincidental.

 

Given that the reason for keeping P apart from her family had been the suspicion that they had injured her, when the truth is that the bruising was explained by the school’s observations of her hitting herself in the very same place, the LA were in a very tough spot.

 

14. On the 26th March the LA filed its position statement dated 25/3/14 to be found at A12 to 15. In this document the LA conceded that P had been deprived of her liberty (it contended that there may have been some doubt about that before but not after the Supreme Court ruling in the Cheshire West case).

 

15. In addition the LA accepted that there had been a period when they had unlawfully deprived P of her liberty contrary to Article 5 ECHR. It had not been authorised by the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and was not therefore “a procedure prescribed by law”. This it accepted continued from 8th June 2013 (the date when the respite care was supposed to have ended and 28th November 2013 when the first authorisation was obtained. It goes on to concede that P’s deprivation of liberty and the loss of her society to her family was a breach of both P and M’s Article 8 rights and not in accordance with the law.

 

 

If they had stuck with the apology and worked up a rehab plan without delay, things probably would have gone better for them, but instead they decided that it was in P’s best interests for her NOT to return to the family home but to be in a long term placement at a care home.

 

17. The LA make it clear that the best interests decision as to what should happen from now on to P is one to be considered purely in terms of her present and future welfare needs. The document indicates that the LA wish to apologise to the family for its “procedurally inappropriate and unlawful” actions. It still proposes that the best solution is for P to be in LA care and accommodation (up to April 2014 it had suggested a long term placement at a care home in Bournemouth was appropriate). Now it accepts a new social worker should be involved and make another best interests assessment and the case should be returned to court for an interim consideration of where P should be.

 

 

As part of that, the LA had drawn up a schedule of findings of fact on other matters. It is significant to read what the Official Solicitor had to say about that schedule

“…the reliance on this long and historical schedule to paint a damaging picture of this family is unnecessary and disproportionate. It does not build bridges.”

 

 

The Judge agreed with that, and also in conclusion said this:-

 

the adversarial nature of the argument and cross-examination needed to advance the schedule robbed the LA’s apology for its conduct of at least some of it credibility, no matter how carefully and dextrously leading counsel for the LA put the case.

 

 

{It is rather difficult to look sincere in your apology when you’re also trying to stick the boot in at the same time}

 

25. The siren song behind the argument is if I make the findings of fact and apply them and all the other relevant considerations to the case I will be driven to find that P’s best interests will be served by her not returning home but as far as the LA are concerned that is a matter for the judge. An outside observer might ask himself the question if everyone including the independent social worker and the OS for P are agreed on a return home and the LA are neutral why has it taken 9 days to litigate the case? However the reality is that the past conduct of the family and the LA are the context for the best interests decision and also the components of the breach of the ECHR application and thus needed to be carefully examined.

 

 

The Court did not make the findings that the LA sought, including one that the Judge said was “unprovable and irrelevant at the same time”   (a difficult combination to achieve)

 

What makes this case potentially important is the evidence of the senior manager of the LA, who the Judge remarked a number of times had the principal role of being there to fall on his sword.

 

 

The senior social work manager is a highly intelligent and senior social worker but he is essentially there to fall on his sword for the LA failings and on the best interests issue does not add anything to the LA case

 

However,

 

 

57…He was in my view a highly intelligent, experienced and well-intentioned manager and social worker who was, having observed him not just when he was giving evidence but when he was listening to evidence, genuinely shocked at some points by what he heard. At the start of his evidence he said: “I think the crucial aspect relying on what I have heard in court is a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of adult social care and how to go about their jobs“.

 

[Oh. My. God]

 

58.  He (and I) did not question the motivation of LA to do the right thing, as they saw it, for P but he described the conduct of social workers on the ground as misguided. There was no understanding of the law in this area and that extended to the LA lawyers as well as social workers. He accepted when I asked him that not only were individual actions wrong but the philosophy behind those actions was wrong as well. In particular he said that practice was inadequate when consulting with the family: “I have to ensure the staff who work in this area understand their role and I clearly failed in my responsibilities, failure as team manager, they failed to seek or take advice given the complex nature of the case. The beliefs and intentions of what people did was misguided in its approach”. He was very critical of the delay from September when the police indicated they were not taking their investigation of bruising any further to issuing proceedings which seemed to him to be time taken to, “put a good case together, which was not what we got”. He also highlighted the failure of the LA in not having a lawyer who specialised in adult social care.

 

[Oh. My. Flipping. God]

 

He was not wrong. The Judge analysed the conduct of the LA very carefully.

 

67. The police finally finished their investigation in September 2013, it was inconclusive. The LA were now in a position where prior to May they had not taken any action and the bruising in May could not be used to substantiate a retention of P. At the same time they had a very distressed young woman on their hands to whom medication was now being or about to be administered.

 

 68. Around about the time of the move to SASS people at last start to show alarm at the legal position. Why had they not appointed an IMCA (e-mails at O1169): “I am really not clear how we are holding P at Selwyn”, a colleague to Mr M 22/11/13, later that day in another e-mail should they not have gone to the CoP? Mr M on the same day: “P is still under safeguarding procedures”. One asks the questions why does he think that now the investigation has been over for two months and how does he think that justifies holding her?

 

 69. There had been other meetings the family should have been invited to but were not on 5/9/13 and on 12/11/13. The first of these meetings comprises of a massive amount of criticism being levelled at M and Mr E in particular most of which is either hearsay or from an anonymous source who is quoted at length but seems to be highly unreliable and possibly had some kind of personal agenda.

 

 70. At the meeting of 17/12/13 it was explained according to the minutes at J35 that the family were invited to discuss plans about P’s future and express their views. In fact it is clear that was not the reason they were invited at all. Far from a change of heart and an attempt to communicate the reason is clear. It was felt by Mr M on advice from the LA lawyers that: “The COP might pick up that no ’round table’ meeting has been held and this might disadvantage us during the hearing” (see the bundle at part O page1086).

