Hywel Dda University Health Board v P & Anor
[2024] EWCOP 70 (T3)
A Local Authority v LD & Anor.
25 May 2023
[2023] EWHC 1258 (Fam)
High Court
A man with disabilities is being kept isolated at home by his mother and isn't getting the medical care he needs. A judge decided there's enough reason to believe he can't make decisions for himself, and therefore, the court can help, though they still need to decide if it's the best thing to do right away and if he needs to be moved.
Key Facts
- •LD, a man in his forties with Downs Syndrome, severe learning disability, autism traits, and a heart condition, lives with his elderly mother, RD.
- •LD has not been seen by anyone outside the home in three years and requires 24-hour care.
- •RD isolates LD and prevents access to healthcare professionals and social workers.
- •LD requires various health assessments (cardiology, GP, speech therapy, etc.) which are not being met.
- •A safeguarding referral was made due to concerns about LD's emotional and physical well-being.
- •The local authority applied for an order to remove LD to a place of safety for assessment.
Legal Principles
Meaning and scope of section 48 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA 2005).
Mental Capacity Act 2005
The inherent jurisdiction of the High Court to protect vulnerable adults.
Inherent jurisdiction of the High Court
Standard of proof for 'reason to believe' under s.48 MCA 2005: a likelihood of at least 25%, similar to a 'real prospect of success' for an interim injunction.
Case law interpretations of 'reason to believe'
The inherent jurisdiction does not extend to depriving a capacitous adult of liberty.
Sir James Munby's speech to the Court of Protection Bar Association, December 2020
Outcomes
The court found sufficient evidence to meet the s.48(a) condition (reason to believe LD lacks capacity).
The social worker's statement, based on previous observations and records, established a 'real prospect' that a capacity assessment would find LD incapacitated.
The court found the s.48(b) condition satisfied (the matter is within the Court of Protection's power).
The Court of Protection has jurisdiction to make coercive orders to facilitate assessments.
The question of whether the s.48(c) condition (best interests and urgency) is satisfied was left for a separate judgment.
This condition requires further consideration.
The court determined that the inherent jurisdiction could not be used to deprive a capacitous adult of their liberty.
This aligns with Sir James Munby's view, unless there is ambiguity regarding capacity.