Upload
others
View
10
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
97
7Chapter 7Capacity and incapacity
97
CONTENTSIntroduction� 98
Background� 98
Current�law� 101
Other�jurisdictions� 109
Six‑step�capacity�assessment�process� 113
Community�responses� 114
The�Commission’s�views�and�conclusions� 116
Victorian Law Reform Commission – Guardianship: Final Report 2498
7Chapter 7 Capacity and incapacity
INTROduCTION7.1 Theconceptofcapacityisusedthroughoutthelawasashorthandtermtorefertoa
levelofcognitiveabilitythatisrequiredbeforeapersoncanlawfullydovariousthings.Becauselackofcapacitycanpreventpeoplefromparticipatinginmanyoftheactivitiesthatformpartofdailylife,alternativedecision-makingarrangementsarenecessary.
7.2 Guardianshiplawsareusedwhenapersonwholackscapacityneedstheassistanceofanotherpersontomakelegallybindingdecisionsontheirbehalfinordertoengageinactivitiesthatrequireindividualauthorisation.Forlegalpurposes,thedecisionofthesubstitutedecisionmakerbecomesthedecisionoftherepresentedperson.1
7.3 CurrentVictorianguardianshiplawdrawsasharpdistinctionbetweenthosepeoplewhohavecapacityandthosewhodonot.Itdoesnotcaterfordifferentlevelsofcognitivefunctioning.Atpresent,guardianshiplawhasonlyoneresponsetotheneedsofpeoplewithimpaireddecision-makingability:theappointmentofasubstitutedecisionmakertomakedecisionsonthatperson’sbehalf.2
7.4 TheCommissionbelievesthatnewguardianshiplawsmustbesufficientlyflexibletoaccommodatedifferentlevelsofcognitiveabilityanddecision-makingneeds.WediscusstheCommission’srecommendationsforabroaderrangeofdecision-makingarrangementsinChapters8and9.Thoserecommendationsaimtorespondto‘capacitydisqualifications’byallowingpeopletoparticipatetothegreatestextentpossibleindecisionsthataffectthem.
7.5 TheCommissionalsobelievesthatweshouldreformthewayguardianshiplawdescribesandassessescapacity.Thisisnecessaryto:
• betterreflecttherealityofthewayimpaireddecision-makingabilityisexperiencedbydifferentpeople
• provideusersofthesystem(peoplewithdisabilities,theirsupporters,carersandprofessionals)withgreaterclarityaboutindicatorsofincapacityandmoreguidanceconcerningwhenappointmentsunderguardianshiplawmightbeappropriate
• safeguardtherightsofpeoplewhomightbeexperiencingimpaireddecision-makingability.
7.6 WhiletheCommissionbelievesthatthewayinwhichguardianshiplawdescribesandassessesincapacityshouldbeclarified,italsobelievesthattheremustbeanindividualisedapproachtoassessment.Thelawmustbeflexibleenoughtorespondtoindividualcircumstancesandexperiencesofimpaireddecision-makingability.
7.7 Throughoutthisreportweusetheterm‘capacity’toreferto‘legalcapacity’—thestandardwhichallowsapersontoengageinlegalrelationships.Whenreferringtosomeone’scognitiveabilitytomakedecisions,wegenerallyusethetermdecision-making‘ability’.
BaCkgROuNd7.8 Threeissuesassociatedwithcapacityareamongthemostcomplexandchallenging
aspectsofguardianshiplaw.Theyare:
• themeaningofcapacity
1 Guardianship and Administration Act 1986(Vic)ss24(4),25(3),40,48(3).2 Othersubstitutedecision-makingregimes,suchasthosefoundintheDisability Act 2006(Vic)andtheMental Health Act 1986(Vic),are
discussedinChapters23and24.
99
• therelevantcapacitystandardinparticularcircumstances—thelevelofcognitivefunctioningthatapersonmusthavebeforetheycanbesaidtohavecapacitytoparticipateinanactivity
• themeansoftestingorassessingwhetherapersonmeetstherequiredcapacitystandard.
7.9 Theterm‘competence’issometimesusedinsteadofcapacity,especiallyinNorthAmerica,todescribethisfundamentalconcept.Althoughsomepeoplesuggestthatcompetenceisalegalconceptandcapacityamedicalone,3weprefertheviewthatthetermshavethesamemeaningandcanbeusedinterchangeably.4ItappearsthatthetermsareusuallytreatedassynonymsinAustralianlaw,withcapacitybeingthemorecommonexpression.
7.10 AsCanadianexpertRobertGordonhasobserved:
[O]falltheissuesandproblemsinthefieldofadultguardianshiplawthemeaningof‘incompetency’and‘competency’anddeterminingthedifferencebetweenthemattractsthegreatestlevelofconcernanddialogue.5
ThE mEaNINg aNd SIgNIfICaNCE Of CapaCITy7.11 Capacityisalegalconceptthatdescribesthelevelofintellectualfunctioningaperson
requirestomakeandacceptresponsibilityforimportantdecisionsthatoftenhavelegalconsequences.Capacityislinkedtothesignificantvalueofrespectforautonomy,whichis‘theauthoritytomakedecisionsofpracticalimportancetoone’slife,forone’sownreasons,whateverthosereasonsmightbe’.6
7.12 Autonomouspeoplearepresumedtohavethenecessarylevelofintellectualfunctioning,aswellastheright,tomaketheirowndecisions.MedicalethicistsTomBeauchampandJamesChildresssuggestthatwhile:
autonomyandcompetencedifferinmeaning(autonomymeaningselfgovernance;competencemeaningtheabilitytoperformataskorrangeoftasks)thecriteriaoftheautonomouspersonandofthecompetentpersonarestrikinglysimilar.7
7.13 PeterisDarzinsandhisfellowauthorssuggestthat:
Capacity…isausefulsocialconstruct,whichunderpinspeople’srightstomakeautonomousdecisionsabouttheirownaffairs,whileestablishingamechanismthroughwhichtheneedforsubstitutedecisionmakingprocessescouldbedeterminedinthecaseofdecisionmakingcapacityhavingbeenlost.8
7.14 TheNewSouthWalesGovernment’sCapacity Toolkitalsoemphasisedtheconnectionbetweencapacityandautonomy:
Peoplewhohavecapacityareabletolivetheirlivesindependently.Theycandecidewhatisbestforthemselfandcaneithertakeorleavetheadviceofothers.9
7.15 TerryCarneysuggeststhatthemeaningofthetermoftendependsupontheprofessionalcontextinwhichitisused.Themedicalperspectiveisconcernedwith‘cognitiveabilitytocomprehend,rememberandreasonrationally’;thelegal
3 SeethediscussioninBenWhite,LindyWillmottandShih-NingThen,‘AdultsWhoLackCapacity:SubstituteDecisionMaking’inBenWhite,FionaMcDonaldandLindyWillmott,Health Law in Australia (2010)151.
4 TomLBeauchampandJamesFChildress,Principles of Biomedical Ethics (OxfordUniversityPress,6thed,2009)111.5 RobertMGordonandSimonNVerdun-Jones,Adult Guardianship Law in Canada(Carswell,1992)6–34.SeealsoJonathanHerring,‘Entering
theFog:OntheBordelinesofMentalCapacity’(2008)83Indiana Law Journal1619,1624whereHerringstates,‘ThesearchforasingletestforlegalcompetencyhasbeensaidtobelikethesearchfortheHolyGrail’.
6 CatrionaMackenzie,‘RelationalAutonomy,NormativeAuthorityandPerfectionism’(2008)39(4)Journal of Social Philosophy512,512.7 BeauchampandChildress,aboven4,113.8 PeterisDarzins,DWilliamMolloyandDavidStrang,Who Can Decide? The Six Step Capacity Assessment Process (MemoryAustraliaPress,
2000)1.9 NewSouthWalesGovernment,AttorneyGeneral’sDepartment,Capacity Toolkit(2008),18<http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/
diversityservices/LL_DiversitySrvces.nsf/vwFiles/CAPACITY_TOOLKIT0609.pdf/$file/CAPACITY_TOOLKIT0609.pdf>.
Victorian Law Reform Commission – Guardianship: Final Report 24100
7Chapter 7 Capacity and incapacityperspectiveinvolvestheability‘tounderstandinformationandappreciatetheissuesandconsequencesentailedinparticulardecisions’;andthesocialperspectiveconcernsthemoregeneralissueofmaintaining‘adequatelevelsofsocialfunctioning’.10
7.16 Capacityisanextremelyimportantattribute.Itsabsencedisqualifiesapersonfrombeingableto:
• enterintoabindingcontract11
• disposeofpropertybywillorbygift12
• vote13
• becomeamemberofparliament14
• holdvariouspublicoffices15
• havesexualrelationswithanotherperson16
• marry17
• authorisemanyformsofmedicaltreatment18
• engageinvariousoccupations19
• undertakenumerousotheractivitiesthatareregulatedbylaw.
7.17 Legalpolicyconcerningpeoplewholackcapacityalsoservestostrengthenacentralnotionofourlawthatweshouldordinarilyrespecttheautonomyofpeopletomaketheirowndecisions,regardlessofthequalityofthosedecisions.Asacommunitywequalifythisprinciple,however,bydistinguishingsomepeoplewithimpaireddecision-makingabilityfromthosewhoarefreetoexerciseautonomy,becauseweconsideritisnecessarytoprotectvulnerablepeoplefromthosewhomightseektoexploitthem,orfromthemselves.
7.18 Thecommonlawhaslongsupportedtheautonomyprinciplebydevelopingrulespresumingthatalladultshavecapacityandplacingtheburdenofdisprovingcapacityuponanypersonwhoseekstochallengethatpresumption.20Insomejurisdictions,suchasQueensland,21WesternAustralia22andEnglandandWales,23modernguardianshiplegislationreinforcesthecommonlawrulesbydeclaringthatalladultsarepresumedtohavecapacityandbyplacinganevidentiaryburdenuponanypersonwhoassertsotherwise.
ThE STaNdaRd fOR LEgaL CapaCITy7.19 Thelawhasnotdevisedauniformstandardforthelevelofcognitiveabilityaperson
requiresinordertohavecapacitytolegallyparticipateinmanyoftheactivitiesof
10 TerryCarney,‘Guardianship,Citizenship,&TheorizingSubstituteDecisionmakingLaw’inIDoronandASoden,Beyond Elder Law: New Directions in Law and Ageing(Springer,forthcoming2012).
