The Inherent Jurisdiction of the High Court to Protect Vulnerable Adults

Podcast Location:

Download it here [file size: 24.7 MB]

Categories:

Governance & Service Provision
Capacity & Court of Protection

CPD Points:

Up to 1 point. details »

Cost:

• a) £69+VAT for this CPDcast only
• b) £325+VAT for unlimited access to all of our podcasts. details »
• c) Discounts for multiple users - call +44 (0) 20 3377 3901 now to speak to our sales team

Length:

30 minutes of audio
(+ optional 5 minute online quiz)

Plays on Computer:

Yes Downloadable as MP3:    Yes

Contributor(s):

• Alex Ruck-Keene

Course Aims:

This podcast is aimed at those interested in the Inherent Jurisdiction of the High Court to protect vulnerable adults. It considers how, in the two years prior to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 coming into force, it had extended that jurisdiction so as to grant relief to protect adults who had the relevant capacity but who were disabled from making a free choice. It considers the significant doubts that were raised after the Mental Capacity Act 2005 came into force as to whether the inherent jurisdiction survived in respect of vulnerable adults and if so, to what extent? It considers how these questions have been answered or indeed, left unclear in recent judgments and the practical problems that these issues often present for public authorities.

Outcomes:

After completing the course you will:

• Understand whether, following the Mental Capacity Act 2005, inherent jurisdiction of the High Court has survived in respect of vulnerable adults;
• Know how the case of Re SA extended the scope of the inherent jurisdiction of the court;
• Be familiar with the issues relating to the scope of the inherent jurisdiction and the powers available to the High Court;
• Have considered some of the practical aspects to be borne in mind when dealing with the question of capacity;
• Know when an expert report will be necessary and what sort of questions should be posed to an expert asked to comment upon capacity;
• Know how orders should be framed;
• Have considered the Article 8 ECHR issues;
• Have considered how the principles of autonomy and protection can be reconciled when a vulnerable adult chooses to remain in a position where they are under duress?.

Level:

Specialist

Classification:

Case Update
Legal Principles
Legislative Updates

Sources and References:

• A Local Authority A v Mr A and Mrs A [2010] EWHC 1549 (Fam) (‘Re Mrs A’);
• A Local Authority v MA NA and SA 2005 EWHC 2942 (Fam);
• A v DL, RL and ML [2010] EWHC 2675 (Fam) (‘Re DL and RL’) Ealing LBC v KS, LU and others [2008] EWHC 636 (Fam) (‘Re KS’);
• LBL v RYJ and VJ [2010] EWHC 2665 (COP) (‘Re RYJ’);
• Mental Capacity Act 2005;
• Mental Capacity Act Code of Practice;
• Re A and Re C [2010] EWHC 978 (Fam);
• Re MB (Medical Treatment) [1997] 2 FLR 426 (CA);
• Re SA (Vulnerable Adult with capacity: Marriage) [2005] EWHC 2942 (Fam), [2006] 1 FLR 867;
• Re T [1993] Fam 95;
• Section 222 Local Government Act 1972;
• The City of Westminster v IC [2007] EWHC 3096 (Fam).

This podcast considers the Inherent Jurisdiction of the High Court to Protect Vulnerable Adults. Alex Ruck-Keene, a barrister from 39 Essex Street will talk us through the historical background, before dealing with the position following the enactment of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 Act and some of the pertinent authorities on the issue. He will then address some of the problems of principle and practice that most frequently arise in this difficult area.

Podcast added: 02/08/2011

Start this CPDcast Activity