 

[Oh. My. Martha. Flipping. God]

 

 

The Judge concludes

 

74. This is already a very long judgment and so I do not propose to go on reviewing the LA’s conduct further. The overall summing up by the senior social work manager was: “There has been a corporate failure and a failure of those on the ground to realise that they are out of their depth, most worrying was that they looked more sure about what they were doing than they ought, … it’s going to be difficult to re-establish that trust (with the family) if it’s rebuilt it is going to be with good practice”.” Mr Justice Ryder (as he then was) in a leading authority on FII cautioned social workers in child care cases not to decide what the picture was and then make the facts fit the picture, it seems to me that is what happened here.

 

 

Undertaking the best interests analysis, it is a demolition and as one-sided as a Harlem Globetrotters match

 

The balance sheet therefore shows the following –

 

 

In favour of P returning home

 

i Her wishes

 ii The wishes of her family

 

iii.             The right to a family life of P and her family

 iv The fact that at home she may not be subject to any deprivation of liberty and therefore this will be the least restrictive option

 v Concerns about the bruising have been abandoned as a reason for her not going home

 vi The OS supports return

 

vii.           The independent social work reporter supports return

 

viii.         I have found nothing in the Schedule of Facts to prevent return

 ix I have found there will be a degree of co-operation between the principal family members and the LA.

 

 

For a placement in a specialist home

 

 i The view of the LA that P will best reach her full potential in terms of her development, social life, communication skills and so on in a specialist home.

 

 

 

P therefore returned home and the Court found that there had been breaches by the Local Authority of her article 8 right to private and family life

 

76. There is no question here that P was removed unlawfully from her family, she went into Selwyn for respite care and it is from the date of her mother’s return from holiday that the breach flows. I further accept that the LA had a duty to investigate the bruising but I find that a competently conducted investigation would have swiftly come to the conclusion that no or no sufficient evidence existed to be able to conclude P’s safety was at risk by returning her home. This conclusion should have been reached within a week or so after the family asked for her back. If the LA came to a different conclusion, as they did, they should have applied to the CoP by early June for a hearing. Not doing so is a further breach. Having not done so they should have told the family they could make an application, not doing that is a further breach. After the Police investigation ended in September P should again have been returned but was not nor was an application made to CoP as it should have been. The limitations and conditions placed on contact between the family and P constitute another breach.

               

 

I make that five breaches

 

78. These findings illustrate a blatant disregard of the process of the MCA and a failure to respect the rights of both P and her family under the ECHR. In fact it seems to me that it is worse than that, because here the workers on the ground did not just disregard the process of the MCA they did not know what the process was and no one higher up the structure seems to have advised them correctly about it.

 

 

 

 

 

Korsakoff’s syndrome, alcoholism and capacity

The Court of Protection in X v A Local Authority 2014  were considering the case of a man who had Korsakoff’s syndrome, this is a disease of the brain almost exclusively seen in very serious alcoholics and it is where the drinking itself has damaged the structure of the brain, one of the manifestations being the difficulty in forming new memories.  This particular man, X, had been a lawyer prior to his problems, and had been a bright, intelligent and articulate man  (despite this, he chose to become a lawyer…)

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCOP/2014/B25.html

 

In this particular case, the issue was whether the Court of Protection should decide that X lacked capacity to make decisions for himself, including about where he was to live, and to go on to make decisions for him in his best interests. One of the concerns was that if X were allowed to make his own decisions, he would fall back into alcoholism and cause himself further damage.

 

There was a dispute between professionals as to whether X lacked capacity

 

I move to section 3, the so-called functional test which, in my judgment, is the key point in this case. Section 3(1) says this: “For the purpose of section 2 a person is unable to make a decision for himself if he is unable (a) to understand the information relevant to the decision, (b) to retain that information, (c) to use or weigh that information as part of the process of making the decision, or (d) to communicate that decision, whether by talking, using sign language or any other means.” So the test is decision specific and time specific. So if I am to authorise X’s further detention, in other words in effect his deprivation of liberty, then he must currently lack capacity to make a decision as to residence, et cetera.
 

Now the issue is not entirely straight forward with this case. Sadly, his current treating psychiatric consultant, Dr. Al-Kaissy, is absent abroad and so I was unable to hear from her. I have seen, however, an undated mental capacity assessment by her and taken on board what she says in that she is quite sure that he lacks the appropriate executive functioning capacity. It is her view in that report, and also that of the social worker, who has known him for the duration of his illness, Ms Kingdom, that he continues to lack capacity; or rather I do not have an updated report from Dr. Al-Kaissy but the social worker remains of the view that he continues to lack that capacity. By contrast, Dr. Loosemore does not accept that he now lacks the appropriate capacity, a view supported by Lucy Bright, the social worker who, together with Dr. Loosemore, assessed him for deprivation of liberty purposes. I did not hear from Miss Bright but nonetheless I have read what she has to say and I notice that she said that he continues to have a poor short term memory and that he needs prompting in connection with washing and dressing. But she made a number of observations which I shall read. At D108 in the bundle she said this: “Both Dr. Loosemore and I had a lengthy interview with X and as a result of this interview Dr. Loosemore concluded that X has capacity to consent to his care and treatment at the V Care Home. I agree with this finding and, whilst I am aware that [X’s] capacity may fluctuate, it would be difficult to conclude that he lacks capacity from the information he gave and understanding that he displayed during the interview.” She continued to say this: “Given the conclusion reached by Dr. Loosemore that [X] has capacity to consent to his accommodation, care and treatment at the V Care Centre, he is not eligible for the Deprivation of Liberty safeguards and so this process now stops. I am aware others may challenge this finding and, given the variable way in which [X] can present, it may be worth a second opinion being sought, but the Mental Capacity Act is clear that someone’s capacity should be assessed when they are at their best”, and she goes on: “I would suggest that a way forward would be the care providers to draw up a voluntary contract with [X] about his length of stay at the unit including any support that they assess he needs accessing the community and how it can be provided with [X]’s consent. Efforts also need to be made swiftly to identify [X]’s long term accommodation needs and a suitable care package when he moves on from the rehabilitation unit.”
 