11 Blomley v Ryan(1954)99CLR362.12 Banks v Goodfellow(1870)LR5QB549.13 Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918(Cth)s93(8);Constitution Act 1975(Vic)s48(2)(d).14 ArequirementtobecomeamemberofParliamentinVictoriaisthatthepersonisenrolledtovote,andapersonwholackscapacityisnot
entitledtobeenrolled:seeConstitution Act 1975(Vic)ss44(1),48(2)(d).15 Forexample,theAustralianConstitutionandtheVictorianConstitutionallowfortheremovalofjudgesonthegroundsofincapacity:see
Australian Constitutions72(ii);Constitution Act 1975(Vic)s87AAB(1).16 Crimes Act 1958(Vic)s36(e).17 Marriage Act 1961(Cth)s23B(1)(d).18 Ifadoctorprovidesmedicaltreatmenttoapatientwhoisunabletoconsentwithouttheconsentofsomeoneauthorisedtoprovideconsent
orotherlawfuljustification,thatdoctormaybefoundguiltyoftrespassorfalseimprisonment.19 Forexample,alackofcapacitywouldleadtoafindingthatthepersonwasnota‘fitandproperperson’topractiselaw.SeeLegal Profession
Act 2004(Vic)ss1.2.6(1)(m),2.3.3,2.4.7.20 Re T (An adult: Consent to Medical Treatment)[1992]4AllER649.21 Guardianship and Administration Act 2000(Qld)sch1cl1.22 Guardianship and Administration Act 1990(WA)s4(3).23 Mental Capacity Act 2005(UK)s1(2).
101
everydaylife.Someyearsago,leadingUnitedStates’commentatorsdescribedthesearchforauniformstandardofcompetency(orcapacity)as‘thesearchforaholygrail’.24ThatobservationisstillrelevantinAustraliatoday.
7.20 Manydifferentstatutoryandcommonlawstandardsareusedwhendisqualifyingapersonfromparticipatinginparticularactivitiesbecauseofincapacity.Someofthesestandardsarediscussedbelow.
7.21 Amajordifferencebetweenthesevariousbranchesofthelawofgeneralapplicationandguardianshiplawistheperspectivefromwhichaperson’scapacityisviewed.Thevariousbranchesofthegenerallaw,suchasthelawofcontract,areinterestedinwhetherapersonhasthecapacitytoberegardedasanautonomouspersonwhoisboundbytheirowndecisions.Incontrast,whenatribunaldetermineswhethersomeonerequirestheassistanceofaguardianoranadministrator,thecentralissueistheperson’sincapacitytomakeparticulardecisions.
aSSESSINg CapaCITy7.22 Therearenodefinitive,scientifictestsforusewhenassessingwhetheraperson
meetsaparticularcapacitystandard.Capacityhasbeendescribedasan‘artificialconstruct’with‘noincontrovertibleproofofitsexistence’.25Althoughclinicianscananddoemployvariousassessmenttoolswhentestingforcapacity,‘becausenormativejudgmentsunderlieeachtest…theassessmentofdecisionalcompetenceremainsheavilyamatterofclinicaljudgment’.26
7.23 Courtshaveoftenemphasisedthatcapacityassessmentsareultimatelyquestionsoffactforjudicialofficersandtribunalmemberswhentheissueofaperson’scapacityarisesinthecourseoflegalproceedings.Forexample,whenVCATisdealingwithaguardianshiporadministrationapplication,itcannotdelegatethetaskofassessingcapacitytoahealthprofessionalbyrelyinguponthatperson’sopinionalone.27
CuRRENT Law7.24 Inthispart,weconsiderthenumerouslegalrulesaboutcapacitythatexistinthe
generallawandexaminethevariouscapacitystandardsthatareusedindifferentcontextsinVictoria’sguardianshiplaws.
ThE gENERaL Law7.25 Thenumerouslegalrulesconcerningcapacityhavedevelopedovertimeandwithout
coordination.Whilethereisnouniformtestforlegalcapacity,thelevelofcognitiveabilityrequiredtosatisfyacourtthatapersonhascapacityisgenerallyquitelow.Eachareaoflawhasdevelopeditsownstandardfordecidingwhetherapersonisunabletoparticipateinanactivityonthesametermsasotherpeoplebecausetheylackcapacity.Inmostinstances,capacitystandardsexisttoprotectvulnerablepeopleandensurefairtransactions.
7.26 Understandingofcapacityappearstohaveevolvedovertime,frombeingseenassomethingthateitherexistsorisabsent,toamorerecentacceptancethatcapacityisastatethatcanvaryfromonetimeandfromonedecisiontoanother.Understoodinthisway,moderncapacitystandardsgenerallyfocusontheparticulardecisionsapersonisaskedtomake.28
24 LorenHRoth,‘TestsofCompetencytoConsenttoTreatment(1977)134American Journal of Psychiatry279,283referredtoinMichaelPerlin,PamelaChampine,HenryDlugaczandMaryConnell,Competence in the Law: From Legal Theory to Clinical Application(JohnWiley&Sons,2008)1.
25 Darzins,MolloyandStrang,aboven8,111.26 BeauchampandChildress,aboven4,115.27 XYZ v State Trustees Ltd[2006]VSC444.28 SeePeterisDarzins,DWilliamMolloyandDavidStrang,‘WhatisCapacity?’inDarzins,MolloyandStrang,aboven8,4–5.
Victorian Law Reform Commission – Guardianship: Final Report 24102
7Chapter 7 Capacity and incapacity7.27 Differentcapacitystandardsapplyinrelationtothefollowingactivities:
• enteringintoavalidcontract
• makingawill
• votinginelections
• consentingtosexualrelations
• gettingmarried
• responsibilityforcriminalconduct.
7.28 Insomeareasoflawithasbeenimplicitlyacceptedthatpeoplehavevaryinglevelsofcapacitythatrequiredifferentresponsesdependingonthedegreeofincapacityexperiencedbyapersoninparticularcircumstances.Thesedevelopmentsaremostevidentincontractlawandcriminallaw.
Contracts7.29 Capacityofthepartiesisanessentialrequirementofavalidcontract.Thecommonlaw
ofcontractshaseffectivelyrecognisedtwocapacitystandards,describedbelow.
Non est factum7.30 Whendealingwithwrittencontracts,thecommonlawdistinguishesbetween
apersonunabletounderstandthegeneralnatureorpurportofadocumentduetomentalincapacityandapersonwhosemindhasnoconceptatallofthedeedapparentlyexecuted.29
7.31 Inthelattercase,whenaperson’sdegreeofincapacityisprofound,thecontractisvoidandheldtoneverhaveexistedatlawbecauseoftheunderlyingpolicythatapersonshouldnotbeheldtoabargainwhentheyhavenoideaofthedocumenttheysigned.30Thisdefenceiscallednon est factum,orliterally,‘itisnothisdeed’.
7.32 TherelevantcapacitystandardwasrecentlydescribedbytheNewSouthWalesCourtofAppeal:
Theprincipleisthatthesignermustknowwhatheorsheissigning.Thecasesreveal…thedifficultyofexpressioninidentifyingthelinemarkingtheboundaryofnon est factum.Itissufficienttostateforpresentpurposesthatasignerwhohasnounderstandingatallaboutwhatheorsheissigning,becauseofincapacity,doesnotknowwhatheorsheissigningsuchthattheminddoesnotgowiththepen.31
Soundness of mind7.33 Thesecondcapacitystandardisrelevantwhendealingeitherwithcontractsthatare
notwrittenor,ifthecontractiswritten,whenthedefenceofnon est factumisnotavailable.Inthesecircumstances,thereisnofixedstandardbecausetherequisitelevelofcapacitymustbedeterminedaccordingtotheparticulartransaction.Thecommonlawruleisthat‘eachpartyshallhavesuchsoundnessofmindastobecapableofunderstandingthegeneralnatureofwhatheisdoingbyhisparticipation’.32
7.34 Failuretoachievethesecondcapacitystandardmeansthatacontractisvoidable—itcanbesetasideifthepartywhoseekstoavoidcontractualobligationsisabletoprovetheincapacityofanyparty.33
29 ElsieBant,‘Incapacity,NonEstFactumandUnjustEnrichment’(2009)33MelbourneUniversityLawReview368,371.SeealsoGibbons v Wright(1954)91CLR423.
30 Sothatwhentotalincapacityisproved,thereisnocontractonwhichtoproceed:seeDrew v Nunn(1879)4QBD661,669whereLordBramwellstates:‘Ifamanbecomessofarinsaneastohavenomind,perhapsheoughttobedeemeddeadforthepurposeofcontracting.’
31 Ford v Perpetual Trustees Victoria Ltd(2009)75NSWLR42at62.32 Gibbons v Wright(1954)91CLR423at437.33 Gibbons v Wright(1954)91CLR423.
103
making a will7.35 Awillisvalidifatthetimeofexecutionthetestator(personwhomadethewill)
possessedtherequisitecapacityandintention,andifthewillmeetscertainformalrequirements.34
7.36 Apersonwith‘testamentarycapacity’iscommonlydescribedasbeingof‘soundmind,memoryandunderstanding’.35Theymustbeabletounderstandthenatureandeffectofwhattheyaredoinginexecutingthewill,andrealisetheextentandcharacterofthepropertytheyaredealingwith.36Atestatormustalsobeabletorecognisethenatureofthemoralclaimsontheirestatetowhichtheyoughttogiveeffect.37
7.37 Thelawyerassistingaclienttomakeorchangeawillshouldassesstheirclient’scapacity.Thisinvolvesassessingwhetherthewillistheproductofafreeandcapabletestator38andwasmadewiththeirknowledgeandapproval.39Amedicalopinionisnotalwaysconclusive.40
7.38 Whetherapersonhadsufficientcapacitytomakeawillisaquestionoffact;thedoubtmustbesuchthatthecourtconsidersitsufficienttopreventafindingoftestamentarycapacity.
7.39 ThelegaltestfortestamentarycapacityisnotthesameasfortheappointmentofanadministratorundertheGuardianship and Administration Act 1986(Vic)(G&AAct),anditispossibleforarepresentedpersonwithanadministratortobecapableofmakingawill.41
7.40 In2009inNicholson v Knaggs,JusticeVickerysaidthattheUnitedNations’Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities—anditsemphasisonequalenjoymentoflegalcapacity—willhavearoleinthedevelopmentofthelawoftestamentarycapacityinVictoria.42
Voting in elections7.41 TheCommonwealthandeachofthestatejurisdictionshavecompulsoryvotingfor
allpeopleovertheageof18.Eachjurisdictionalsoprovidesthatsomepeoplearedisqualifiedfromvoting,includingdisqualificationrelatingbroadlytounsoundnessofmindormentalillness.
7.42 TheCommonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth)providesthatonceitisprovedthataperson‘byreasonofbeingofunsoundmindisincapableofunderstandingthenatureandsignificanceofenrolmentandvoting’,43theyarenolonger‘entitledtohave[their]nameplacedorretainedonanyRollortovoteatanySenateelectionorHouseofRepresentativeselection’.44
7.43 TheequivalentprovisioninVictoriaisfoundintheConstitution Act 1975 (Vic):
34 IJHardinghametal,Wills and Intestacy in Australia and New Zealand(LawBookCompanyLimited,2nded,1989)50.SeealsoWills Act 1997(Vic)s7.
