The Court of Protection: expert witness and professional reports

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
Martin Curtice
Keyword(s):  
Expert Witness ◽  
Mental Capacity ◽  
Expert Witnesses ◽  
England And Wales ◽  
Proper Role ◽  
Mental Capacity Act 2005 ◽  
Legal Jurisdiction ◽  
Mental Capacity Act

SUMMARY The Court of Protection has the legal jurisdiction to make decisions about people who lack capacity to make decisions themselves (in England and Wales). When hearing cases, evidence can be provided to the court by expert witnesses and professionals. The Court of Protection Rules 2017 inform the practice and procedure within the Court of Protection. This article reviews the judgment from a Court of Protection case that analyses the proper role of the expert witness in the court. In doing so the article provides guidance to authors of expert witness reports and reports under section 49 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 submitted as evidence to the court.

The Irresponsible Expert Witness: A Failure of Biomedical Graduate Education and Professional Accountability

PEDIATRICS ◽  
1982 ◽  
Vol 70 (5) ◽  
pp. 754-762 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert L. Brent
Keyword(s):  
Expert Witness ◽  
Expert Witnesses ◽  
Contributing Factors ◽  
Witness Testimony ◽  
Expert Witness Testimony ◽  
Professional Accountability ◽  
Proper Role ◽  
And Function

Many forces have created the epidemic of negligence and malpractice litigation. One of the contributing factors to the rising rate of nonmeritorious litigation is the increasing number of unqualified and irresponsible expert witnesses. The high remuneration has attracted physican-scientists who are unaware of the proper role of an expert witness. They are frequently manipulated by the attorneys and function as partisans rather than scholars. The role of the expert witness should be taught in medical and graduate school. Testimony should be treated as a scholarly endeavor and experts should be encouraged to seek peer review of their opinions and not to testify secretly and in isolation. It is suggested that greater visibility of experts and their testimony (light of day phenomenon) should raise the quality of expert witness testimony and encourage more qualified experts to participate as expert witnesses, thus removing the stigmata usually associated with unqualified expert witnesses.

Consent conundrums: patient consent in neuroscience nursing

2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 48-52
Author(s):  
John Finch
Keyword(s):  
Mental Capacity ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Legal Problem ◽  
Neuroscience Nursing ◽  
Patient Consent ◽  
Mental Capacity Act 2005 ◽  
The Law ◽  
Mental Capacity Act ◽  
Pain Distress

In BJNN 15(4) and BJNN 15(5), John Finch looked in detail at the role of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and its accompanying Code in the practice of neuroscience nurses. He concluded, as have others, that the guidance offered by the Act and the Code falls short of what neuroscience nurses need in their practice. In this article, he turns his attention to the treatment of patients who can and do consent to proposed treatment. The law relating to such patients in this matter offers neither an act nor a code. The law is to be found in court decisions. It might, at first sight, appear that a practice situation in which a patient with undoubted mental capacity or, at least, sufficient mental capacity to understand and accept what is proposed, presents no legal problem. But a closer examination of mental processes encountered in patients who may be in pain, distress and pressing need reveals that communication between the treater and the treated may be subtle and complex, and that the meeting of minds required in law to ensure that a patient has genuinely agreed to a detailed proposal is anything but simple.

Best interests provisions in the UK Mental Capacity Act 2005

2012 ◽  
Vol 36 (12) ◽  
pp. 459-462
Author(s):  
Olufunso B. Aribisala
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Mental Capacity ◽  
Best Interests ◽  
England And Wales ◽  
Reasonable Belief ◽  
Mental Capacity Act 2005 ◽  
Mental Capacity Act ◽  
The Uk

SummaryThe Mental Capacity Act 2005 is a critical statute law for psychiatrists in England and Wales. Its best interests provision is fundamental to substitute decision-making for incapacitated adults. It prescribes a process of and gives structure to substitute decision-making. The participation of the incapacitated adult must be encouraged where practicable. In addition to this, ‘the best interests checklist’ must be applied in every case before a practitioner can arrive at a reasonable belief that the action or decision taken on behalf of an incapacitated adult is in his best interests. Most commentators have shown goodwill towards the workings of the Act and want it to succeed.

Is mental capacity in the eye of the beholder?

2017 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 30-39 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alex Ruck Keene
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Design Methodology ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Mental Capacity ◽  
Persons With Disabilities ◽  
England And Wales ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Mental Capacity Act 2005 ◽  
Mental Capacity Act

Purpose The purpose of this paper – written by a practising barrister specialising in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 – is to survey law and practice in England and Wales with a view to sketch out a preliminary answer as to whether it can be said there is, in fact, any legally defensible concept of mental capacity. Design/methodology/approach Review of case-law in England and Wales and relevant domestic and international law, in particular the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (“CRPD”). Findings It is right, and inescapable, to say that mental capacity is in the eye of the beholder, and will remain so even if we seek to recast our legislative provisions. Rather – and perhaps ironically – the conclusion set out above means that we need to look less at the person being assessed, and more at the person doing the assessing. We also need to further look at the process of assessment so as to ensure that those who are required to carry it out are self-aware and acutely alive to the values and pre-conceptions that they may be bringing to the situation. Research limitations/implications It seems to me that it is right, and inescapable, to say that mental capacity is in the eye of the beholder, and will remain so even if we seek to recast our legislative provisions. Absent major developments in neuroscience, it will inescapably remain a concept which requires judgments based on interactions between the assessor and the assessed. But that is not thereby to say that it is an irremediably relative and flawed concept upon which we cannot place any weight. Rather the conclusion set out above means that we need to look less at the person being assessed, and more at the person doing the assessing. We also need further to look at the process of assessment so as to ensure that those who are required to carry it out are self-aware and acutely alive to the values and pre-conceptions that they may be bringing to the situation. Originality/value This paper serves as a reflection on the best part of a decade spent grappling with the MCA 2005 in and out of the court room, a decade increasingly informed by and challenged by the requirements of the CRPD.

