A (hopefully short) discussion about the inherent jurisdiction, particularly as it applies to adults.
I wrote about the Court of Protection popping on the High Court hat to make use of the inherent jurisdiction to get around an otherwise impossible jam, in A NHS Trust v Dr A 2013 http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/COP/2013/2442.html and it got me pondering.
As a quick summary, the inherent jurisdiction is a creation of the common law, i.e it was decided in cases before the Court rather than laws enacted by Parliament or regulations or codes drawn up by Ministers. It essentially provides for the High Court to use unspecified but wide-ranging powers to solve a problem that could not otherwise be achieved by use of statutory powers. In the case of Dr A, because Dr A was detained under the Mental Health Act AND lacked capacity, and the treatment that was considered desirable for him was not in relation to his mental illness but his physical wellbeing; the construction of the Mental Capacity Act prohibited the treatment being authorised by the Mental Capacity Act, and it was treatment that couldn’t be legitimately compelled without consent under the Mental Health Act.
The Court’s solution was to make use of the inherent jurisdiction – as we know from that case, had they not done so, the man would probably have died, and we also know that the man went on to make a good recovery and was happy not to have died. So it was the right thing to do. But it was, nonetheless, the High Court using broad and unspecified powers to achieve an outcome that was specifically prevented by legislation enacted by an elected Government. Yes, that legislation was probably a mess and it hadn’t been properly thought through, but nonetheless, the High Court did something that the statute had specifically prevented.
So, my question is – Is the Inherent Jurisdiction a useful and helpful tool to have to allow Judges dealing with difficult cases the necessary flexibility to arrive at what they consider to be the right outcome, or is it a method by which Judges can grant themselves powers that have never been specifically handed to them? Are we accepting that in exposure to real life, statutory laws will always have stress points and flaws and sometimes break completely and it is helpful to have the judicial Polyfilla of the Inherent Jurisdiction to come to the rescue? Or do we consider that if the UK Parliament wanted to make it lawful for Judges to make orders to sterilise patients, to effectively continue Wardship on someone who was an adult, to determine whether a person could marry, to authorise surgery on conjoined twins against the wishes of parents who were competent, to regulate the relationship between vulnerable adults and their adult son, to decide whether a parent’s views about cancer treatment should be overriden for their child, or to authorise force-feeding, that this should be done through statutory laws? (Those are all genuine cases involving the use of the inherent jurisdiction to make such orders, and some went on to lead to the introduction of statutory mechanisms to resolve these problems)
Of course, if the inherent jurisdiction hadn’t been there, then the Court could have ended up being unable to make the decisions and orders that were deemed to be in the person’s best interests – it would have been no good to any of those individuals that the Government in four or five years time would bring about some legislation on forced marriages, or persons lacking capacity. Don’t we WANT Judges to be able to make the right decisions – they are seized of the facts, they hear the arguments – we wouldn’t want them to have to make a decision that they felt was not right for the individuals concerned merely because the law hadn’t anticipated this set of circumstances and made provision for it?
On the other side, however, it worries me to an extent, firstly because we are now getting into territories where there IS existing legislation to make provision for these things. Both the Mental Capacity Act and the Mental Health Act have very long and detailed provisions for the circumstances in which treatment can be undertaken without consent. Dr A happened to fit within both pieces of legislation – he was detained under the Mental Health Act, and was determined to lack capacity to make decisions about the feeding treatment under the MCA. Whilst I consider that the final decision that was taken was right, and in Dr A’s best interests, I can’t get away from a nagging feeling that all of those statutory provisions and requirements were sidestepped by a Judge simply deciding that “X should be done, and I will do it under the inherent jurisdiction”
We surely needed the Mental Health Act and Mental Capacity Act so that it was clear (or comparitively clear) under what circumstances the State could interfere with a person’s life and autonomy, what would be required before the State could do so, what the checks and balances would be, what rights the person would have. All of that seems to me to get a little lost when a High Court Judge can simply decide that they have the power to achieve the outcome they desire?
In children cases, the use of the inherent jurisdiction is moulded into the statute – it says what it cannot be used for, and gives parameters in which the State can invite the Court to use those powers. In adult cases, it is not incorporated or limited.
Sentences like this, from McFarlane LJ (who I believe to be a fair and just Judge) still make me shudder a little “It would have been open to Parliament to include a similar provision, either permitting or restricting the use of the inherent jurisdiction in cases relating to the capacity to make decisions which are not within the MCA 2005. In the absence of any express provision, the clear implication is that if there are matters outside the statutory scheme to which the inherent jurisdiction applies then that jurisdiction continues to be available to continue to act as the ‘great safety net’ described by Lord Donaldson.” DL V a Local Authority 2012 http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/253.html
I don’t like the notion that Judges are able to consider that they have carte blanche with these powers unless Parliament expressly take them away. Because another way of looking at it would be – that when you are deciding on compelling medical treatment for a person who doesn’t consent to it, you are looking at whether it can be authorised under either Mental Health Act, Mental Capacity Act or the doctrine of necessity, and that if it can’t, then it simply can’t be authorised.
Once you consider that in every case where the Court uses its Inherent Jurisdiction they are in effect making a decision that the State knows best and can impose a paternalistic decision upon people overriding their autonomy, it becomes something that is potentially concerning. I say that not because I think any of the Judges who have used it have ever done so for reasons other than genuine belief that it was in the best interests of the individual; but because I firmly believe that people should have autonomy other than in circumstances specifically set out in statute law. I would rather preserve Judges as the referee , as the person sifting the evidence, hearing the argument, being arbiters and determiners of whether the State has made out its case for taking decisions away from the individual under statutory powers; and not stepping onto the pitch and taking part in the match itself.
Do I think that this principle is more important than a Court being able to solve an intransigent problem in an individual case? That’s harder to say – faced with a life or death situation like Dr A and the statutory law as written meaning that the Court would be powerless to order the treatment which it had already decided was in Dr A’s best interests, it is hard to feel that they should be denied the chance to make the right decision. I perhaps feel that using the inherent jurisdiction to Polyfilla the cracks is ultimately less good for the individual than Judges being able to go back to Parliament and say “Look, you hadn’t envisaged this scenario – I have fixed it just this once, but what do you want Courts to do if it comes up again?@