35 Banks v Goodfellow(1870)LR5QB549,565.36 In Will of Wilson(1897)23VLR197,199(HoodJ).SeealsoTimbury v Coffee(1941)66CLR277.37 Banks v Goodfellow (1870)5QB549; Timbury v Coffee(1941)66CLR277.38 Bagot’s Executor & Trustee Co Ltd v Bathern(1982)62FLR177;Le Cras v Perpetual Trustee Co Ltd[1967]2NSWR706.39 Timbury v Coffee (1941)66CLR277.40 DanutaMendelson‘AssessmentofCompetency:aPrimer’(2006)14(2)Journal of Law and Medicine 156,157.41 Edwards v Edwards[2009]VSC190,[55]–[58].42 Nicholson v Knaggs[2009]VSC64,[58]–[75].43 Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918(Cth)s93(8)(a).44 Ibids93(8).
Victorian Law Reform Commission – Guardianship: Final Report 24104
7Chapter 7 Capacity and incapacityApersonwho,byreasonofbeingofunsoundmind,isincapableofunderstandingthenatureandsignificanceofenrolmentandvotingisnotentitledtobeenrolledasanelectorfortheCouncilorAssembly.45
7.44 Inordertoremoveanelectorfromtherollsduetoincapacity,theAustralianElectoralCommissionandVictorianElectoralCommissionbothrequirearegisteredmedicalpractitionerto‘certifyinwritingthatthepersonisincapableofunderstandingthenatureandsignificanceofenrolmentandvoting’.46
Consenting to sexual relations7.45 Thelawgenerallyassumesthatpeopleovertheageofconsent47havethecapacity
toconsenttosexualacts.However,apersonmaybefoundtolackthecapacitytoconsenttotheseacts.Apersonwhoengagesinsexualactswithapersonwholackscapacitytoconsenttosuchactsmaybeguiltyofacriminaloffence.48
7.46 ConsentisdefinedintheCrimes Act1958(Vic)as‘freeagreement’.49TheActcontainsanon-exhaustivelistofcircumstancesinwhichapersoncannotfreelyagreetoanact.Oneofthemiswhenthepersonisincapableofunderstandingthesexualnatureoftheact.50
7.47 Determiningconsentincasesofrapeagainstpeoplewithacognitiveimpairmenthasbeendescribedas‘problematic’.51Proofofcognitiveimpairmentisnotenoughtoestablishthatapersondoesnothavethecapacitytoconsenttosexualacts,52asmostpeoplewithacognitiveimpairmentarecapableofbothunderstandingthenatureofsexualactsandconsentingtosexualactivity.53
7.48 TheVictorianFullCourtdecisionR v Morgan54(Morgan)istheleadingauthorityinrelationtothecapacitytounderstandorcomprehendsexualacts.Thecasesetsoutatwo-stagedapproachtoestablishingacomplainant’sunderstandingofsexualacts:
• thatwhatisproposedtobedoneisaphysicalfactofpenetrationofthebodybythemaleorgan
or,ifthatisnotproved,
• thattheactofpenetrationproposedisoneofsexualconnexionasdistinctfromanactofatotallydifferentcharacter.55
7.49 ThesecondlimboftheMorgantestisabroadapproach,requiringonlygeneralunderstandingofthenatureandsignificanceofsexualintercourse.
45 Constitution Act 1975 (Vic)s48(2)(d).46 SeeVictorianElectoralCommission,Removal of Elector’s Name Form<http://www.vec.vic.gov.au/files/NoLongerCapable.pdf>;Australian
ElectoralCommission,Claim that an elector should not be on the electoral role,availablefromAustralianElectoralCommissionuponrequest.See<http://www.aec.gov.au/>.
47 TheageofconsentinVictoriais16.However,itisanoffenceforapersontotakepartinanactofsexualpenetrationwitha16or17yearoldchildtowhomheorsheisnotmarriedandwhoisunderhisorhercare,supervisionorauthority:seeCrimes Act 1958(Vic)s48(1).
48 Crimes Act 1958(Vic)s36(d),(e),pt1div8A,8E.49 Adefinitionof‘consent’wasinsertedtotheCrimes Act 1958(Vic)followingrecommendationsbytheformerLawReformCommissionof
Victoriain1991:seeLawReformCommissionofVictoria,Rape: Reform of Law and Procedure, ReportNo43(1991).50 Crimes Act 1958(Vic)s36(e).51 BernadetteMcSherry,‘SexualAssaultAgainstIndividualswithMentalImpairment:AreCriminalLawsAdequate?’(1998)5(1)Psychiatry,
Psychology and Law107,112.52 R v Lynch(1930)30SR(NSW)420,421(FergusonJ).SeealsoThe Queen v Beattie(1981)26SASR481.53 VictorianLawReformCommission,Sexual Offences, InterimReport(2003)365.54 R v Morgan[1970]VR337.55 Ibid341.
105
7.50 Thelawdoesnotindicatehowthisunderstandingshouldbeassessed.Inpresentingevidenceofacomplainant’scapacitytocomprehendthesexualnatureofsuchacts,‘itishighlylikelythatexpertevidencefrompsychiatristsandpsychologistswillbeledtoaidthejury’intheassessmentofthestateofthecomplainant’sknowledgeorunderstandingoftheactatthematerialtime.56
getting married7.51 Thelawprovidesthatmarriagemaybeenteredintobytwoadults—amananda
woman—whohavegiventheirindividualconsenttothemarriage.57
7.52 Section23BoftheMarriage Act 1961(Cth)providesthatamarriageisvoid58whenaperson’sconsentwas‘notarealconsent’.Oneofthosecircumstancesiswhenaparty‘wasmentallyincapableofunderstandingthenatureandeffectofthemarriageceremony’.59Courtshavegenerallybeenreluctanttofindthatamarriageisvoidforthisreason.60
Responsibility for criminal conduct7.53 Whereapersonhasengagedinconductthatmightconstituteacriminaloffence,a
defenceofnotguiltybyreasonofmentalimpairmentmaybeavailabletothem.
7.54 Apersonmustbefoundnotguiltybecauseofmentalimpairmentif,atthetimetheyengagedintheconductconstitutingtheoffence,thepersonhadamentalimpairmentthathadtheeffectthat:
(a) heorshedidnotknowthenatureandqualityoftheconduct;or
(b) heorshedidnotknowthattheconductwaswrong(thatis,heorshecouldnotreasonwithamoderatedegreeofsenseandcomposureaboutwhethertheconduct,asperceivedbyreasonablepeople,waswrong).61
7.55 Afindingofnotguiltybecauseofmentalimpairmentdoesnotnecessarilymeanthepersonwillbereleasedintothecommunityastheymaybeplacedunderasupervisionorder.62WediscusssupervisionordersinmoredetailinChapter25whereweconsiderthe Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act1997(Vic).
7.56 Insomejurisdictions,butnotVictoria,thereisapartialdefenceof‘diminishedresponsibility’forhomicide.63Thisdefencedealswithcircumstanceswhereapersonexperiencesan‘abnormalityofmind’atthetimeanoffenceiscommittedthatsubstantiallyimpairstheirmentalresponsibilityforthekilling.Itisalesserstandardthanafindingthatapersonisnotguiltybecauseofmentalimpairment.
CapaCITy STaNdaRdS IN VICTORIaN guaRdIaNShIp LawS7.57 Asdiscussedearlier,guardianshiplawspermittheappointmentofasubstitutedecision
makertomakedecisionsforapersonwhoislegallyunabletomaketheirowndecisions.
56 McSherry,aboven51,109.57 Marriage Act 1961(Cth)ss5,23B.58 Ifamarriageisheldtobevoid,adecreeofnullitymaybegranted:Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)s51.59 Marriage Act 1961 (Cth)s23B(1)(d).60 JohnBlackwood,‘SexualityandtheDisabled:LegalIssues’(1992)11University of Tasmania Law Review 182,183.61 Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997(Vic)s20.62 Ibids23.63 Homicide Act 1957,5&6Eliz2,c2(UK)s2;Crimes Act 1900(ACT)s14;Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld)s304A.InNewSouthWalesitis
knownas‘substantialimpairmentbyabnormalityofmind’:Crimes Act 1900(NSW)s23A.
Victorian Law Reform Commission – Guardianship: Final Report 24106
7Chapter 7 Capacity and incapacity7.58 Theneedforacapacitystandardarisesinfourmaincontextsundercurrent
guardianshiplaws.Differentlanguage—andperhapsadifferentstandard—isusedineachinstance.Thetablebelowoutlinesthefourcontextsinwhichcapacitystandardsariseandwhatstandardsareappliedineachcontext.
Context Capacity standard
VCATisaskedtoappointaguardianoranadministrator.
Theperson‘isunable…tomakereasonablejudgments’aboutmattersrelatingtotheirpersonortheirestate64
A person responsible is askedto consent to medical or dentaltreatment or to authoriseparticipationinmedicalresearchforanotherpersonwho is incapableofgivingconsent.
The person is incapable of understanding ‘the generalnatureandeffect’or is incapableof ‘indicatingwhetherornot theyconsentordonotconsent’ to theproposedprocedureortreatment.65
A person seeks to appoint anenduring guardian, an attorneywithenduringpowers,oramedicalagent, and the witnesses to theappointmentare required to recordtheir opinion about that person’scapacity.
The standard for each of the appointments is different.Fortheappointmentofanattorney,thestandardisthatthe person appeared to have the capacity necessary tomake the appointment, which is defined as ‘the abilitytounderstandthenatureandeffect’ofthedocument.66Similarly,foranenduringguardian,awitnessmustcertifythat thepersonappeared tounderstand thenatureandeffectofthedocument.67Foranagentitisabeliefthatthepersonisofsoundmindandunderstandstheimportanceofthedocument.68
Apersonwhoholdsanappointmentas an enduring guardian, enduringattorney or medical agent seeks toactivate the appointment becausethe principal is no longer able tomakedecisions.
For the activation of an enduring power of attorney(medical)thestandardisthatthepersonis‘incompetent’.69Fortheactivationofanenduringpowerofguardianship,thestandard is theperson isunabletomakereasonablejudgmentsinrespectoftherelevantmatter.70Thereisnosetlegislativestandardforactivationofanenduringpowerofattorney(financial),asthedonorcanelectwhenorinwhatcircumstancethepowercomesintoeffect.71
7.59 Thelegislativehistoryofthesevariousstatutoryprovisionsdoesnotindicatewhetherthedraftersofthelegislationsoughttocreatedifferentcapacitystandardsorwhethertheychosedifferentlanguagetodescribethesame,orasimilar,standard.Thereislittlecaselawtoprovideguidanceaboutwhetherdifferentstandardsshouldbeappliedinthevariouscircumstancessetoutintheabovetable.
