Courts

Man with brain injury from assault discharged from High Court wardship after 15 years

Judge appoints representative to make decisions on man’s behalf, including to protect his assets

Mr Justice Heslin said it was a 'very tragic' situation because the man suffered an acquired brain injury following an assault in the late 1990s. Photograph: Nigel Stripe

Mary Carolan
Tue Mar 26 2024 - 06:00

A man left with an acquired brain injury following an assault more than 20 years ago has been discharged from High Court wardship.

Having concluded that the man lacks capacity to make decisions about his finances, welfare, care and treatment, Mr Justice Mark Heslin appointed a decision-making representative (DMR) to make decisions on his behalf, including to protect his assets.

He was ruling on an application by the general solicitor for wards of court, appointed to represent the man’s interest in wardship following the death of a relative, for orders and declarations under the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act, which became fully operational last year.

Aged in his 50s and admitted to wardship 15 years ago, the man has adult children and lives apart from his wife.

READ MORE

In his recent judgment, Mr Justice Heslin said it was a “very tragic” situation because the man suffered an acquired brain injury following an assault in the late 1990s. He resides at a certain address where he receives supports, including from mental health and community brain injury services. He has significant physical health issues.

Under the Act, the options available to the court were to declare the man does not lack capacity; lacks capacity unless a co-decision maker is appointed; or lacks capacity even with assistance of a co-decision maker with the effect the court should appoint a DMR.

Based on the evidence, the judge found the man lacks capacity, even with assistance of a co-decision maker, to make decisions concerning his health, including care and treatment, welfare, property and financial affairs, and a DMR should be appointed.

Having heard the man receives great support from a member of the HSE’s community brain injury team and from his wife, the judge paid tribute to both. The man’s wife, he noted, did not wish to be involved in making any financial decisions on his behalf.

The man had not challenged medical evidence from a consultant psychiatrist, including that he appeared unable to weigh financial information such as about the need to plan and budget and the risk of exploitation by those occasionally residing in his house.

He wanted another person to have decision-making power over his medication management due to his previous overdose and ongoing impulsive tendencies, the psychiatrist’s report stated. She considered his ability to weigh information relating to his personal welfare needs was also significantly impaired.

The medical evidence was “entirely uncontested” and the court can safely, and indeed must, rely on it, the judge said.

The man had suggested that either his wife or the HSE community brain injury worker could be his DMR but neither were in a position to fulfil that role, the judge noted.

In those circumstances, the man was satisfied a DMR would be nominated by the President of the High Court from a panel established, in line with the Act, by the Decision Support Service (DSS).

Making an order appointing that nominee, an independent social worker, the judge said she is an “entirely appropriate person” to fulfil that role. The Act provides the DMR will account to the DSS in relation to the man’s affairs.

Mary Carolan

Mary Carolan

Mary Carolan is the Legal Affairs Correspondent of the Irish Times

LATEST STORIES