In the matter of E (Capacity) (Royal Court : Hearing (Civil) : Binnington : Capacity) [2026] JRC 002 (5 January 2026)

In the matter of E (Capacity) (Royal Court : Hearing (Civil) : Binnington : Capacity) [2026] JRC 002 (5 January 2026)

The court held that the delegate's decision to pay E pocket money, despite the risk of illegal drug use, was in E's best interests after a holistic assessment of risks and benefits, and did not expose the delegate to criminal or money laundering liability. The court approved the delegate's discretion to continue payments, guided by professional advice, and emphasized that this did not amount to approval of illegal conduct.

Citation
[2026] JRC 002
Parties
Applicant (delegate for E): Advocate Zoe Blomfield; Subject (person Lacking Capacity): E; Partie Publique: Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
05 January 2026
Procedural Posture
Application for Court Approval/blessing of Delegate's Decision / Final Judgment/order After Hearing
Outcome
application granted
Legal Topics
Best Interests Decision Making, Delegate's Statutory Duties, Court Blessing of Delegate Decisions, Risk of Criminal Conduct by Incapacitated Person, Harm Reduction, Money Laundering Liability, Care Arrangements for Vulnerable Adults
Mental Capacity Law Health and Welfare Law Criminal Law Property and Financial Affairs Best Interests Decision Making Delegate's Statutory Duties Court Blessing of Delegate Decisions Risk of Criminal Conduct by Incapacitated Person +3 more

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Advocate Zoe Blomfield

Applicant (delegate for E)

E

Subject (person Lacking Capacity)

Attorney General

Partie Publique

Procedural Posture

Application for Court Approval/blessing of Delegate's Decision / Final Judgment/order After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should bless the delegate's decision to pay pocket money to E despite risk of illegal drug use
  2. 2 Whether such payments expose the delegate to criminal or money laundering liability
  3. 3 How best interests are determined under the Capacity and Self-Determination (Jersey) Law 2016

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the delegate's decision to pay E pocket money, despite the risk of illegal drug use, was in E's best interests after a holistic assessment of risks and benefits, and did not expose the delegate to criminal or money laundering liability. The court approved the delegate's discretion to continue payments, guided by professional advice, and emphasized that this did not amount to approval of illegal conduct.

Court Disposition

application granted

Orders

  • The court approves the decision of the Delegate to advance funds to E in the form of pocket money, currently £50 per week, in circumstances where, in the exercise of the Delegate's discretion, she considers it in E's best interests to do so notwithstanding the risk that E may spend the funds advanced on illegal...