64 Guardianship and Administration Act 1986(Vic)ss22(1)(b),46(1)(a)(ii).
65 Ibids36(2).
66 Instruments Act 1958(Vic)ss118,125A(1)(b).
67 Guardianship and Administration Act 1986(Vic)s35A(2),sch4,Form1
68 Medical Treatment Act 1988 (Vic)s5A(2),sch2.
69 Ibids5A(2)(b).
70 Guardianship and Administration Act 1986(Vic)s35B(1).
71 Thedonorofanenduringpowerofattorney(financial)mayspecifyatime,circumstance,oroccasionuponwhichtheattorneymayexercisetheirpowers.Adonormightdecidetospecifythatthepowerbecomesexercisablewhentheyhavelostthecapacitytomakethedecisionthemselves.Ifthedonordoesnotspecifyaparticulartime,circumstanceoroccasionthedefaultpositionisthattheattorneymayexercisetheirpowersimmediately:seeInstruments Act 1958(Vic)s117.
107
VCAT appointments—unable to make reasonable judgments7.60 Beforeappointingaguardianoranadministrator,VCATmustbesatisfiedthata
personhasadisability—definedas‘intellectualimpairment,mentaldisorder,braininjury,physicaldisabilityordementia’—andthatbyreasonofthatdisabilitythepersonis‘unabletomakereasonablejudgments’inrespectoftheirpersonortheirestate.72
7.61 Thedeterminationofwhetherapersonis‘unabletomakereasonablejudgments’isaquestionoffactwhichrequiresVCATtoconsideralltherelevantlayandexpertevidence.73
7.62 InVictoria,thetestissubjectiveinthesensethatVCATmustmeasuretheperson’scapacityinrelationtotheiractualpropertyandaffairs,ratherthanagainsttheobjectivestandardusedelsewhere,suchas‘theordinaryroutineaffairsofman’.74
7.63 TheG&AActdoesnotdefine‘reasonablejudgments’.ThistermcouldbeinterpretedasinvitingVCATtoevaluatetheworthorqualityofthedecisionsapersonmakes.Inpractice,thetermseemstohavebeengiventhesamemeaningas‘capacity’or‘competence’.75However,ithasalsobeensuggestedthatthestandardof‘unabletomakereasonablejudgments’ispotentiallyadifferentstandardthanthatoflegalincompetence,76andmayallowfortheappointmentofaguardianoradministratorincircumstanceswherecapacityisnotlackingorseverelyimpaired.77
7.64 TheMinister’sCommitteeonRightsandProtectiveLegislationforIntellectuallyHandicappedPersons(CocksCommittee)report,whichrecommendedthattheterm‘reasonablejudgments’beusedinlegislationasastandardforcapacity,explainedtheirapproachinthefollowingterms:
Inordertodeterminewhetheraparticularindividualfallswithinthecategoryofpersonsincapableofmakingreasonablejudgmentsforthemselves,onewouldberequiredtomakeafactualjudgment.Inthecontextofsurgicalinterventionandabilityofapatienttoconsenttoit,onewouldobservethepatient’sresponsetoandcomprehensionoffacts,includinglikelyrisksandpossiblebenefits,whenexplainedtohimbyhismedicaladviser.Adeterminationthatapersonisincapableofmanaginghisfinancialaffairswouldbeinfluencedbyobservationofhisfinancialdealingsover,say,theprevious12months.Thisdoesnotmean,ofcourse,thatthebadinvestororunsuccessfulentrepreneurshouldlosecontrolofhisestate,norshouldthepersonwhosimplylacksaninterestinmoneymattersbethesubjectofanestateadministrationorder.Itisthepersonwhosecapacityislackingorisseverelyimpairedwhomaybeinneedofthistypeofprotection.78
Personal appointments—able to understand the nature and effect of the document7.65 Thecommonlawtestforlegalcapacitytoexecuteadocumentorenteratransaction
dependsupontheparticulartransaction.Thepersonmusthave‘thecapacitytounderstandthenatureofthetransactionwhenitisexplained’.79
7.66 Thestatutesthatpermitonepersontoappointanothertomakedecisionsforthemwhentheyareunabletodosorequirethepersontodemonstratecapacityatthetime
72 Guardianship and Administration Act 1986(Vic)ss22(1)(a)–(b),46(1)(a)(i)–(ii).73 XYZ v State Trustees Ltd [2006]VSC444(22November2006)[55]–[58].74 XYZ (Guardianship)[2007]VCAT1196(29June2007)[53]–[55];Guardianship and Administration Act 1986(Vic)s46(1)(a)(ii).75 SeeJohnChesterman,‘CapacityinVictorianGuardianshipLaw:OptionsforReform’,Monash University Law Review(forthcoming).76 A v Guardianship and Management of Property Tribunal[1999]ACTSC77(16July1999)[49]–[61];XYZ v State Trustees Ltd[2006]VSC444
(22November2006)[35]–[36],[71]–[73].77 XYZ (Guardianship) [2007]VCAT1196(29June2007)[64].78 Minister’sCommitteeonRightsandProtectiveLegislationforIntellectuallyHandicappedPersons,ParliamentofVictoria,Report of the
Minister’s Committee on Rights and Protective Legislation for Intellectually Handicapped Persons(1982)95.79 Gibbons v Wright (1954)91CLR423,437–8(DixonCJ,KittoandTaylorJJ).
Victorian Law Reform Commission – Guardianship: Final Report 24108
7Chapter 7 Capacity and incapacityofmakingtheappointment.Whilethewordingofthecapacitystandardsdiffer,theyappeartohavebeendesignedtoreplicatethecommonlawstandard.
7.67 Asdescribedinthetableabove,legislationrequiresthatapersonmustunderstandthenatureandeffectofanenduringpowerofattorneywhenmakinganappointment.
7.68 TheInstruments Act 1958(Vic)describeswhatitmeansto‘understandthenatureandeffect’ofanenduringpowerofattorney:
(2) Understandingthenatureandeffectoftheenduringpowerofattorneyincludesunderstandingthefollowingmatters—
(a) thatthedonormay,inthepowerofattorney,specifyconditionsorlimitationson,orinstructionsabout,theexerciseofthepowertobegiventotheattorney;
(b) whenthepowerisexercisable;
(c) thatoncethepowerisexercisable,theattorneyhasthesamepowersasthedonorhad(whennotunderalegalincapacity)todoanythingforwhichthepowerisgivensubjecttoanylimitationsorrestrictionsonexercisingthepowerincludedintheenduringpowerofattorney;
(d) thatthedonormayrevoketheenduringpowerofattorneyatanytimethedonoriscapableofmakinganenduringpowerofattorney;
(e) thatthepowertheattorneyisgivencontinuesevenifthedonorsubsequentlyceasestohavelegalcapacity;
(f) thatatanytimethatthedonorisnotcapableofrevokingtheenduringpowerofattorney,thedonorisunabletoeffectivelyoverseetheuseofthepower.80
7.69 TheG&AActandtheMedical Treatment Act 1988(Vic)donotprovideequivalentdescriptionsofthemattersapersonmustunderstandwhenmakinganenduringpowerofguardianshipandanenduringpowerofattorney(medical).
Automatic appointments for medical treatment7.70 TheGuardianship and Administration Act 1986(Vic)providesthatapersonis
incapableofgivingconsenttomedicalanddentaltreatment,medicalresearchoraspecialprocedureiftheyare:
• incapableofunderstandingthegeneralnatureandeffectoftheproposedprocedureortreatment,or
• incapableofindicatingwhetherornottheyconsenttotheproposedprocedureortreatment.81
7.71 Whilethisappearstobeadifferentstandardtothatof‘unabletomakereasonablejudgments’whichapplieswhenVCATisappointingguardiansandadministrators,82therearenoreportedcasesinwhichthetwostandardshavebeencompared.
APPRoAChes To Assessing CAPACiTy
VCAT7.72 Whetherapersonisunabletomakereasonablejudgmentsaboutamatterisa
questionoffact,83whichVCATmustdetermineonthebalanceofprobabilitieswhendecidingwhethertoappointaguardianoranadministrator.
80 Instruments Act 1958(Vic)s118.81 Guardianship and Administration Act 1986(Vic)s36(2).82 Ibidss22(1)(b),46(1)(a)(ii).83 XYZ v State Trustees Ltd[2006]VSC444(22November2006).
109
7.73 VCATusuallyrequiressomemedicalevidenceofaperson’scognitivefunctioning.Inmanycases,thiswillinvolveastandard‘MedicalPractitioner’sOpinion’,whichcanbecompletedbyeitherageneralpractitionerorspecialist.84Inmorecomplexcasesadditionalmaterialsuchasareportfromaneuropsychologistmaybeprovided.
7.74 VCATmustmakeitsownfindingoffactinrelationtocapacity,andcannotsimplydefertomedicalopinion.85Inadditiontomedicalopinion,VCATconsidersrelevantlayevidence,suchasevidenceastohowthepersonisactuallymanagingtheiraffairs.
Creation and activation of enduring powers7.75 Whilewitnessestoenduringpowersarerequiredtoindicatetheirbeliefthatthe
personhasthecapacitytomaketheappointment,thereisnoformalprocesstoassesstheperson’scapacityatthistime.86Similarly,thereisnoformalcapacityassessmentprocessforusewhenanenduringpowerisactivated.Wherethereisdoubtabouttheperson’scapacity,therepresentativemayseekmedicalopinionoradvicefromVCAT.
oTheR juRisdiCTionsuniTed nATions’ ConVenTion7.76 TheConvention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilitiesdoesnotcontainacapacity
standard.Itrequiressignatoriestoensurethat’personswithdisabilitiesenjoylegalcapacityonanequalbasiswithothersinallaspectsoflife’.87
7.77 Themeaningofthisrequirementhasbeenasourceofsignificantdebate.88Australiaandothernationshavestatedthatthisrequirementdoesnotprohibittheuseofsubstitutedecisionmaking.89Ataminimum,however,theConventionisviewedasmarkingaparadigmshifttowardspromotinggreaterautonomyforpeoplewithdisabilitiesindecisionsthataffecttheirlives,andinobligingstatestoprovidedecision-makingsupportthatisproportionateandtailoredtotheirindividualcircumstances.90
7.78 WeconsidernewoptionsforsupportingpeopleintheexerciseoflegalcapacityinChapters8and9.
oTheR AusTRALiAn juRisdiCTions7.79 TheapproachinotherAustralianjurisdictionstodescribingacapacitystandardin
guardianshiplawsandassessingwhetherapersonmeetsthatstandardappearstobesimilartothepositioninVictoria.InQueensland,however,itisunnecessaryforthepurposesofbothmakingatribunalappointmentandactivatingapersonalappointmenttoestablishanycausallinkbetweenaperson’slackofcapacityandanydisability.91
84 Theformhasbeenrecentlyupdatedandisavailableat:<http://www.vcat.vic.gov.au/CA256902000FE154/Lookup/guardianship/$file/medical_report_guardianship_list.pdf>.
