DY (Capacity), Re
[2024] EWCOP 4
Warrington Borough Council v Y & Ors
28 June 2023
[2023] EWCOP 27
Court of Protection
A young person had a serious accident and now has trouble making decisions about where to live and who cares for them. Two doctors disagreed about whether this was due to brain damage or other issues. The judge listened to both sides and decided the brain damage meant the young person couldn't make those decisions right now, but should get help so they can make decisions for themselves in the future.
Key Facts
- •Y, a natal male identifying as female in her early twenties, sustained moderate-severe brain and brachial plexus injuries in a 2018 motorbike accident.
- •Y has autistic spectrum disorder and was diagnosed with difficulties in learning.
- •Y's capacity to make decisions regarding care and residence is disputed between two expert witnesses, Dr. Todd (neuropsychologist) and Dr. Grace (neuropsychiatrist).
- •Dr. Todd concludes Y lacks capacity due to dysexecutive syndrome resulting from brain injury, impacting her ability to plan and organize.
- •Dr. Grace believes Y has capacity, attributing her impulsive behavior to pre-existing anxiety and ASD traits, not solely brain injury.
- •Both experts agree on the severity of Y's brain injury and ASD diagnosis but disagree on the cause of her behavioral difficulties and its impact on her capacity.
Legal Principles
Presumption of capacity under s1(2) Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA).
Mental Capacity Act 2005
Burden of proof lies with the person asserting lack of capacity (balance of probabilities).
Case law interpreting MCA 2005
Capacity assessment is decision-specific, applying the diagnostic and functional elements of ss2 and 3 MCA 2005.
Case law interpreting MCA 2005, including A Local Authority v H [2023] EWCOP 4
A person is not considered incapacitated merely for making unwise decisions.
Case law interpreting MCA 2005
Assessment requires evaluating (a) inability to make a decision and (b) whether that inability is caused by impairment/disturbance of the mind/brain (A Local Authority v JB [2021] UKSC 52).
A Local Authority v JB [2021] UKSC 52
The relevant information under s3(4) MCA includes reasonably foreseeable consequences, considered within the specific factual context.
Case law interpreting MCA 2005, including PC v City of York Council [2014] 2 WLR 1
Outcomes
Y lacks capacity to make decisions relating to her care and accommodation.
The court preferred Dr. Todd's opinion, finding his analysis of Y's dysexecutive syndrome and its impact on her decision-making abilities more persuasive, supported by evidence from Y's father.