Dr. Loosemore reported in the same way and in his conclusion at D86 he says this: “I thought that Mr. [X] had capacity to decide on receiving care and treatment at the V Care Home. Although he did not like the experience of residing in the care home he is willing to stay for a period of assessment. If he were to be formally deprived of his liberty I think he would become distressed and aggrieved.” His conclusion was very plain that X does not lack capacity with regard to residence, et cetera.
 

In the course of oral evidence on Wednesday Dr. Loosemore firmly held to the view that X does not meet the statutory test, the functional test, under section 3 of the Act. He had seen X, he thought, for an hour, though Miss Bright wrote it was in fact 90 minutes. He by coincidence knew him when he was sectioned under section 2 of the Mental Health Act in December 2013 and certainly then he was very unwell. He conceded that X’s capacity could fluctuate, but he observed, as does Miss Bright, that he needs to look at him at his best and he remained of the view throughout cross-examination that X does not lack capacity to make decisions as to residence, et cetera. He did not accept that, because there was a risk that X would resume drinking, that implied a lack of capacity. He had not spoken to the treating psychiatrist, Dr. Al-Kaissy, nor to the key social worker, in the course of forming his independent opinion, nor had he explicitly in the course of the document he completed referred to the factors set out in section 3 of the 2005 Act, but he nonetheless was of the view that X had appropriate understanding and that he can retain information as necessary, and he had completed his analysis on that basis with that conclusion. Although the completed document he had to fill in for the assessment purposes does not permit detailed analysis, nonetheless he was of the view that section 3 does not apply in this case. He conceded of course he did not refer to the section in his report but pointed out that the form F6 does not provide for the section 3 criteria to be referred to. He was satisfied that X can give an account of where he is residing, what his role there and what the benefits of residing there are. X knew he was not about to leave but averred that he did not get on well with the other residents. He was sure that X’s mental state was improving and that he did not require detention at the V Care Home. He agreed that X had seemed reluctant to give up all drinking and enjoys a social drink, as he indicated also in evidence to me; but he also had said that he would abstain entirely if he had to. He conceded that it is always difficult to gauge with those who drink to excess as to the veracity of their promises. People who have a drinking problem make specious promises, he noted. He had not seen the current brief assessment of Dr. Al-Kaissy to which I have referred but he remained of the view that X now has capacity. He accepted of course Dr. Al-Kaissy has seen X regularly but it was his view that he was dealing now with a man very changed from the poor state in which he was presenting on 19th December of last year. Moreover, X had told him he was willing to stay voluntarily for a while and his view is that X is no longer disorientated, confused as to the date, et cetera, and, although he is a little repetitive, he is no longer rambling in his presentation. He described X as not fitting in with the rest of the ward but described him as rational and reasonable, logical in his thought processes. He had now the capacity to reflect on how he was and he agreed with the typed assessment of Miss Bright when considering the standard authorisation. He was shown the report of a neuropsychologist for 7th May but this did not alter his conclusions. I have to say that I found Dr. Loosemore to be a very persuasive witness. His view that X now has capacity was compelling.
 

Ms Andrea Kingdom is a very experienced and very concerned social worker. I have read her statement of 21st May which of course has been overtaken by events. Contrary to Dr. Loosemore’s opinion she thought X continues to lack capacity. There is no doubt of course that she knows him well and is very concerned about him, and I entirely accept that in law I am quite able to reject Dr. Loosemore’s opinion and find that X lacks capacity for the purposes of section 48 so I can make an interim order. She still feels that X has difficulty in retaining information and she was concerned, because he is a highly intelligent man, that he is able to mask his cognitive difficulties. She felt he had unrealistic expectations as to the future, constantly saying he hopes to live again with his first wife and even remarry her and live with her. She was concerned too because he has no real idea as to where he is going to live upon discharge. She is concerned because when he had had leave in the past he has sought to drink on one occasion and then been found standing dangerously near a busy trunk road. On an occasion, when he went out to A House, he sought to obtain alcohol and kept asking for it. She felt Dr. Loosemore had seen X but briefly and that it is after about two hours with him that his present difficulties continue to manifest themselves. She did not accept that X’s insight into his condition has appropriately increased and knew that he would not give up drinking. She was quite worried about him damaging himself. I listened very carefully to Ms Kingdom. I thought her evidence was very kindly and well intentioned. I make no criticisms of her professionally. I accept that there are many matters to be concerned about with regard to X but it is my view that he has shown rather more insight than she attributes to him. Of course she is used to patients who revert to mental illness and difficulties, but I do not accept that she has established the section 3 criteria to my reasonable satisfaction.
 

X gave evidence unsworn at the suggestion of all the advocates in the case. In the course of his brief evidence to me he indicated, first, a wish to live with and, if possible, remarry his first wife. He told me she has been in regular contact with him since he has been hospitalised and, to his surprise and gratification, he thinks their relationship is in the course of being re-kindled, though he does not wish to rush things. He showed a tendency to repeat himself. He told me the information about his ex-first wife four times during the course of his evidence. He told me that he had decided he wishes to stay in the V Care Home until he can obtain either a home with his first wife or rented property and he would need a garden, he said. I felt this was a somewhat incomplete plan but, in fairness to him, he then went on to say that he would make contact with agents to try and find a place to live. He told me he is separated from P, his second wife, and told me that his excessive drinking and then hospitalisation and sectioning had been a “bitter experience”. He was unable to explain why he was found standing by the main road, why he bought alcohol on leave and why he had sought alcohol when he visited A House. Now, I entirely accept that his plans for a reconciliation with his first wife and finding a home with her are vague and perhaps overly optimistic; but for all of that there was a degree of realism in what he said for he said he could not leave the home yet and would stay there till he found a place to go. His concept of his needs was plainly a little vague and I had to put to him that he would need visits from a C.P.N. and social workers to assist him to plan for his life. But I was left with the impression that this is not a man who is masking his illness or his cognitive capacity. His evidence, in my judgment, is more than that of just a man used to presenting a case in court and putting it simply in the best light for its own sake.

