AA Local Authority v RS (Capacity) [2020] EWCOP 29 (22 June 2020)

AA Local Authority v RS (Capacity) [2020] EWCOP 29 (22 June 2020)

The court found that the local authority failed to provide sufficient, current, and domain-specific evidence to rebut the presumption of capacity. The expert evidence, particularly from Dr Lawson, established that RS understands, retains, and can use or weigh relevant information in all domains, and his risky or unwise decisions are not caused by an impairment of mind or brain but are consistent with the autonomy and impulsivity of a young adult. Therefore, RS has capacity to decide where he resides, the care he receives, contact with others, and access to the Internet/social media.

Citation
[2020] EWCOP 29
Parties
Applicant: A Local Authority; Respondent: RS
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 June 2020
Procedural Posture
Court of Protection Welfare Application / Final Judgment on Capacity and Best Interests
Outcome
Application dismissed; declarations of incapacity refused.
Legal Topics
Capacity Assessment, Best Interests, Deprivation of Liberty, Autonomy of Vulnerable Adults
Mental Capacity Law Public Law Capacity Assessment Best Interests Deprivation of Liberty Autonomy of Vulnerable Adults

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A Local Authority

Applicant

RS

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Court of Protection Welfare Application / Final Judgment on Capacity and Best Interests

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether RS has capacity to decide where he resides, the care he receives, contact with others, and access to the Internet/social media; Whether any deprivation of liberty is lawful; Whether it is in RS's best interests to reside and receive care at his current placement

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the local authority failed to provide sufficient, current, and domain-specific evidence to rebut the presumption of capacity. The expert evidence, particularly from Dr Lawson, established that RS understands, retains, and can use or weigh relevant information in all domains, and his risky or unwise decisions are not caused by an impairment of mind or brain but are consistent with the autonomy and impulsivity of a young adult. Therefore, RS has capacity to decide where he resides, the care he receives, contact with others, and access to the Internet/social media.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; declarations of incapacity refused.

Orders

  • RS is declared to have capacity to decide where he resides, the care he receives, contact with others, and access to the Internet/social media.
  • No deprivation of liberty is authorised.