Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T03:33:01.338Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The great safety net: the inherent jurisdiction and vulnerable adults

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 September 2022

Nick Brindle Open the ORCID record for Nick Brindle [Opens in a new window] ,
Zumer Arif Jawaid Open the ORCID record for Zumer Arif Jawaid [Opens in a new window]  and
Michael Kennedy
Nick Brindle*
Affiliation:
Retired consultant in old age psychiatry, formerly of the Mount Hospital, Leeds, UK. He is lead clinician for the mental health law courses delivered by the Andrew Sims Centre, Leeds, UK.
Zumer Arif Jawaid
Affiliation:
Consultant in old age psychiatry based at Poplars House, St Mary's Hospital, Leeds, UK. She is a member of the Andrew Sims mental health law team.
Michael Kennedy
Affiliation:
Barrister and Director of the Mental Health and Court of Protection Department with Switalskis Solicitors, Leeds, UK. He represents clients in the Court of Protection, in the High Court concerning the inherent jurisdiction as well as patients detained under Part II and Part III of the Mental Health Act in the First Tier Tribunal.
*
Correspondence Nick Brindle. Email: nick.brindle@icloud.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Clinicians should be aware of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court in providing a ‘safety net’ to protect ‘vulnerable’ adults who are not within the scope of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) or the Mental Health Act (MHA) 1983. Many situations in which the inherent jurisdiction has been deployed have been to safeguard vulnerable adults where there is abuse, coercion or undue influence, but the person does not lack decision-making capacity under the MCA. We explain the nature of the inherent jurisdiction, including descriptions of concepts surrounding ‘vulnerability’; as an intervention of last resort, we consider what statutory alternatives may exist, including safeguarding law under the Care Act 2014; we discuss decision-making capacity in relation to contact with others and, using real cases, the types of order that may be made under the court's inherent jurisdiction. It is important to be mindful that although there may be a legal remedy to safeguard this ‘vulnerable but capacitous’ group, there is a delicate and challenging balance between protecting those at risk and respecting their autonomy.

Keywords

Inherent jurisdictionvulnerable adultsconsent and capacitypsychiatry and lawhuman rights
Type
Article
Information
BJPsych Advances , Volume 29 , Issue 6 , November 2023 , pp. 417 - 425
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Royal College of Psychiatrists

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References

Brindle, N (2015) The Supreme Court and deprivation of liberty: where are we now? BJPsych Advances, 21: 417–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruck, Keene A, Butler-Cole, V, Scott, K, et al (eds) (2020) Guidance Note: Using the Inherent Jurisdiction in Relation to Adults. 39 Essex Street Chambers. (https://www.39essex.com/mental-capacity-guidance-note-inherent-jurisdiction).Google Scholar
A Local Authority v BF [2018] EWCA Civ 2962.Google Scholar
A Local Authority v MA & Ors [2005] EWHC 2942.Google Scholar
A Local Authority v TZ (No. 2) [2014] EWCOP 973.Google Scholar
Al-Jeffery v Al-Jeffery [2016] EWHC 2151.Google Scholar
An NHS Trust v Dr A [2013] EWHC 2442 (Fam).Google Scholar
DL v A Local Authority [2011] EWHC 1022 (Fam).Google Scholar
Hertfordshire CC v AB [2018] EWHC 3103.Google Scholar
LBX v K, L and M [2013] EWHC 3230 (Fam).Google Scholar
London Borough of Redbridge Council v SNA [2015] EWHC 2140 (Fam).Google Scholar
P v Cheshire West and Chester Council and Anor and P and Q v Surrey County Council [2014] UKSC 19.Google Scholar
PC and NC v City of York Council [2013] EWCA Civ 478.Google Scholar
Re F (Mental patient: Sterilisation) [1989] 2 WLR 1025.Google Scholar
Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council v PR [2019] EWHC 2305.Google Scholar
Southend-on-Sea Borough Council v Meyers [2019] EWHC 399 (FAM).Google Scholar
Wakefield MDC and Wakefield CCG v DN and MN [2019] EWHC 2306 (Fam).Google Scholar
A Local Authority v BF [2018] EWCA Civ 2962.Google Scholar
A Local Authority v MA & Ors [2005] EWHC 2942.Google Scholar
A Local Authority v TZ (No. 2) [2014] EWCOP 973.Google Scholar
Al-Jeffery v Al-Jeffery [2016] EWHC 2151.Google Scholar
An NHS Trust v Dr A [2013] EWHC 2442 (Fam).Google Scholar
DL v A Local Authority [2011] EWHC 1022 (Fam).Google Scholar
Hertfordshire CC v AB [2018] EWHC 3103.Google Scholar
LBX v K, L and M [2013] EWHC 3230 (Fam).Google Scholar
London Borough of Redbridge Council v SNA [2015] EWHC 2140 (Fam).Google Scholar
P v Cheshire West and Chester Council and Anor and P and Q v Surrey County Council [2014] UKSC 19.Google Scholar
PC and NC v City of York Council [2013] EWCA Civ 478.Google Scholar
Re F (Mental patient: Sterilisation) [1989] 2 WLR 1025.Google Scholar
Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council v PR [2019] EWHC 2305.Google Scholar
Southend-on-Sea Borough Council v Meyers [2019] EWHC 399 (FAM).Google Scholar
Wakefield MDC and Wakefield CCG v DN and MN [2019] EWHC 2306 (Fam).Google Scholar
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.