 

 

These are difficult issues, and even perhaps philosophically difficult. Does a person who is an alcoholic have capacity to make proper informed decisions about whether or not to drink? Are they balancing up the pros and cons when considering it? Or are they acting under the influence of an addiction or craving more powerful than their will?  Of course, we don’t as a society try to declare that all alcoholics lack capacity to make decisions for themselves, but in that narrow issue – “Can they decide whether to eschew alcohol?”  it is arguable that they don’t have capacity.

But for the purposes of the declaration sought, the capacity issues were much broader, and in those regards, the Court was satisfied that X did have capacity – he might go on to exercise his autonomy badly, he might make poor choices, he might put himself in harms way, but if he has that autonomy, he has the right to make the decisions for himself and live with the consequences.

 

I have carefully and, I hope, sympathetically borne in mind the findings and concerns of Ms. Kingdom. He may drink to excess again, but that, in my view, is an unwise decision rather than a sign of continuing incapacity. I accept, as I have said, his short term memory problems are still there but, if one applies the Re: F decision and the S.M.B.C. v. W.M.P. decisions to which I have referred then I cannot find sufficient evidence to justify a reasonable belief that he lacks capacity in the relevant regard.

 

X now has capacity to make decisions as to residence, care and medical treatment and that has been amply demonstrated in the case. Even if he has other problems he can reflect and logically reason, and is much improved from the man he was last December. That does not mean he will not relapse. It does not mean that he will not be foolish enough to resume drinking but, in my judgment, in all the circumstances it would be inappropriate to make a declaration under section 48 and in those circumstances, in the absence of a standard authorisation, his compulsory detention comes to an end.

 

Capacity to live with your husband

 

The Court of Protection case of Re PB (2014)

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCOP/2014/14.html

 

The case involved a 72 year old woman PB, whom Norfolk CC considered to lack capacity and also felt that she could not safely live in her own home with her husband TB who was 50 and also said to lack capacity.

As ever with the Court of Protection, the first step is to establish whether  a person lacks capacity to make decisions on their own behalf, with the starting point of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 being that they DO unless proved otherwise. A person with capacity is entitled to make poor or foolish decisions, decisions that nobody around them thinks are right. We have autonomy to make our own mistakes, as long as we understand the nature of our decision and what the pros and cons are.

 

We end up with, in the Mental Capacity Act 2005, a clear bright line between someone who has capacity (in which case the Court of Protection have to let them make their own decisions) and someone who does not (in which case the Court of Protection can be asked to make a decision on their behalf striving to do so in their best interests)

Is capaciy really such a clear bright line? This case throws up some doubts for me.

 

Let’s look at what PB herself said to Parker J

 

 

  • PB wrote to me before the hearing. In particular she wrote that “I should like to point out that it is the right of every individual to choose for himself or herself whom to live with and where to live and not to live under the shadow of regimentation and have to live in an institution”.

 

 

 

  • I was asked prior to the hearing, and when I had had no opportunity to assess the background, whether I would see PB at the hearing. I reserved that decision for the trial. At court I was also asked to see TB. I was happy to do so, but stressed that care has to be taken as to how a meeting shall be treated. The protected party does not give an sworn/affirmed account, and in particular if the meeting takes place only in the presence of the judge, with no opportunity to test the evidence, then in my view no factual conclusions save those which relate to the meeting itself should be drawn, in particular with regard to capacity (see YLA v PM and Another [2013] EWHC 4020 (COP) at [35].

 

 

 

  • As it turned out, neither wished to give evidence. They each asked to speak to me in the courtroom with all representatives present. This took place on day three. PB spoke to me first, followed by TB. Each sat close to the bench and was at liberty, as I told them, to talk about what they felt and wanted, and any other topic. They were not cross examined, and I did not ask any questions. I did speak to PB about the medical procedure which she was reluctant to undergo.

 

 

 

  • PB is likeable, highly intelligent, sophisticated and articulate, well-read and knowledgeable. She writes poetry. With regard to marriage she told me “Let no man put asunder” and “once a couple are married – meant to be together”. She denied that she had been ill for 50 years. She stated “I haven’t lived with my siblings for 50 years”.

 

 

 

  • It is obvious to me from all that I have read and heard as well as from the meeting that PB’s intellectual understanding is at a high level. She stated “I understand that this Act only came in in 2005. I wonder whether it’s working out as it should be”.

 

 

 

  • She told me, when asked what she wanted to happen, “I’d like to be free to wander the universe without being told to sit down and be quiet”, “I’d like to get my poetry published”, “I’d like [TB] to be always at my side”, and “I’ve never hit a carer” (the evidence is that she has).

 

 

 

  • TB is also likeable, and he was articulate and sincere. He said “How do you take decisions” “we have a lot of confidence in one another, we should be living together as man and wife”, “The social worker has done a good job”. He wants to go back to F House to be with PB. He volunteered that he had “tapped the manager on the nose”.

 

 

 

  • I accept that whatever their respective problems this couple has a long standing and committed relationship and that they love one another dearly. There is no issue as to their capacity to marry: the marriage was celebrated many decades ago

 

 

 

PB here comes across as intelligent and articulate – the Judge saying that her intellectul understanding is at a high level  (her critique of the Mental Capacity Act is one which is put very well, and which many people share)

 

What did the medical experts say about her capacity?

 

 

  • Particularly since PB presents in a sophisticated manner, as Dr Khalifa told me, it has been an advantage for me to have had the treating physician with long term knowledge to give evidence on the issues. Dr Khalifa stems from Sudan but has worked in Ireland before coming to practice in England as a consultant in old age psychiatry. English is not her first language and her idiomatic understanding has some gaps. That gave rise to a misunderstanding in writing, as will be seen. Her reports were also not clear, taken in conjunction with the joint statement (appended hereto).

