This free course describes the principles and criteria underpinning the assessment of mental capacity and decision making in the UK. The course begins by looking at what mental capacity – and the lack of it – means. You will be introduced to various groups of people who are more likely to lack mental capacity, but you will also learn why it is relevant to everyone. You will look at what can be done to help someone to make a decision themselves and the principles and steps that enable people to judge, fairly, whether someone has capacity or not. You will be introduced to the legislation in the UK and will see how it supports and protects people who may lack capacity. [First Published: 15/12/2016; Updated: 20/01/2020].

Independent advocacy is crucial to make sure a person’s voice is heard and their human rights are protected. This is especially important when a person is subject to compulsory and restrictive powers. Consistent and effective advocacy must be provided to people who most require it, whenever they require it, including to people with learning disabilities, autism or both, who are subject to long term segregation. Improvement to the delivery and commissioning of advocacy is required to achieve this. This briefing highlights the key features of advocacy for people with learning disabilities, autism or both who are in long term segregation, which must be accessible, highly competent, holistic, independent and perceived to be so, connecting, supporting and joined up. The paper also sets out two commissioning options: national commissioning – the model could be specified clearly, activated promptly, its delivery easily monitored, and there would be a clear line of sight on the resources; and local commission – this would allow locally commissioned services to align with most existing statutory provision. Irrespective of the commissioning arrangements, the service must be able to undertake the full range of statutory advocacy duties, rather than referring the person on and requiring that they relate to several advocates. The paper conclude with eight recommendations, including ensuring that advocacy for people in long term segregation is provided on an opt-out basis, to ensure a greater number of people in long term segregation receive the timely advocacy support and representation they need for their voice to be heard and their rights upheld.

Final report from the Law Commission’s review of the Mental Capacity and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which considered how the law should protect people who need to be deprived of their liberty in order to receive care or treatment and lack the capacity to consent. The review found that DoLS were overly technical and legalistic, often failed to achieve any positive outcomes for the person concerned or their family, and could not deal with the increased numbers of people considered to be deprived of their liberty following the Cheshire West ruling. The report provides recommendations for the reform of the legal framework and proposes that the DoLS should be replaced by a new scheme, the Liberty Protection Safeguards. The proposed scheme would cover a broader group of people, including any setting that might give rise to a deprivation of liberty and would also cover 16 and 17-year-olds. A draft Bill attached to the report provides details of the new scheme. The draft Bill also includes amendments to other parts of the Mental Capacity Act to provide increased protection for people whose rights to respect for their private and family life and their home, whether or not they risk being deprived of their liberty. The Law Commission also recommended that the Liberty Protection Safeguards should be accompanied by the publication of a new Code of Practice covering all aspects of the Mental Capacity Act. An impact assessment and a summary of the report are published alongside the final report.

Objective: To investigate how people with communication and understanding difficulties, associated with conditions such as dementia, autism and intellectual disability, are represented in research guidance supplementary to the Mental Capacity Act (MCA: 2005) in England and Wales. Methods: A documentary survey was conducted. The sample comprised the MCA Code of Practice (CoP: 2007) and 14 multi‐authored advisory documents that were publicly available on the Health Research Authority website. Textual review of key words was conducted followed by summative content analysis. Results: Representation of people with communication and understanding difficulties was confined to procedural information and position statements that focused mainly on risk management and protection. Whilst a need to engage potential participants was recognized, guidance provided was imprecise. Conclusions: Tensions exist between the protection versus empowerment of people with communication and understanding difficulties in research. The development of structured, evidence‐based guidance is indicated. Patient or public contribution: People with communication and understanding difficulties and carers participated in a working group to explore, discuss and interpret the findings.

Annual report of the Chair of the National Mental Capacity Forum, covering the Forum’s work over the year, the Chair’s priorities for the coming year, and details of Forum members. Each chapter describes the achievements and ongoing work against the four priorities for 2017: Improving understanding; Hearing the voice of the person; Supporting carers; and Reducing and preventing exploitation. Achievements include the development of guidelines and training material for front line staff in the financial and banking sector and increased awareness of fraud and scam and the risks for people ‘in vulnerable circumstances.’ The report includes illustrative good practice examples of initiatives relevant to the implementation of the Mental Capacity Act.

Books Beyond Words use pictures to tell stories that engage and empower people, on themes such as love and relationships, health, death and dying, and crime. They are also a tool for professionals to use with people in many different teaching and counselling situations.

This factsheet explains what a housing tenancy is, issues of capacity and law surrounding housing tenancy and how it may apply to a person with a learning disability.

A social care training video for care staff on the theme of mental capacity. Roger is a man with learning disabilities living in a supported living service. An assessment of his mental capacity to make different financial decisions is being undertaken by a social worker.

This case concerns deprivation of liberty authorisation and the role of supervisory body. P was 26 years old with severe learning disability and autistic spectrum disorder. His placement broke down and he was urgently moved into a care home on 5 September 2014. On 24 November 2014 an urgent authorisation was issued by the care home and on 23 December 2014, a standard authorisation was granted by Surrey County Council, expiring on 18 October 2015. His mother, acting as relevant person’s representative and litigation friend, successfully challenged the authorisation and the court declared that it was in P’s best interests to move to a new placement after a period of transition. The court held that P had been unlawfully deprived of liberty prior to the urgent authorisation and between its expiry and the commencement of the standard authorisation. HHJ Cushing was very critical of the supervisory body for making an authorisation that ran for too long (80% of the maximum term) in circumstances where it was clear that the care home where he was deprived of his liberty was only suitable in the short term.

D was a 16-year-old boy who had been diagnosed with ADHD, mild learning disability, Asperger’s syndrome and Tourette’s syndrome. He had previously been detained in a psychiatric unit but was discharged to a residential home. The residential unit was funded by the local authority with his parent’s consent under section 20 of the Children Act 1989. All parties agreed that D was deprived of his liberty. The issue was whether D’s parents were able to consent on his behalf and whether the arrangements were imputable to the State. The local authority argued that the effect of the parents’ consent under section 20 of the Children Act 1989 meant that D’s placement and confinement were not imputable to the state, but this argument was rejected by the court. The local authority also stressed that the outcome of this decision would have significant resource implications for all local authorities but this argument was also rejected.