85 XYZ v State Trustees Ltd[2006]VSC444(22November2006)[54]–[59].86 Howevers118oftheInstruments Act 1958(Vic)doesnotethatitisadvisableforawitnesstorecordthebasisuponwhichtheydetermined
thatthepersonunderstoodthenatureandeffectoftheenduringpowerofattorney.87 Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities,openedforsignature30March2007,999UNTS3(enteredintoforce3May2008)art
12(2)(‘Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities’).88 See,eg,TinaMinkowitz,‘AbolishingMentalHealthLawstoComplywithCRPD’inBernadetteMcSherryandPenelopeWeller(eds),
Rethinking Rights-Based Mental Health Laws(HartPublishing,2010)151,156–9.89 SeeUnitedNationsTreatyCollection,Chapter IV: Human Rights, 15; Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities(6December
2010),2<http://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/MTDSG/Volume%20I/Chapter%20IV/IV-15.en.pdf>.90 UnitedNationsDepartmentofEconomicandSocialAffairs,OfficeoftheUnitedNationsHighCommissionerforHumanRightsandtheInter-
ParliamentaryUnion,Handbook for Parliamentarians on the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities(2007)89–91.91 Guardianship and Administration Act 2000(Qld)sch4(Dictionary):definitionof‘capacity’,Powers of Attorney Act 1998(Qld)sch3
(Dictionary):definitionof‘capacity’.
Victorian Law Reform Commission – Guardianship: Final Report 24110
7Chapter 7 Capacity and incapacity
statutory capacity standards7.80 LikeVictoria,guardianshiplawsinTasmania,WesternAustraliaandtheNorthern
Territorymaybeinvokedwhenapersonis‘unabletomakereasonablejudgments’abouttheiraffairsbecauseofadisability.92
7.81 InNewSouthWales,guardianshipordersmayapplywhereapersonis‘totallyorpartiallyincapableofmanaginghisorherperson’,93whileafinancialmanagementordermaybemadewherethepersonis‘notcapable’ofmanagingtheiraffairs.94
7.82 IntheAustralianCapitalTerritory,guardianshiplawsareapplicablewhereaperson‘hasimpaireddecisionmakingability’inrelationtothematter.95
7.83 InSouthAustralia,‘mentalincapacity’isdefinedasthe‘inabilityofapersontolookafterhisorherownhealth,safetyorwelfareortomanagehisorherownaffairs’.96
7.84 Queenslandguardianshiplawscontainamoredetailed‘capacity’standard:
capacity,forapersonforamatter,meansthepersoniscapableof—
(a) understandingthenatureandeffectofdecisionsaboutthematter;and
(b) freelyandvoluntarilymakingdecisionsaboutthematter;and
(c) communicatingthedecisionsinsomeway.97
Requirement of ‘disability’ or other diagnosis7.85 GuardianshiplawsinallAustralianstatesandterritoriesexceptQueenslandstipulate
thataperson’slackofcapacitymustbeduetoadisability.98
inability to communicate a decision7.86 InVictoria,theinabilitytocommunicateadecisionisonlyspecificallyreferredtoas
indicatingincapacityinrelationtomedicalandothertreatmentdecisions.99
7.87 QueenslandandtheAustralianCapitalTerritoryaretheonlytwoAustralianjurisdictionstospecifythataninabilitytocommunicateadecisionispartofthetestforcapacitymoregenerally.100
Presumption of capacity7.88 Althoughthecommonlawpresumesthatadultshavethecapacitytomakedecisions
thataffecttheirownlivesunlessthereisevidencetothecontrary,101thispresumptionhasnotbeengivenstatutoryforceintheG&AAct.
7.89 QueenslandandWesternAustralianguardianshiplawshaveexplicitlyincludedapresumptionofcapacityintheirguardianshiplaws.102
92 Guardianship and Administration Act 1995(Tas)ss20(1)(b),51(1)(b);Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA)ss43(1)(b)(ii),64(1)(a);Adult Guardianship Act(NT)s3(1)(aspartofthedefinitionof‘intellectualdisability’forthepurposesofthisAct).
93 GuardianshipAct 1987(NSW)ss3,14(1).94 Ibids25G(a).95 Guardianship and Management of Property Act 1991(ACT)ss5,7(1)(a),8(1)(a).96 Guardianship and Administration Act 1993(SA)s3(definitionofmentalincapacity).97 Guardianship and Administration Act 2000(Qld)sch4(Dictionary),Powers of Attorney Act 1998(Qld)sch3(Dictionary).98 Guardianship and Administration Act 1986(Vic)ss3(definitionof‘disability’),22(1)(a)–(b),46(1)(a)(i)–(ii);Guardianship and Management
of Property Act 1991(ACT)s5;Guardianship Act 1987(NSW)s3(definitionof‘personinneedofaguardian’.Howeveradiagnostictestisnotspecificallyrequiredinrelationtotheappointmentofafinancialmanager:ats25G;Guardianship and Administration Act 1993(SA)s3(definitionof‘mentalincapacity’);Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA)ss3(definitionof‘mentaldisability’),64(1)(a);Guardianship and Administration Act 1995(Tas)ss3(definitionof‘disability’),20(1)(b),51(1)(b);Adult Guardianship Act(NT)s3(1)(definitionof‘intellectualdisability’forthepurposesofthisAct).
99 Guardianship and Administration Act 1986(Vic)s36(2).100 Guardianship and Administration Act 2000(Qld)sch4(Dictionary):definitionof‘capacity’;Powers of Attorney Act 1998(Qld)sch3
(Dictionary):definitionof‘capacity’;Guardianship and Administration Act 1993(SA)s3(definitionofmentalincapacity).101 SeeBorthwick v Carruthers (1787)99ER1300 andRe Cumming (1852)42ER660at668.102 Guardianship and Administration Act 2000(Qld)sch1pt1cl1;Guardianship and Administration Act 1990(WA)s4(3).Thepresumption
ofcapacityinQueenslandwasconsideredintheQueenslandSupremeCourtcaseofBucknall v Guardianship and Administration Tribunal (No 1)[2009]2QdR402.InthiscaseitwasfoundthattheQueenslandGuardianshipTribunalwasobligedtostartfromthepresumptionofcapacityindetermininganinitialapplicationforguardianshipandinreviewingaguardianshiporder,butthatanadministratorwasentitledtorelyontheTribunal’sfindingofincapacityinexercisingitspowers:at[21–6],[43].
111
other additions to capacity standards7.90 Queenslandguardianshiplawscontainanadditionalprovisionwhichamplifiesthe
capacitystandardintheActandwhichshouldbeconsideredwheneveranyoneismakingacapacityassessment:
thecapacityofanadultwithimpairedcapacitytomakedecisionsmaydifferaccordingto—
(i) thenatureandextentoftheimpairment;and
(ii) thetypeofdecisiontobemade,including,forexample,thecomplexityofthedecisiontobemade;and
(iii) thesupportavailablefrommembersoftheadult’sexistingsupportnetwork.103
7.91 GuardianshiplawsintheAustralianCapitalTerritoryspecifythatapersoncannotbefoundtohaveimpaireddecision-makingcapacityonlybecausetheperson:
(a) iseccentric;or
(b) doesordoesnotexpressaparticularpoliticalorreligiousopinion;or
(c) isofaparticularsexualorientationorexpressesaparticularsexualpreference;or
(d) engagesorhasengagedinillegalorimmoralconduct;or
(e) takesorhastakendrugs,includingalcohol(butanyeffectsofadrugmaybetakenintoaccount).104
engLAnd And WALes7.92 TheMental Capacity Act 2005(UK),whichoperatesinEnglandandWales,includes
adetailedincapacitystandardaswellasprinciplesforusewhenassessingwhetherapersonmeetsthatstandard.Apersonmustbeassumedtohavecapacityunlessitisshownthattheylackcapacity.105
7.93 AswithVictorianguardianshiplaws,theMentalCapacityActrequiresacausallinkbetweenafindingofincapacityandadisabilityorimpairment:
apersonlackscapacityinrelationtoamatterifatthematerialtimeheisunabletomakeadecisionforhimselfinrelationtothematterbecauseofanimpairmentof,oradisturbanceinthefunctioningof,themindorbrain.106
7.94 TheMentalCapacityActdescribeswhatitmeansforapersontobeunabletomakeadecision:
(1) …apersonisunabletomakeadecisionforhimselfifheisunable—
(a) tounderstandtheinformationrelevanttothedecision,
(b) toretainthatinformation,
(c) touseorweighthatinformationaspartoftheprocessofmakingthedecision,or
(d) tocommunicatehisdecision(whetherbytalking,usingsignlanguageoranyothermeans).
(2) Apersonisnottoberegardedasunabletounderstandtheinformationrelevanttoadecisionifheisabletounderstandanexplanationofitgiventohiminawaythatisappropriatetohiscircumstances(usingsimplelanguage,visualaidsoranyothermeans).
103 Guardianship and Administration Act 2000(Qld)s5(c).104 Guardianship and Management of Property Act 1991(ACT)s6A.105 Mental Capacity Act 2005(UK)s1(2).106 Ibids2(1).TheActalsospecifiesthatitdoesnotmatterwhethertheimpairmentordisturbanceispermanentortemporary:ats2(2).
Victorian Law Reform Commission – Guardianship: Final Report 24112
7Chapter 7 Capacity and incapacity(3) Thefactthatapersonisabletoretaintheinformationrelevanttoadecision
forashortperiodonlydoesnotpreventhimfrombeingregardedasabletomakethedecision.
(4) Theinformationrelevanttoadecisionincludesinformationaboutthereasonablyforeseeableconsequencesof—
(a)decidingonewayoranother,or
(b)failingtomakethedecision.
7.95 Theprinciplesforusewhenassessingincapacityarethat:
• Apersonisnottobetreatedasunabletomakeadecisionunlessallpracticablestepstohelphimorhertodosohavebeentakenwithoutsuccess.107
• Apersonisnottobetreatedasunabletomakeadecisionmerelybecauseheorshemakesanunwisedecision.108
• Alackofcapacitycannotbeestablishedmerelybyreferenceto—
(a) aperson’sageorappearance,or
(b) aconditionoranaspectofhisorherbehaviourwhichmightleadotherstomakeunjustifiedassumptionsabouthiscapacity.109
CAnAdA
Alberta and ontario7.96 TheCanadianprovincesofAlbertaandOntarioprovidefortheuseofcapacity
assessors,whomaycomefrommedicalandnon-medicalbackgrounds.