 

 

 

  • There is a considerable degree of consensus between the experts:

 

 

i) Dr Barker thinks that the diagnosis is schizo-affective disorder. Dr Khalifa thinks it is residual schizophrenia. I agree, as the doctors agreed, that this makes no difference to their overall views.

ii) Both agree that PB has cognitive problems. Dr Khalifa says that she has compromised executive function stemming from her frontal lobe. This is a known problem in schizophrenia. Dr Barker accepts that she has frontal lobe damage, which he described as “mild brain damage”. Dr Barker also thinks that she has an “ageing brain”.

 

  • Dr Khalifa explained in oral evidence (which she gave the day after Dr Barker) that:

 

 

i) Executive dysfunction is progressive.

ii) It is implicated in planning, judgment, and decision making.

iii) PB has problems with working memory, keeping information “on line”, and manipulating the information to make a decision.

iv) She suffers from “poverty of thought” (a global reduction in her quality of thought where the person keeps returning to the same limited ideas).

v) She shows “negative thinking” and lack of initiative.

vi) She is unable to judge situations.

vii) She has problems in “set shifting”: that is in shifting her choice to a new one in the face of negative feedback, and the ability to stick to a new choice.

viii) She has problems in doing more than one thing simultaneously.

ix) Other problems are of selecting appropriate responses and inhibiting inappropriate ones, of generating plans and resolving problems.

x) She cannot compare the risks and the benefits.

 

  • This formulation had not been put forward by Dr Barker and he was not asked about it, since Dr Khalifa’s formulation was not elicited until she gave evidence. But the upshot is that it was not challenged. Nothing that Dr Barker said was inconsistent with it.

 

 

 

  • Dr Khalifa states that PB suffers from intense anxiety which can reach clinical levels and which prevents her from making a decision. She “gets stuck”, as described by Ms Thompson. Dr Barker thinks that many people without mental health problems have problems making difficult decisions. But he agrees that PB’s anxiety can reach clinical levels so that it constitutes impairment/ disturbance.

 

 

 

  • Broadly, Dr Barker is not certain about the extent to which PB’s decisions may be based on her beliefs about marriage, and to what extent TB’s influence leads her to be incapacitous all the time.

 

 

 

  • Dr Barker states that PB is heavily influenced by her husband. When not with TB she has capacity (in his original report he wrote “has considerable capacity”) but may be incapacitous when with him. He does not know to what extent influence may be taken into account in deciding that she is incapacitous.

 

 

 

  • In his report and evidence he suggested that PB may simply be making a decision based on her commitment to marriage over her own wellbeing which is unwise but which is not caused by her mental impairment. “If she has preferred to ally herself with her husband she may accept the level of squalor”. In cross–examination he said that in his view her decisions “are not solely driven by mental impairment” and “it is difficult to judge whether it is cognitive impairment, or other factors which lead her to make unwise, or incapacitous, decisions when with TB”.

 

 

 

  • He said that assessment of whether she was unable to use and weigh might be skewed if PB had chosen to withhold information. She might have different thought processes but was choosing not to disclose that to him. There is evidence that she understands the issue but she may not want to give evidence which may “damage her cause”. This may be a natural denial.

 

 

 

  • That is the best summary of Dr Barker’s views which I can provide. His views were in fact set out in a number of different formulations. Mr Reeder has set them out in his closing document. I need not review that in detail. Dr Barkers’ final position in evidence was that the issue of PB’s capacity is finely balanced and should be decided by the court. He ‘leans’ to the conclusion that she has capacity to make decisions about residence, care and contact in optimal conditions He wavered somewhat as to whether he thought that PB lacked capacity when not with TB, and eventually concluded that he thought that she might do. “I agree that PB lacks capacity in certain situations, for example because of anxiety, mental disorder or influence. I don’t know if she has capacity in optimal circumstances, but I have not seen sufficient evidence that she lacks capacity then”. Ms Street says that the Official Solicitor “interprets” Dr Barker to have said that he thought that the presumption of capacity had not been rebutted.

 

 

 

  • Dr Khalifa’s consistent position in oral evidence was that PB’s mental illness, anxiety and influence from TB all contribute to her inability to weigh information. She lacks capacity at all times, sometimes at a greater level that at others.

 

 

 

  • Dr Barker had drafted the joint statement after their joint meeting. Dr Khalifa told me, and I accept, that he sent it to her and she signed it without further discussion. They recorded agreement that capacity was “finely balanced”. Dr Khalifa told me that she had misunderstood. She did not consider capacity to be finely balanced. She regarded PB and always has as clearly lacking capacity. Furthermore, although they agreed that PB had “considerable capacity” when not subject to TB’s direct influence (adopting Dr Barker’s phrase, by which he seems to have meant something different) both in her report and the joint statement, she did not mean that PB ever had capacity. She “would not separate influence and major psychiatric disorder.” In any event TB’s influence is pervasive. Whenever PB has to consider decisions about living with him or spending time with him she either cannot recall or use and weight the information or is paralysed by anxiety, or both.

 

 

 

  • The joint statement does not clearly address the capacity issue and Dr Khalifa’s clear view only emerged at court. Dr Khalifa told me also that she had wanted to “harmonise” their views. I accept this. Dr Barker’s view was never clearly enough expressed and it seems to me that she thought that this was the best they could do since there was no prospect of getting any clearer formulation. She was wrong to sign up to an accord when in fact there was none. But I am sure she did not appreciate that this would prolong the debate and the enquiry.

 

 

 

  • Both agree that “whether or not the Court finds that she lacks capacity, she is a vulnerable adult and as such requires protection in the context of her relationship with TB.”

 

 

[I don’t personally care much for the last sentence – if PB has capacity, then she has the same autonomy as any of us to make choices and decisions without the State interfering.  I come across this patrician attitude quite a lot, and I’m afraid it is something that makes me bristle. It isn’t the job of the State to make decisions for people who are capable of doing that themselves]

 

There are some problems in this – it appears that Dr Barker felt that PB had capacity to make decisions about where she wanted to live ‘in optimal conditions’ and that PB had ‘considerable capacity’ when not subject to TB’s influence.

