Tom Rainsbury on Capacity – A simple, straightforward test

Articles

02/05/2016

The case of LB of Southwark v KA (Capacity to Marry) [2016] EWCOP 20 concerned a 29 year old man, KA, who had learning disabilities.

In 2014, concerns were raised that he was talking to himself, hoarding rubbish, and had a limited daily structure, unusual hand posturing, poor eating habits and personal hygiene. Assessments recorded that his family were trying to find a wife for him. At the time, it appeared that he had limited if any understanding of sexual activity or the meaning of marriage. His parents withdrew from and declined input from social services. Declarations were therefore sought that KA lacked capacity as to sexual relations, marriage, personal care and welfare.

The Court of Protection declared that KA had capacity.

With regards to sexual relations and marriage, he was on the ‘borderline’ of understanding in respect of some of the more refined evaluations. However, he had overall capacity on these matters. He had the necessary degree of understanding about the ‘mechanics of the act’. Although he did not understand the mechanics and duration of pregnancy, he saw it as a foreseeable consequence of sexual intercourse. He understood and retained the knowledge that illness was a possible consequence of sexual activity.

Comment

The decision emphasises two important aspects of the capacity assessment under s. 2 MCA 2005:

  1. Capacity is not concerned with happiness. Parker J concluded: ‘I do not know whether a marriage will truly bring happiness to KA. His disabilities will provide challenges for any wife, and they will be different for a wife who has capacity from one who lacks it. A marriage might lead to distress, conflict and misery for KA and his family, as opposed to enhancement of his life and of his personal autonomy. But it is not for me to weigh up the relative chances of finding a wife who is prepared to love and cherish KA with all his needs against that of finding one who is unequal to the task’.
  2. Capacity is a simple, straightforward test. The judge declined the invitation to ‘reconcile’ a number of authorities and formulate a more complete test, preferring to make her decision on the basis of the statute. Parker J explained: ‘One more decision may simply add more uncertainty, potential disagreement and burden on the judiciary in determining what is meant to be a simple, straightforward test. I have already had to wrestle with complex, subtle, intellectual and detailed arguments in this case, and no doubt there will be more to come in subsequent ones. My primary duty is to decide this case’.

Article by Tom Rainsbury.

Latest News & Events

The Dekagram: 20th May 2024

We trust that our readers have been enjoying the Spring sunshine; the team have spent their time in the sun wisely, reading cases so you don’t have to. First we noted a decision which considers the interplay between English and Scottish guardianship; secondly we read…

The Dekagram: 13th May 2024

Last week brought the news that the Australian airline Qantas and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission have agreed to resolve their dispute over cancelled flights by asking the court to impose a $100 million fine, together with an undertaking by the airline to pay…

Max Melsa appears in Court of Appeal in Re D (Children: Interim Care Order: Hair Strand Testing) [2024] EWCA Civ 498

Max Melsa represented the children, through their Children’s Guardian, in the first case to reach the Court of Appeal specifically dealing with the interpretation of Hair-Strand Tests in care proceedings. The appeal was made by the mother against the interim separation of three children from…

Subscribe to our mailing list

Deka Chambers: 5 Norwich Street, London EC4A 1DR

© Deka Chambers 2024

Search

Portfolio Builder

Select the expertise that you would like to download or add to the portfolio

Download    Add to portfolio   
Portfolio
Title Type CV Email

Remove All

Download


Click here to share this shortlist.
(It will expire after 30 days.)