Reflecting on the June 2024 Mental Capacity Report
Reflecting on the June 2024 Mental Capacity Report
The 39 Essex Chambers monthly Mental Capacity Reports are essential reading for anyone working in social care and interested in the vital concept of mental capacity. In this blog I focus on just one of the featured cases, but I encourage you to explore the whole Report - there is a link to the website below.
The case I find particularly interesting in the June Report is this one:
"Deprivation of Liberty – Are We Listening Closely Enough to the Person?”
The case of Re HC [2024] EWCOP 24, presided over by Victoria Butler-Cole KC, deals with the complexities surrounding the deprivation of liberty for a 27-year-old woman, HC, who has a history of anorexia and multiple hospital admissions. After being discharged from a hospital placement under a plan she had agreed to, HC's current placement terminated her stay, prompting an urgent application from the local authority and Integrated Care Board (ICB) for a determination on her best interests, including the use of physical restraint for a forced move.
Key points from the case include:
1. Lateness of Application: Ms. Butler-Cole KC criticized the delay in the application, noting it should have been made earlier when HC was assessed as lacking capacity to decide her living and care arrangements.
2. Capacity Concerns: While there was reason to believe HC lacked capacity under s.48(a) MCA 2005, the evidence presented had defects, making it possible HC might be found to have capacity under s.15 MCA 2005 in the future.
3. Best Interests Decision: The court considered two options:
- A forced move to a new placement.
- Temporary return to HC’s father's home if she was unwilling to move to the new placement.
4. Concerns with a Forced Move: Ms. Butler-Cole KC was troubled by both options. She emphasized the potential trauma and anxiety associated with using physical restraint and the unlikely success of HC settling in a new placement if she felt forced.
5. Deprivation of Liberty: The court decided to authorize HC's deprivation of liberty at the new placement (D House) only if she agreed to move there. The authorization would end if HC changed her mind about staying at D House, necessitating a return to court for further directions.
6. Court Orders: Additional evidence was required from statutory bodies, and the court outlined conditional consent for HC's move, emphasizing the need for professional access to HC without her father being present.
This case highlights the delicate balance between ensuring the best interests of a vulnerable individual and respecting their autonomy and mental health needs, particularly in situations involving potential deprivation of liberty.
To access the whole Report, please click on the link below:
https://www.39essex.com/information-hub/insight/mental-capacity-report-june-2024