Court Asked To Determine Man’s True Age

The Court of Protection can be called upon to make a wide range of decisions relating to the welfare of an individual who lacks the capacity to do so themselves. Quite often, cases involving health and welfare issues relate to care, medical treatment or where the protected party should live. However, the Court’s decision-making powers can be much broader than this depending on the circumstances in question. They can include making decisions on potential life or death situations.

Recent case law

In a very notable example recently, the Court of Protection had been approached when a man with Palestinian origin (but indefinite leave to remain in the UK) was on hunger strike at a hospital in Bristol. The Protected Party has a sad history, having been tortured and mistreated in his country of birth and his experiences triggered various mental health difficulties. He claimed to be 14 years old when he came to the UK seeking asylum but the Home Office recorded that he was in fact 19.

Last summer, after he had a severe breakdown, he was on hunger strike and the NHS Trust issued Court of Protection proceedings to try and have him provided with nutrition and hydration against his will. The Court determined that the Protected Party had the capacity to understand the risks but insisted that those treating him should use every possible technique to encourage him to eat and drink. This demonstrates that neither the NHS nor the Court of Protection can force feed anybody who has the capacity to be able to refuse food and drink. Assessing an individual’s capacity in such circumstances is often  However, the case went further than this and ended up in the Court of Appeal due to an issue with the man’s true age.

The Protected Party initially had a breakdown after he was turned down as a volunteer worker, due to there being a difference between the age stated on his identity documents and the age he insisted he was. This caused a serious recurrence of his’s mental health problems which led to him refusing food and drink. With the support of Mind, a leading mental health charity, the Protected Party brought action against the Home Office to challenge his “official” age. He argued that his “true” age was a key aspect of his sense of self and sought a Court order to have his official documentation amended. However, the Court refused him on the basis that he was not able to provide sufficient evidence of his alleged true age.

Comment

The Protected Party’s circumstances are certainly desperate and his difficult history no doubt made it very challenging for him to prove that he was younger than the Home Office believed. However, a positive to draw from this very complex case is the fact that the Protected Party did benefit from considerable support from Mind, which does underline the fact that charities can play a huge role in assisting individuals who are in dispute with one of the organs of the state.