 

We’ve all come across people who act foolishly in relation to a love affair  (this might be described as the ‘Gail Tilsley effect’ – a person who is normally sensible, cautious and fairly dull, has all of their common sense go out of the window when their head is turned by love.  Is that a lack of capacity?  Sometimes when this is happening to you, you might describe it as not being able to think straight, you might come out of it saying ‘what was I thinking?’  ‘what possessed me to do that?’  – but is it a lack of capacity?

 

The Judge was asked to prefer the evidence of Dr Barker to Dr Khalifa (who had put things on a much more medical footing regarding decision making, as opposed to Dr Barker, who felt that PB’s judgment was clouded when it came to making decisions about her relationship with TB – which would NOT be a lack of capacity for the purposes of the Act). The Judge instead preferred the evidence of Dr Khalifa.

 

 

  • Ms Street and Mr Reeder asked me to prefer the opinion of Dr Barker to Dr Khalifa. I decline to do so.

 

 

i) I do not agree that Dr Khalifa was approaching the task of assessment from a Mental Health Act “diagnostic” standpoint or safeguarding perspective.

ii) Dr Barker’s evidence was speculative, approached more as a philosophical or academic debate than an opinion. As I have commented above he was reluctant himself to factor a consistent body of information from reliable sources as to PB’s thought processes. He focused on his own assessment rather than looking at the history, in particular the stark picture presented by Ms Thompson’s evidence.

iii) His emphasis on PB’s sophisticated, dextrous use of language, which was not in dispute, caused him to lose focus on the issue of using and weighing the information and the inability to take any decision at all: getting “stuck”, “going along with it”, “acquiescent” (a word which struck him by its “sophistication”).

iv) He had no evidence that PB was deliberately concealing information from him, or her motivation if she was. What she said to him was consistent with “sliding away” from the issues.

v) Dr Barker took the individual elements but did not put them together. He did not address the matters in issue. As I have said, the question was not the wish to be with her husband. The issue was not whether she was wise or unwise to regard their trips together as “romantic” or to regard the bonds of marriage as sacred; but whether she is able to decide where and with whom she is to live and how her care is to be managed.

vi) Dr Khalifa broke down the elements then approached capacity on a holistic basis. I found her oral evidence clear and focussed, well argued, cogent and compelling.

vii) I am satisfied that PB suffers from impairment/disturbance which directly results from the psychiatric disorders identified by Dr Khalifa.

viii) I do not accept Dr Barker’s opinion that PB is only under TB’s influence when she is actually with him. I agree with Dr Khalifa that TB’s influence remains effective even when not she is not with him. This is apparent from the conversations recorded above with Ms Nicholas, Ms Masters, and Dr Khalifa.

ix) And finally key issues on which he focussed are, as he accepted, matters of law or of judgment for the court.

 

Because this issue arose as to whether PB’s mental condition and disorder of the mind was causing her lack of capacity, or whether it was a contributing factor together with her feelings towards her husband and her inability to process logical decisions when considering him, there was a legal issue to be resolved

 

 

  • capacity in this context must mean with regard to the “matter in issue”. Furthermore, “for the Court to have jurisdiction to make a best interests determination, the statute requires there to be a clear causative nexus between mental impairment and any lack of capacity that may be found to exist (s 2(1)).” The key words “because of” should not be replaced by “referable to” or “significantly relates to”: PC v City of York Council [2013] EWCA Civ 478.

 

 

 

  • Ms Street submits that “because of” in Section 2 MCA 2005 means “is the sole cause of”. Mr Reeder submits that it means “is the effective cause of“. Ms Burnham suggests that it means “is an effective cause of” and submits that there is no material distinction between “the sole cause” and “the effective cause“.

 

 

 

  • Ms Burnham refers by way of analogy to the Equality Act 2010, where the words “because of” have been construed as meaning “a substantial reason”: it need not be the main reason so long as it “an effective cause”. She cites pre- EA 2010 authority: Owen v Briggs and James, 1982 ICR 618 (CA) and O’Neill v Governors of St Thomas More Roman Catholic Voluntary Aided Upper School [1997] 1CR 33. I note other analogous areas of statutory interpretation where a purposive construction has been adopted. Under s 423 Insolvency Act 1996, in order to set aside an impugned transaction its “purpose” must have been to defraud creditors. Purpose does not mean sole purpose: substantial purpose or intention is sufficient (Inland Revenue Commissioners v Hashmi) [2000] 2 BCLC 489, 504, [2000] BPIR 974. Under s 37 Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 there is power to set aside a transaction made with the intention to defeat a claim for a financial remedy. The intention to defeat the claim does not have to be the dominant motive in the transaction; if it is a subsidiary (but material) motive then that will suffice: Kemmis v Kemmis (Welland and Others Intervening), Lazard Brothers and Co (Jersey) Ltd v Norah Holdings Ltd and Others [1988] 1 WLR 1307, [1988] 2 FLR 223.

 

 

 

  • I agree with Ms Burnham that where there are several causes it is logically impossible for one of them to be “the effective cause”. I agree that to hold otherwise would lead to an absurd conclusion because even if impairment or disturbance were the most important factor, wherever there were other factors (however little part they might play) the s 2 MCA 2005 test would not apply.

 

 

 

  • There is nothing Convention incompatible in the concept that multiple factors may affect a decision. Otherwise a person with impaired capacity whose disturbance/impairment of mind operates to disable her from weighing and using information would not fall within the protection of the Act.

 

 

 

  • It seems to me that the true question is whether the impairment/disturbance of mind is an effective, material or operative cause. Does it cause the incapacity, even if other factors come into play? This is a purposive construction.

 

 

 

  • The issue is not, as Mr Reeder puts it, whether “the effect of PB’s views about her marriage is itself an impairment or disturbance or results from an impairment or disturbance”.