scholarly journals The Mental Capacity Act 2005 and its potential impact on the use of restraint

2008 ◽  
Vol 32 (4) ◽  
pp. 124-126 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arthur O. Owino
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Mental Capacity ◽  
Best Interest ◽  
England And Wales ◽  
Time Section ◽  
Mental Capacity Act 2005 ◽  
The Common ◽  
Potential Impact ◽  
Care And Treatment ◽  
Mental Capacity Act

The staged implementation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (further referred to as the Act) began in April 2007 and was completed in October 2007. The Act provides a comprehensive statutory framework for making decisions for people in England and Wales, aged 16 years and over, who lack capacity to make a particular decision at a particular time. Section 5 of the Act codifies the common law doctrine of necessity and provides a defence to anyone who performs an act in connection with the care and treatment of another person – in that person's best interest – reasonably believed to lack capacity in that matter.

scholarly journals The concept of objection under the DOLS regime

2014 ◽  
pp. 61
Author(s):  
Matthew McKillop ◽  
John Dawson ◽  
George Szmukler
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Mental Health Treatment ◽  
Mental Capacity ◽  
Mental Health Patient ◽  
Health Treatment ◽  
England And Wales ◽  
Mentally Disordered ◽  
Mental Capacity Act 2005 ◽  
Mental Capacity Act ◽  
Hospitalised Patient

<p>In England and Wales, there are now two regimes under which an adult can be deprived of liberty when receiving mental health treatment: the regime established by the Mental Health Act 1983 (MHA), and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DOLS) authorisation regime established by the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Where both regimes might apply to a mentally disordered person in hospital for mental health treatment, a major dividing line between them is the ability of the patient to “object” to being a mental health patient or to being given mental health treatment. If such an objection occurs, a hospitalised patient is ineligible for the DOLS regime and only the MHA regime may be used to authorise the deprivation of their liberty.</p>

scholarly journals Changes to the Mental Health and Mental Capacity Acts: implications for patients and professionals

2009 ◽  
Vol 33 (6) ◽  
pp. 226-230 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ian Hall ◽  
Afia Ali
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Work Load ◽  
Mental Capacity ◽  
Community Treatment ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
Mental Capacity Act 2005 ◽  
User Groups ◽  
Treatment Changes ◽  
Mental Capacity Act

SummaryThe new Mental Health Act 2007 for England and Wales has introduced substantial amendments to the 1983 Mental Health Act and has also amended the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Most provisions came into effect in November 2008. the introduction of supervised community treatment, changes to professional roles such as the role of ‘responsible clinician’, and the introduction of deprivation of liberty safeguards in the Mental Capacity Act are discussed. Many of the new safeguards in the Act are welcomed by clinicians and service user groups. However, other changes are more controversial and could potentially lead to an increase in the work load of clinicians.

scholarly journals Understanding community care law in England and Wales

2009 ◽  
Vol 15 (6) ◽  
pp. 428-433 ◽  
Author(s):  
Danny Allen
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Community Care ◽  
Mental Health Problems ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Mental Capacity ◽  
Care Provision ◽  
Care Programme ◽  
England And Wales ◽  
Mental Capacity Act 2005 ◽  
Mental Capacity Act

SummaryAlthough psychiatrists in England and Wales are generally familiar with the Mental Health Act 1983 and the Mental Capacity Act 2005, there is a body of law that is available to assist patients in the community with which they are generally less familiar. There are two main reasons for this. The first is that it is a rather confused amalgam of different statutes and case law affecting each other in ways that are less than clear. The other is that the care programme approach (CPA) was meant to cut through all this and make care provision straightforward. In fact, the latter has never been the case and community care law has always sat uneasily alongside the CPA, but in October 2008 the CPA was withdrawn from some patients with mental health problems. This article explains what is meant by community care law and how psychiatrists can use it to help their patients.

The law in England and Wales on mental health treatment in the community

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jo Beswick ◽  
Michael Gunn
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Mental Health Treatment ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Mental Capacity ◽  
Community Treatment ◽  
England And Wales ◽  
Mentally Disordered ◽  
Mental Capacity Act 2005 ◽  
Mentally Disordered Offender ◽  
Mental Capacity Act

This chapter examines the legal framework for the treatment of the mentally disordered offender in the community in England and Wales. It examines both some of the ideological questions underlying the care of this group and the legal mechanisms within which treatment can be provided. The chapter begins by examining the principle, endorsed by the Mental Capacity Act 2005, that voluntary treatment will usually be the norm, regardless of setting. It then considers exceptions to these norm situations where legally mandated treatment in the community is permitted. In England and Wales, most of these exceptions are to be found in three pieces of legislation: the Mental Health Act 1983, as amended in 2007 to include community treatment orders; the Mental Capacity Act 2005, with its associated Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DOLS); and the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document