Capacity assessment in Alberta7.97 InAlberta,thecourtmustbesatisfiedthataperson‘doesnothavethecapacity
tomakedecisions’abouttherelevantmattersbeforeaguardianortrusteecanbeappointed.110Capacityisdefinedastheabilitytounderstandtheinformationrelevanttothedecision,andtoappreciatethereasonablyforeseeableconsequencesofadecisionorfailuretomakeadecision.111
7.98 Guardianship,trusteeshipandco-decision-makingapplicationsordinarilyrequirea‘capacityassessmentreport’.112Theprocessforcapacityassessmentissetoutindetailinregulations.113Capacityassessmentsareconductedby‘designatedcapacityassessors’.Medicalpractitionersandpsychologistsareautomaticallydesignatedcapacityassessors,butsocialworkers,registerednurses,psychiatricnursesandoccupationaltherapistsmayalsobecomedesignatedcapacityassessorsprovidedthattheyundergospecificcapacityassessmenttraining.114
7.99 ThePublicGuardianofAlbertadescribedAlberta’ssystemofdesignatedcapacityassessorsasa‘fabuloussuccess’,arguingthatitprovidesamorethoroughandinclusiveprocess.Theuseofsocialworkers,nursesandoccupationtherapistsallowscapacityassessmentstooccurmoreofteninenvironmentssuchastheperson’shome,whichallowthepersontoperformattheirbest.Theprocessofcapacityassessment
107 Mental Capacity Act 2005(UK)s1(3).108 Ibids1(4).109 Ibids2(3).110 Adult Guardianship and Trusteeship ActSA2008,cA-4.2,ss26(6)(a),46(5)(a).111 Ibids1(d).112 Ibidss13(2)(a),26(3)(a),46(2)(a).IfthepersonrefusesorisunabletoparticipateinthisprocesstheCourtmayconsiderotherevidence:ats
105.113 Adult Guardianship and Trusteeship Regulation,AltaReg219/2009,regs3–10.114 Ibidreg7.
113
takesuptotwohours,andthefindingsofassessmentsaregenerallyacceptedbycourtsinAlberta.115
7.100 Thissystemisquitecostly.AnassessormaychargeuptoCAD$500foracapacityreportinrelationtopersonalorfinancialmatters,andCAD$700forboth.116
Capacity Assessment in Ontario7.101 SimilartoAlberta,Ontariohasasystemofprescribedcapacity‘assessors’.
7.102 ThecapacitystandardinOntarioisthatapersonisincapableofmanagingtheirpropertyorpersonalcareifthepersonisnotabletounderstandinformationthatisrelevanttomakingadecision,orisnotabletoappreciatethereasonablyforeseeableconsequencesofadecisionorlackofdecision.117
7.103 CapacityassessorsinOntarioaretrainedandsupportedbythe‘CapacityAssessmentOffice’,whichalsoproducesguidelinesforcapacityassessment.118AswithAlberta,theprofessionalseligibletobecomecapacityassessorsaredoctors,psychologists,nurses,socialworkersandoccupationaltherapists.119Tobeanassessor,alloftheseprofessionalgroupsarerequiredtocompleteacourse,participateincontinuingeducation,andconductatleastfiveassessmentseverytwoyears.120
six-sTeP CAPACiTy AssessmenT PRoCess7.104 Oneapproachtocapacityassessmentthatreceivedsignificantsupportinconsultations
andsubmissionswasthesix-stepcapacityassessmentprocess,devisedbyProfessorPeterisDarzinsandcolleagues.121
7.105 Theprocessisasfollows:
• Step1:Ensurethereisavalidtriggerpresenttojustifyacapacityassessment,suchasapersondemonstratingbehaviourthatputsthemselvesorothersatrisk,ormakingchoicesthatseeminconsistentwiththeirpreviouslyheldvalues.
• Step2:Engagethepersonintheassessmentprocessbyseekingagreementandinformingthepersonabouttheprocessasfaraspossible.
• Step3:Gatherinformationaboutthetriggersfortheassessment,andinformationaboutthepersonthatcanhelpinformanassessmentoftheirdecisionmaking.
• Step4:Educatethepersonabouttherelevantdecisionstotheextentnecessarytoensurethat‘ignorance’isnotmistakenfor‘incapacity’.
• Step5:Assesstheperson’scapacitybydiligentlyandthoroughlydeterminingwhetherapersonunderstandsandappreciatesthedecisionstheyface.
• Step6:Takeappropriateactionbasedontheperson’scapacityresults,includingarrangingforasubstitutedecisionmakerifnecessary.122
7.106 Thesix-stepcapacityassessmentprocessstronglyemphasisestheneedtoworkfromapresumptionofcapacity.Theprocessofcapacityassessmentshouldprimarilyseekevidenceofincapacity,andifthisevidencecannotbefound,thepresumptionofcapacityshouldprevail.123
115 TeleconferencewithBrendaLeeDoyle–ProvincialDirector,OfficeofthePublicGuardian,AlbertaCanada(19May2011).116 Adult Guardianship and Trusteeship Regulation,AltaReg219/2009,regs9–10.117 Substitute Decisions Act,1992SO1992,c30,ss6,45.118 CapacityAssessmentOffice,OntarioMinistryfortheAttorneyGeneral,Guidelines for the Assessment of Capacity(May2005)<http://www.
attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/family/pgt/capacity/2005-05/guide-0505.pdf>.119 Substitute Decisions Act,1992,OReg460/05reg2(2).120 Substitute Decisions Act,1992,OReg460/05reg2(1),4–6.121 Darzins,MolloyandStrang,aboven8,1.122 Ibid12–18.123 Ibid3.
Victorian Law Reform Commission – Guardianship: Final Report 24114
7Chapter 7 Capacity and incapacity
CommuniTy ResPonses7.107 Intheconsultationpaper,weaskedforviewsaboutwhatcriteriashouldguide
theappointmentofsubstitutedecisionmakers,howtoimproveunderstandingoftheconceptofcapacity,andhowthelawcouldbetterreflectpeople’sdifferentexperiencesofimpaireddecision-makingability.TheCommissionproposedarangeofpossiblereformoptionsforcommunitycomment.
7.108 Amajorityofsubmissionsfavouredretainingthepresenceof‘disability’aspartofthecapacitystandardusedbyVCATwhendecidingwhethertoappointaguardianoradministrator.Therewasgeneralsupportforprovidingaclearerdefinitionofcapacityinguardianshiplaws,butsomedisagreementaboutwhatthatdefinitionshouldbe.Therewasstrongsupportforastatutorypresumptionofcapacityandlegislativecapacityassessmentprinciples.
The CAPACiTy sTAndARd7.109 TheCommissionposedtwoquestionsintheconsultationpaper:
• Should‘disability’continuetoberelevanttotheassessmentofcapacityandthecriteriaforappointment?
• Whatshouldbethelegislativestandardforcapacityundernewguardianshiplaws?124
disability as a precondition to lacking capacity7.110 Theissueofwhether‘disability’isanappropriateconceptforcontinueduse
inguardianshiplawformedpartofourtermsofreference.Inresponsetoourinformationpaper,anumberofgroupsexpressedconcernthatfocusingonpeoplewitha‘disability’wasdiscriminatoryandsuggestedthattherealissuewas‘incapacity’.125
7.111 Itwaswidelyacceptedthatthepresenceofdisabilityalonedoesnotjustifytheappointmentofaguardianoradministrator.126
7.112 However,therewasalsogeneralsupportfortheCommission’sproposalthatthepresenceofadisabilityshouldremainpartofthetestforfindingthatapersonlackscapacity.127Asmallernumberofsubmissionsarguedthatthepresenceofadisabilityshouldnotbeapreconditiontoafindingthatapersonlackscapacity—primarilyonthebasisthattherequirementisdiscriminatory.128TheVictorianEqualOpportunityandHumanRightsCommission,forexample,arguedthattherequirementofadiagnosisofdisabilityisa‘discriminatorystep’andthatconcernsaboutwideningthecategoryofpeopletowhomanordercouldapplyhadbeenoverstated.129
124 VictorianLawReformCommission,Guardianship,ConsultationPaperNo10(2011)199–200.125 Foreg,SubmissionsIP5(SouthwestAdvocacyAssociation),IP9(RoyalDistrictNursingService),IP11(TonyandHeatherTregale),IP19(Scope
Vic),IP20(DyingwithDignityVictoria),IP22(EpworthFoundation),IP29(AustralianAssociationofSocialWorkers),IP37(VictorianEqualOpportunityandHumanRightsCommission),IP42(HealthServicesCommissioner),IP46(TroyHuggins),IP47(LawInstituteofVictoria),IP50(ActionforCommunityLiving)andIP52(SpectrumMigrantResourceCentre).
126 ConsultationwithCollegeofClinicalNeuropsychologists(23March2011);SubmissionsCP14(BENETAS),CP17(InclusionMelbourne),CP45(ScopeVic),CP54(JacksonRyanPartners),CP57(AgedCareAssessmentServiceinVictoria),CP58(TheAustralianPsychologicalSociety),CP66(VictorianEqualOpportunityandHumanRightsCommission),CP71(SeniorsRightsVictoria),CP73(VictoriaLegalAid),CP74(PILCHHomelessPersons’LegalClinic)andCP75(FederationofCommunityLegalCentres(Victoria)).However,theCatholicArchdioceseofMelbournearguedthat‘disability’alonecouldbesufficientjustificationifthereisaneedforrepresentation:SubmissionCP27(CatholicArchdioceseofMelbourne).
127 ConsultationwithCollegeofClinicalNeuropsychologists(23March2011);SubmissionsCP14(BENETAS),CP19(OfficeofthePublicAdvocate),CP22(Alzheimer’sAustraliaVic),CP23(DrKristenPearson),CP29(STARVictoria),CP33(EasternHealth),CP47(DrMichaelMurray),CP48(CentrefortheAdvancementofLawandMentalHealth—MonashUniversity),CP54(JacksonRyanPartners),CP56(DisabilityDiscriminationLegalService),CP57(AgedCareAssessmentServiceinVictoria),CP58(TheAustralianPsychologicalSociety),CP59(CarersVictoria),CP70(StateTrusteesLimited),CP71(SeniorsRightsVictoria),CP73(VictoriaLegalAid),CP74(PILCHHomelessPersons’LegalClinic)andCP75(FederationofCommunityLegalCentres(Victoria)).