 

 

 

  • The question is whether PB lacks capacity in respect of the matter in issue by reason of a disturbance or impairment in the mind or brain so that she cannot use and weigh her choices (which may include choices impelled to whatever extent by such beliefs of feelings) so that he/she is unable to understand, retain, or use and weigh them.

 

 

 

  • Ms Street and Mr Reeder also submit that Dr Khalifa approached the test the wrong way round. They submit that the Code of Practice stipulates that the first step is to decide whether there is a disturbance of mind, and the second to decide on capacity whereas McFarlane LJ in PC v City of York [2013] EWCA Civ 478 stated that this should be considered in reverse order. In my view MacFarlane LJ did not purport to lay down a different test: nor did he take the questions in the reverse order, but simply stressed that there must be a causative nexus between the impairment and the incapacity.

 

 

 

  • I do not consider that it matters what order the expert addressed the issues so long as she or he observes the causative nexus. Dr Khalifa identified the impairment or disturbance, which she described compellingly and in detail, and then clearly advised that this caused the inability to use and weigh.

 

 

 

  • When Dr Khalifa was asked whether PB’s inability to use and weigh the information was “due to” her constantly and clearly communicated views about marriage and her role within that marriage as TB’s wife, Dr Khalifa rightly rejected this as the relevant question and repeated her opinion as to PB’s condition and its effect on the ability to use and weigh. I do not agree that this was “ducking the question”. Dr Khalifa said and repeated that it is difficult to separate PB’s impairment or disturbance of functioning of mind and brain from the question of influence.

 

 

 

  • I regard PB’s condition as the cause of her inability to use and weigh. Her inability to challenge TB may at one time have stemmed from a belief in the ties of marriage: I do not know. But now she is unable to use and weigh the information because of the compromise in her executive functioning and her anxiety.

 

 

and the Judge specifically looked at the issue of Overbearing of the Will

 

Influence/overbearing of the will

 

  • In R v Cooper [2009] UKHL 42, [2009] 1 WLR 1786 at [13] the Supreme Court noted that “The commission therefore recommended the functional approach: this asked whether, at the time the decision had to be made, the person could understand its nature and effects…”. However, the commission went on to accept that understanding might not be enough. There were cases where people could understand the nature and effects of the decision to be made but the effects of their mental disability prevented them from using that information in the decision-making process. The examples given were an anorexic who always decides not to eat or a person whose mental disability meant that he or she was “unable to exert their will against some stronger person who wishes to influence their decisions or against some force majeure of circumstances”: para 3.17. (underlining added for emphasis).

 

 

 

  • I do not accept as Ms Street submits that the underlined passage supports the proposition that the impairment or disturbance must be the sole cause of the inability to make a decision. It does support Ms Burnham’s submission that inability to exert the will against influence because of the impairment or disturbance is relevant.

 

 

 

  • I do not accept that pre MCA authority is irrelevant. It has been held that the jurisdiction of the High Court is not usurped where capacity has been lost because of the influence of another or the impact of external circumstances, and only regained because the court has regulated exposure to such influences which if subsequently reasserted will cause capacity to be lost once more Re G (an adult) (Mental capacity: Court’s Jurisdiction) [2004] EWHC 222 (Fam) and a Local Authority v SA and others.

 

 

 

  • In Re A (Capacity: Refusal of Contraception) [2011] Fam 61 at [73] Bodey J specifically found that Mrs A’s inability to use and weigh was the consequence of the influence of a husband to whom she was fiercely loyal. Ms Street says that this decision is not relevant in the instant case since the words “because of” were not the subject of argument. In my view the issue of influence is a general one, and not limited to the causal nexus between impairment or disturbance of functioning of mind and brain and inability to make a decision. In that case the legal focus was the capacity to use and weigh information in order to make the decision. I do not accept that Bodey J was approaching the case on the wrong “inherent jurisdiction” test.

 

 

 

  • In IM v LM the Court of Appeal recorded Peter Jackson J’s observation that the threshold for those who wish to establish that a person cannot make a decision because they are overborne by influences from others must be a high one “in relation to an act which is so very hard to rationalise.” The Court did not further comment on this formulation. I assume that they approved it. There is no suggestion that influence is not a relevant consideration. They specifically approved Bodey J in Re A (Refusal of Contraception).

 

 

 

  • As I have commented the type of decision to be made in this case is quite different from a decision to engage in sexual relations. It requires consideration of quite complicated choices and an assessment of past and future. In any event the influence/pressure of TB is common ground and is overwhelmingly demonstrated.

 

 

 

  • PB is under TB’s influence whether he is physically present or not. Every time she is asked to make a decision about him his influence, in conjunction with her psychiatric condition, cognitive deficits and anxiety, prevents her from using and weighing the information.

 

 

 

  • But in any event by reason of her condition alone, even without the influence of TB, in my view PB lacks capacity to use and weigh. The history over March and April 2013 in particular demonstrates that PB was not able in reality to make any decision at all which related to TB, or to her care needs. And what she has said during the course of these proceedings demonstrates the same process. Her impairment /disturbance is the effective cause, the primary cause of her inability to make a decision.

 

 

 

  • I have had the advantage, which the experts have not, of surveying all the material in this case and in particular the oral evidence of Ms Thompson. PB, notwithstanding her high intellectual capacity and verbal dexterity, and in spite of her superficial and partial acknowledgement of the risks, is simply unable to factor into her thought processes (i.e. use and weigh) the realities of the harm that she will suffer if she resumes living with TB or has uncontrolled contact with him. And perhaps, even more importantly, she is unable to weigh up the risks to her of being in an unsupported environment, with or without him, without a package of care. This is not to be paternalistic, or to fail to allow her to experience an acceptable degree of risk. It is not a question of allowing her “to make the same mistakes as all other human beings are at liberty to make and not infrequently do.”

 

The Judge decided that PB did lack capacity for the purposes of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and made the declarations sought by Norfolk, which were in effect that PB could be detained in a home against her wishes and that this deprivation of liberty was authorised.

