Re P

When appointing deputies for a person who lacks capacity, the court must apply the best-interests principles and the statutory preference for court decisions and limited deputy powers. Those principles operate within the wider policy that willing and suitable family members should ordinarily take primary responsibility for the care and affairs of disabled relatives. In the absence of family dispute or evidence casting doubt on their willingness, capacity, skills or independence, applications by family members should be approached with openness and sympathy. An independent deputy is not required merely because the person has complex welfare needs, a public career or potentially substantial earnings. The court may impose focused conditions, including consultation requirements and notification to the Public Guardian when earnings reach a specified level.

DP was an adult who was blind, had a learning disability associated with autistic spectrum disorder, and lacked capacity to make decisions about accommodation, welfare, finances, litigation and public performances. His parents and sister applied to be appointed as deputies for welfare and financial matters.

The Royal National Institute for the Blind raised concerns about DP’s proposed accommodation and whether an independent deputy was needed, particularly because of his musical career, potential earnings and the risk that he might be encouraged to undertake performances beyond his capacities. The court considered the applicants’ suitability, skills and independence, together with the statutory framework governing deputy appointments.

The court appointed DP’s parents and sister as deputies for both welfare and financial matters.

1. Statutory and policy framework. The court applied the best-interests principles in section 4 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, together with section 16(4), which requires preference for a court decision over appointment of a deputy and requires deputy powers to be limited in scope and duration so far as reasonably practicable. Those provisions must be read in the context of the Act’s fundamental provision for deputies and the wider policy that family members should ordinarily assume responsibility where they are willing and able to do so.
2. Suitability of family deputies. Where family members offer themselves as deputies, and there is no family dispute or other evidence raising a question about their willingness or capacity, the court should approach the application with considerable openness and sympathy. The applicants had the requisite financial, managerial and welfare-related skills. The evidence also established that they understood DP’s needs, could obtain expert assistance, and could resist pressure to expand his career in a manner harmful to his welfare.
3. Independent deputy. An independent deputy was unnecessary. The concerns about financial management, commercial interests and the possibility of DP being over-stretched were sufficiently addressed by the applicants’ demonstrated competence and independence. The court accepted that occasional mistakes in understanding DP’s wishes could occur, but regarded that as an ordinary feature of managing another person’s life rather than a reason to displace the family.
4. Conditions and powers. Under section 16(5), the deputies were required to consult fully with the RNIB and West Berkshire County Council about any proposed change of accommodation. Under section 19(9), they were required to notify the Public Guardian if DP’s earnings exceeded £150,000 a year. Under section 19(4), they were authorised to act jointly and severally. If they had serious disagreement on a material issue, they were expected to refer it to the Public Guardian or the court.

First-instance decision. No earlier judgment or appeal is stated in the judgment.