128 SubmissionCP37(MilduraBaseHospital),CP45(ScopeVic),CP63(Shih-NingThen,ProfLindyWillmott&AssocProfBenWhite(QUT))andCP66(VictorianEqualOpportunityandHumanRightsCommission).
129 SubmissionCP66(VictorianEqualOpportunityandHumanRightsCommission).
115
describing the capacity standard7.113 TheCommissionaskedwhethernewlegislationshoulddefine‘capacity’.The
CommissionsuggestedthatthedefinitionintheUnitedKingdom’sMentalCapacityActcouldbeadoptedinVictoriabecauseitistheproductofdetailedconsiderationofthisissueinasimilarjurisdiction.130
7.114 Theinclusionofaclearerlegislativedefinitionofcapacityorincapacitywassupportedinsubmissions,131buttherewasconcernamongsomegroupsthatadefinitioncouldproveoverlyprescriptive.132
7.115 ThePublicAdvocate,StateTrustees,theLawInstituteofVictoriaandseveralothergroupssupportedtheMentalCapacityActapproach,133whileothershadconcernswithparticularaspectsofthedefinition.
7.116 TheMentalCapacityActdefinitionisthatapersonlackstheabilitytomakeadecisioniftheyareunableto:
• understandtheinformationrelevanttothedecision,or
• retainthatinformation,or
• useorweighthatinformationaspartoftheprocessofmakingthedecision,or
• communicatetheirdecisioninsomeway.134
7.117 TheActprovidesfurtherguidanceaboutwhatthismeans,135andaCodeofPracticeprovidesadditionalassistance.136
7.118 Therequirementtobeabletocommunicatedecisionswasseenbyanumberofgroupsashavingthepotentialtoleadtoinappropriateincapacityfindingsforpeoplewithsignificantcommunicationimpairments.137Itwasarguedthatthelawshouldexplicitlyrequiretheprovisionofappropriateassistanceincommunication.138CommunicationRightsAustraliawasparticularlyconcerned,arguingthat‘withoutfullsupportitisinevitablethatanunacceptablenumberofpeoplewillhavetheirautonomyerodedonthebasisofinaccurateassessmentsoftheircapacity’.139
7.119 Therequirementto‘retain’informationwasalsocriticisedaspotentiallyincludingpeoplewhohavememorydifficulties,butarenonethelessabletomakedecisionsabouttheirownaffairs.140SeniorsRightsVictoriaarguedthatthelawshouldonlyrequiretheabilitytoretaininformationforaslongasisnecessarytomakethedecision.141
7.120 TheAustralianPsychologicalSociety(APA)supportedastatutoryframeworkfortheassessmentofcapacity,butsuggestedmodificationstotheMentalCapacityActapproach.TheAPAarguedthatretentionofinformationisneededforboththedecisionanditsimplementation,andthattheframeworkshouldidentifypeoplewho
130 TheMental Capacity Act 2005(UK)wastheresultofanextensivereviewprocessconductedbytheLawCommissionofEnglandandWales.TheCommission’sreportconsideredthecapacitystandardwhichshouldbeused,whichwasultimatelyadoptedinEnglandandWales.SeeLawCommission(UnitedKingdom),Mental Incapacity,ReportNo231(1995)32–41.
131 SubmissionsCP19(OfficeofthePublicAdvocate),CP57(AgedCareAssessmentServiceinVictoria),CP58(TheAustralianPsychologicalSociety),CP59(CarersVictoria),CP74(PILCHHomelessPersons’LegalClinic)andCP77(LawInstituteofVictoria).
132 SubmissionsCP66(VictorianEqualOpportunityandHumanRightsCommission)andCP67(TrusteeCorporationsAssociationofAustralia).133 SubmissionsCP19(OfficeofthePublicAdvocate),CP57(AgedCareAssessmentServiceinVictoria),CP59(CarersVictoria),CP70(State
TrusteesLimited),CP74(PILCHHomelessPersons’LegalClinic),CP77(LawInstituteofVictoria)andCP78(MentalHealthLegalCentre).134 Mental Capacity Act 2005(UK)s3(1).135 Ibids3(2)–(4).136 DepartmentforConstitutionalAffairs(UnitedKingdom),Mental Capacity Act 2005 Code of Practice(TheStationeryOffice,2007)40–62.137 Consultationwithcarers,serviceprovidersandadvocatesinBendigo(30March2011);SubmissionCP75(FederationofCommunityLegal
Centres(Victoria)).138 SubmissionsCP29(STARVictoria),CP75(FederationofCommunityLegalCentres(Victoria))andCP82(CommunicationRightsAustralia).139 SubmissionCP82(CommunicationRightsAustralia).140 SubmissionsCP22(Alzheimer’sAustraliaVic),CP71(SeniorsRightsVictoria)andCP73(VictoriaLegalAid).141 SubmissionCP71(SeniorsRightsVictoria).
Victorian Law Reform Commission – Guardianship: Final Report 24116
7Chapter 7 Capacity and incapacitylackinsightintothepotentialconsequencesofthedecisions—inparticularpeoplewithdamagetothefrontalregionsofthebrain.TheAPAproposedthefollowingamendeddefinition:
Apersonisunabletomakeadecisionforhimselfifheisunable—
(a) tounderstandtheinformationrelevanttothedecision
(b) toretainthatinformationforaslongasisrelevanttothedecisionanditsimplementation
(c) toappreciatethepotentialconsequencesofthedecisiononthemselvesandtheirsituation
(d) toweightherisksandbenefitsoftheoptionsaspartofmakingthedecision
(e) tocommunicatethedecisioninsomeway(whetherbytalking,usingsignlanguageoranyothermeans).142
CAPACiTy AssessmenT7.121 IntheconsultationpapertheCommissionproposed:
• introducinglegislativeprinciplestoguidetheassessmentofcapacity
• includingapresumptionofcapacityinnewlegislation
• recognisingthatcapacityisdecisionandtimespecific;shouldnotbeassumedbasedonappearance;shouldnotbebasedsolelyonevidenceof‘unwise’decisionmaking;andthatincapactityshouldnotbefoundifitispossibletosupportthepersontomakethedecision.143
7.122 TheseproposalswerebasedonconcernsexpressedtotheCommissionaboutthecursorymannerinwhichcapacityassessmentsaresometimesconducted,144andimportantdevelopmentsinotherjurisdictions.145
7.123 Theproposalsforalegislativepresumptionofcapacityandtheinclusionofstatutoryprinciplesguidingcapacityassessmentswerestronglysupportedinconsultationsandsubmissions.146
7.124 Whilegenerallysupportiveoftheproposedprinciples,Scopearguedthattheprinciplesshouldfurtheremphasisetheprovisionofsupportindecision-makingandsupporteddecision-makingprinciples.147
7.125 TheVictorianEqualOpportunityandHumanRightsCommissionnotedthevalueinaconsistentapproachtocapacitybetweenguardianshipandmentalhealthlaws,andamoveawayfroman‘allornothing’approachtoassessingcapacity.148
The Commission’s VieWs And ConCLusionsReTAining The ConneCTion beTWeen ‘disAbiLiTy’ And ‘inCAPACiTy’7.126 TheCommissionbelievesthatnewguardianshiplawsshouldrequireproofofacausal
connectionbetweenaperson’slackofcapacityandadisability.WediscussthisissueagaininChapter12wherewelookatthecriteriaforVCATtoapplybeforeitappointsasubstitutedecisionmaker.
142 SubmissionCP58(TheAustralianPsychologicalSociety).143 VictorianLawReformCommission,Guardianship,ConsultationPaperNo10(2011)201.144 Ibid189–190.145 PrimarilytheMental Capacity Act 2005(UK)ss1–3.146 Roundtableswithpeoplewithacquiredbraininjuries(16March2011)andDisabilityAdvocacyResourceUnit(13April2011);Submissions
CP58(TheAustralianPsychologicalSociety),CP69(AustralianMedicalAssociation(Victoria)),CP73(VictoriaLegalAid)andCP78(MentalHealthLegalCentre).
147 SubmissionCP45(ScopeVic).148 SubmissionCP66(VictorianEqualOpportunityandHumanRightsCommission).
117
7.127 Asnotedearlier,capacityisalegalconstructultimatelydeterminedbyprofessionaljudgmentratherthanbyobjectivetesting.Inordertoensurethatfindingsofincapacityarenotmadebecauseofsubjectiveviewsaboutthequalityofparticulardecisions,itisimportantthatpartoftheassessmentprocessrelyuponobjective,verifiablegrounds.Thiswouldoccurifalinkbetween‘disability’and‘incapacity’isretained.
7.128 Retainingthislinkshouldalsoensurethatguardianshiplawdoesnotbecomeameansofcontrollingpeoplewithbehaviouralproblems.Guardianshipshouldcontinuetobeseenasamechanismforassistingpeoplewhohaveimpaireddecision-makingabilitybecauseofdisabilitytoretaintheirindividualstatusandparticipateinthelifeofthecommunitytothefullestextentpossible.Numerousotherlegalmechanismscanbeinvokedtoassistpeoplewithbehaviouralproblemsandtoprotectthecommunityfrompeoplewhoposeanunacceptableriskofharm.149
ReCommendATionRetaining the connection between disability and incapacity
22. Thelawshouldstatethatapersonlackscapacityinrelationtoamatterifattherelevanttimetheyareunabletomakeadecisioninrelationtothematterbecauseofadisability.
definition of disability7.129 Thecurrentdefinitionof‘disability’intheG&AAct—‘intellectualimpairment,mental
disorder,braininjury,physicaldisabilityordementia’150—remainsappropriatefornewguardianshiplaws.Someconcernwasexpressedaboutthecontinuedinclusionof‘physicaldisability’,giventhatthepresenceofaphysicaldisabilityisaseparateissuefromaperson’scognitiveabilitytomakeadecision.However,becauseaphysicaldisabilitycanbearuponaperson’scapacitytoexecuteadecisionbyimpairingtheirabilitytocommunicatetheirwishes,theCommissionbelievesitscontinuedinclusioninthedefinitionof‘disability’isappropriate.
7.130 TheCommissionacceptsAutismVictoria’ssubmissionthat‘autismspectrumdisorder’shouldbeincludedinthedefinitionof‘disability’forthepurposesoftheAct.Thiswillclearlyindicatethatautismspectrumdisorderisaconditionthatcanimpairaperson’sdecision-makingability.
7.131 Whileitisarguablethatautismspectrumdisorderisalreadyincludedinthedefinitionof‘disability’becauseitfallswithintheconceptof‘mentaldisorder’,theCommissionbelievesthatitishelpfultoputthismatterbeyonddoubtbyspecificallyincludingautismspectrumdisorder.Whilehavinganautismspectrumdisorderdoesnotnecessarilymeanthataperson’sdecision-makingabilityisimpaired,guardianshiplegislationshouldbeavailabletoapersonwithautismspectrumdisorderwhosatisfiesallofthecriteriafortheappointmentofasubstitutedecisionmaker.