 

An important point to arise was that Parker J had indicated that IF she had decided that PB DID have capacity, she would still have authorised the same actions (keeping PB in a home and apart from her husband) under the inherent jurisdiction. This is a big deal, because if this became law, it would mean that Local Authorities could ask Courts to make decision about ‘vulnerable’ adults who had capacity to make their own decisions. And as we keep hearing ‘the inherent jurisdiction theoretically has no limits”.  I believe that the Official Solicitor intended to appeal on this point of law, and I wish them all the luck in the world – this would be a major development in the law and a major erosion of the principle that people have autonomy to make bad decisions as long as they have capacity.  It would be a bad day for personal liberties in this country if the inherent jurisdiction were to be extended in this way   (on the flip-side, if you believe that the State is there to protect vulnerable people from making mistakes, then it would be a good day. We can agree to disagree on that)

 

 

 

  • I expressed the view at the conclusion of the hearing that if I did not find that PB lacks capacity I would have made an order in the same terms pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction. This is not strictly necessary, but I understand that the Official Solicitor will consider whether to appeal the decision following receipt of the judgment.

 

 

 

  • Miss Street submits that if PB has capacity that the court cannot impose a residence regime. She submits that the authorities only sanction, in essence, an adjunctive, supportive regime to restrain and protect from others.

 

 

 

  • All accept that the inherent jurisdiction can be invoked where capacity is vitiated by constraint, coercion, undue influence and other disabling circumstances which prevent her from forming and expressing a real and genuine consent: see Munby J (as he then was) in Re SA [2006] EWHC 2942 (a forced marriage case). I accept that this can result from improper influence of another person (indeed this is what is asserted here). Vulnerability, I accept, is a description rather than a precise legal formulation.

 

 

 

  • The reported cases are all fact specific. But I do not read them restrictively, as I am urged. In Re G (an adult) (Mental Capacity: Court’s Jurisdiction) [2004] All ER (d) 33 (Oct) Bennett J determined the place of residence of a vulnerable adult who had regained capacity. He held that he could not ignore the consequences if the court withdrew its protection. If the declarations were in her best interests, the court was not depriving G of her right to make decisions but ensuring that her stable and improved mental health was maintained.

 

 

 

  • Macur J, as she then was, in LBL and (1) RYJ and (2) VJ stated that the court has the ability via the inherent jurisdiction “to facilitate the process of unencumbered decision making by those they have determined free of external pressure or physical restraint in making those decisions”. I do not see that formulation as restricting the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction to prevent placement in a care home, subject to deprivation of liberty issues. In Re L (Vulnerable Adults with Capacity: Court’s Jurisdiction) No 2 [2012] WLR 1439, the Court of Appeal confirmed the inherent jurisdiction as a safety net to protect vulnerable adults subject to coercion or undue influence. The inherent jurisdiction exists to protect, liberate and enhance personal autonomy, but any orders must be both necessary and proportionate. Miss Burnham submits that what is proposed is protective and necessary and proportionate and is not a coercive restricting regime. I am inclined to the view that a regime could be imposed on PB if that is the only way in which her interests can be safeguarded. To be maintained in optimum health, safe, warm, free from physical indignity and cared for is in itself an enhancement of autonomy. In Re L injunctive relief was granted against the parties’ adult son. That in itself was an interference with autonomy in one sense (freedom of association) and an enhancement of autonomy in another (protection against coercion).

 

 

 

  • I see no indication that the inherent jurisdiction is limited to injunctive relief. Each case depends on the degree of protection required and the risks involved. And the court must always consider Article 8 rights and best interests when making a substantive order.

 

 

 

  • Ms Street of course submits that any deprivation of liberty must be “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law” and “lawful pursuant to Article 5 of the Convention”. She cites Lord Hope in R (Purdy) v DPP [2010] 1 AC 345: (i) there must be a legal basis in domestic jurisdiction (ii) The rule must be sufficiently accessible to the individual affected by the restriction and (iii) it must be sufficiently precise for the person to understand its scope and foresee the consequences of his actions so that he can regulate his conduct without breaking the law.

 

 

 

  • If I made such an order here a regime would be imposed by a court of law through a legal process of which notice had been given and it would be perfectly possible for a person of sufficient capacity to understand its effect. That fulfils the “Purdy” criteria.

 

 

 

  • However Ms Street also submits that there would be no or insufficient connection between the deprivation of liberty and “unsoundness of mind” within the meaning of Article 5. That would be the only basis upon which I could impose restraint.

 

 

 

  • A person who is incapacitous does not necessarily suffer from unsoundness of mind (see again for instance the anorexia cases). I note that deprivation of liberty is specifically authorised under the 2005 Act in cases of incapacity without reference to unsoundness of mind. It has never so far as I am aware been suggested that the DoLs provisions are in breach of Article 5.

 

 

 

  • “Unsoundness of mind” is not the same as “incapacity”. PB has a diagnosed psychiatric condition which compromises her decision making. If it is not established that she lacks capacity this would be on the narrowest interpretation of MCA 2005 (“because of”) and would not impinge upon her diagnosis or her vulnerability, which results from her psychiatric condition.

 

 

 

  • Ms Street concedes that TB’s influence would be highly relevant under the inherent jurisdiction. PB cannot litigate on her own behalf. The Official Solicitor would be entitled to make an application on her behalf for injunctive relief against TB in her best interests. I would be entitled to make an injunction of my own motion under the inherent jurisdiction preventing him from coming into contact with her, if the Official Solicitor declined to do make an application. If such an order were made she would have nowhere to go. In fact she cannot presently return to his flat in any event because of the landlord’s injunction against her.

 

 

 

  • In my view the inherent jurisdiction does extend to orders for residence at a particular place. If that constitutes a deprivation of liberty then in my view the court could authorise it pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction.

 

 

 

  • Assuming that it would not constitute an unlawful deprivation of liberty in my view I would be entitled to make an order for placement against her will pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction. There are serious risks to PB if she is not properly cared for or if she is not protected against TB. Both Dr Khalifa and Dr Barker recognise that reality.

 

 

 

 

 

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,802 other followers