ReCommendATionThe definition of disability
23. Thedefinitionof‘disability’shouldincludeintellectualimpairment,autismspectrumdisorder,mentaldisorder,braininjury,physicaldisabilityordementia.
149 Seeeg,Severe Substances Dependence Treatment Act 2010(Vic);Disability Act 2006(Vic)pt8;Mental Health Act 1986(Vic)pt3;Serious Sex Offenders (Detention and Supervision) Act 2009 (Vic); Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004(Vic);Sentencing Act 1991(Vic)pt2A,s18B.
150 Guardianship and Administration Act 1986(Vic)s3(1).
Victorian Law Reform Commission – Guardianship: Final Report 24118
7Chapter 7 Capacity and incapacity
disability should not be a separate criterion7.132 Asforeshadowedintheconsultationpaper,theCommissionbelievesthat‘disability’
shouldnotbeaseparateanddistinctelementofthestatutorygroundsforappointingasubstitutedecisionmaker.Thisrecommendationrepresentsanimportantchangetothecurrentlaw.Retaining‘disability’asaseparateelementwouldbeoutofstepwithacapacity-basedapproachtoguardianshiplaws.TheCommissionconsidersthataperson’sdisabilityshouldberelevantonlytotheextentthatitbearsupontheirabilitytomakeorimplementdecisions.
7.133 Althoughthisreformisunlikelytobringaboutanychangeinpractice,itissymbolicallyimportantbecauseitreinforcesthenotionthatincapacityratherthandisabilityjustifiestheappointmentofasubstitutedecisionmaker.
7.134 Thisapproachwaslargelysupportedinsubmissions,151althoughsomesubmissionsarguedthattheCommissionshouldgofurtherandrecommendremovalofallreferencetodisabilityasapreconditionforafindingofincapacity.152VictoriaLegalAidexpressedconcerns,sharedbytheCommission,aboutremovingreferencetodisabilityaltogether:
Thealternativeproposalofremovingthecriterionof‘disability’altogetherisproblematic.Itwouldmeanthat,regardlessofthecauseofaperson’sinabilitytomakereasonablejudgments,iftheylackedcapacityanadministratororguardiancouldbeappointed.Theissueofhowthiscapacitycouldbetestedandobjectivelyassessedwouldneedtobedetermined.ThereisalsotheriskthatremovingthiscriterionwouldallowthelawtobeusedtomakeordersinafarmoreliberalwaythanParliamentintended.IfthisapproachweretobeadoptedthenpeoplewithsubstancedependenciescouldeasilybecaughtwithintheAct.TheActshouldnotbeusedasaformofsocialcontrolortoprotectpeoplewhoarevulnerable,eveniftheyaremakingobjectivelybaddecisions,wherethereisnoissueofincapacity.153
7.135 TheCommissionacknowledgestheconcernsbysomegroupsthatcontinuedreferenceto‘disability’couldbeseenasdiscriminatory.However,onbalance,theseconcernsareoutweighedbytheneedtoensurethatthereissomeobjectivebasisuponwhichtomakeafindingofincapacity.154InChapter12theCommissionmakesaspecificrecommendationexcludingtheconsiderationofdisabilityasaseparatecriteriaforaVCATappointmentofasubstitutedecisionmaker.
defining inCAPACiTy And CAPACiTy7.136 TheCommissionbelievesthatnewguardianshiplawsshoulddefinebothcapacity
andincapacity.Acapacitystandardwouldbeusedwhendeterminingwhetherapersonhasthecognitiveabilitytoappointanenduringpersonalguardianorfinancialadministrator.Anincapacitystandardwouldbeusedwhendeterminingwhetherapersonisunabletomakedecisionsforthemselvesandapersonalappointmentbecomesoperative,atribunalappointmentmightbynecessary,orahealthdecisionmakerassumesresponsibilityformakingmedicaltreatmentdecisions.
7.137 TheCommissionbelievesthattheincapacitystandardandtheincapacityassessmentframeworkintheUnitedKingdom’sMentalCapacityActareusefulprecedentsthat
151 Foreg,SubmissionsCP19(OfficeofthePublicAdvocate),CP73(VictoriaLegalAid)andCP77(LawInstituteofVictoria).However,theCatholicArchdiocesearguedagainstthisapproach,arguingthatadisabilityshouldbeenoughtojustifyanapplicationforguardianshipifthereisaneedforrepresentationandthereshouldbenotestsforincapacity:SubmissionCP27(CatholicArchdioceseofMelbourne).
152 Foreg,SubmissionsCP45(ScopeVic),CP63(Shih-NingThen,ProfLindyWillmott&AssocProfBenWhite(QUT))andCP66(VictorianEqualOpportunityandHumanRightsCommission).
153 SubmissionCP73(VictoriaLegalAid).154 TheCommissionnotesthatthisapproachdiffersfromthatoftheQueenslandLawReformCommission,whichrecentlyrecommended
retainingQueensland’scurrentapproachofnotrequiringafindingofadisabilityaspartofthetestforincapacity.TheQueenslandLawReformCommissionarguedthattodosowouldbediscriminatory:QueenslandLawReformCommission,A Review of Queensland’s Guardianship Laws,ReportNo67(2010)vol1,270.
119
canbeadaptedforuseinVictoria.TheCommissionrecommendsafewchangesofdetail,basedlargelyuponaspectsoftheQueenslandlegislation.TheapproachintheUnitedKingdomActwasmostlysupportedinsubmissions,andwasendorsedintheVictorianParliamentLawReformCommittee’sInquiry Into Powers of Attorney.155
The ability to retain information7.138 TheUnitedKingdomAct’sstipulationthataninabilitytoretaininformationisoneof
fourindicatorsofincapacitywasofparticularconcerntogroupsassociatedwithage-relateddisabilities.TheMentalCapacityActalsomakesitclearthatitissufficientthatapersonmayonlybeabletoretaininformationforashortperiod.156
7.139 TheCommissionbelievesthatitispreferabletodealwiththeissueofretentionofinformationbysayingthatapersonrequirestheabilitytoretaininformationonlytotheextentthatisnecessarytomakethedecision.Thisapproachacknowledgesthatsomedecisions—suchasthoseinvolvingcomplexfinancialtransactions—mightrequireanabilitytoretaininformationonanongoingbasis,whereasotherroutinedecisionsmightrequireaverylimitedabilitytoretaininformation.
effect of the decision7.140 AnothercriticismoftheMentalCapacityActtest—primarilyfromtheAustralian
PsychologicalAssociation—isthatitdoesnotadequatelyrecognisetheimportanceoftheabilitytounderstandthepossibleconsequencesofthedecision.157However,theMentalCapacityActdealswiththismatterinthefollowingway:
Theinformationrelevanttoadecisionincludesinformationaboutthereasonablyforeseeableconsequencesof—
(a) decidingonewayoranother,or
(b) failingtomakethedecision.158
7.141 TheCommissionprefersthesimplertestusedinmanybranchesofthecommonlawthataperson‘understandthenatureandeffect’ofadecision.159TheCommissionhasincorporatedthe‘effect’limbofthistestinitsrecommendationthatthepersonmustbecapableofunderstanding‘theinformationrelevanttoadecisionand the effect of the decision’.
7.142 ThisamendmenttotheMentalCapacityActstandardmakestheabilitytounderstandthelikelyconsequencesofadecisionaclearercomponentofthetest.Thisisimportantbecauseanunderstandingoftheeffectofadecisionisanessentialcomponentofbeinglegallyresponsibleforthatdecision.
Ability to communicate the decision7.143 Concernsabouttherequirementofbeingabletocommunicateadecisionfellintotwo
categories:
• Concernthatpeoplewillbeinappropriatelyfoundtolackcapacitywhentheyreallylackassistanceincommunication.
• Abroaderconcernthataninabilitytocommunicateadecisiondoesnotmeanapersonlacksthecognitiveabilitytomakeadecision.
155 LawReformCommittee,ParliamentofVictoria,Inquiry into Powers of Attorney (2010)110–113(‘Inquiry into Powers of Attorney’).156 Mental Capacity Act 2005(UK)s3(3).157 SubmissionCP58(TheAustralianPsychologicalSociety).158 Mental Capacity Act 2005(UK)s3(4).159 TheleadingcaseoncapacitytoenterintoacontractinAustralia—Gibbons v Wright(1954)91CLR423—heldthatapersonmusthave‘such
soundnessofmindastobecapableofunderstandingthegeneralnatureofwhatheisdoingbyhisparticipation’:at437(DixonCJ,KittoandTaylorJJ).InadditiontoformingthestandardforcapacityforentryintoenduringpowersofattorneyinVictoria,thetestof‘natureandeffect’formspartofthestandardforguardianshiplawsinQueensland:seeGuardianship and Administration Act 2000(Qld)sch4.
Victorian Law Reform Commission – Guardianship: Final Report 24120
7Chapter 7 Capacity and incapacity7.144 Aphysiologicalinabilitytocommunicateadecisiondoesnotmeanapersonlacksthe
cognitiveabilitytomakethatdecision.Allreasonableeffortsshouldbemadetoassistpeopleinthesecircumstancestocommunicatetheirdecisionstoothers.However,wherealleffortstoassistapersontocommunicatehavebeentriedwithoutsuccess,itshouldbepossibletofindthatapersonlackslegalcapacity,andthereforeallowforthepossibilityofappointingasubstitutedecisionmaker.Theappointmentofasubstitutedecisionmakermaybejustifiedinthesecircumstancesonthebasisthatthereisnootherwaytoensuretheperson’srightsandinterestsareprotectedsothattheycanparticipateinthemanyactivitieswherecapacityisessential.
7.145 TheCommissionsuggeststhatthelawshouldincludeaverybroaddefinitionofwhatitmeanstobeabletocommunicateadecision,andfurtherprinciplestoguidetheprocessofcapacityassessment.
ReCommendATionsDefining incapacity
24. Apersonisunabletomakeadecisioniftheyareunableto:
(a) understandtheinformationrelevanttothedecisionandtheeffectofthedecision
(b) retainthatinformationtotheextentnecessarytomakethedecision
(c) useorweighthatinformationaspartoftheprocessofmakingthedecision,or
(d) communicatethedecisioninsomeway.
Defining capacity
25. Apersonhasthecapacitytomakeadecisioniftheyareableto:
(a) understandtheinformationrelevanttothedecisionandtheeffectofthedecision
(b) retainthatinformationtotheextentnecessarytomakethedecision
(c) useorweighthatinformationaspartoftheprocessofmakingthedecision,and
(d) communicatethedecisioninsomeway.
Assessing CAPACiTy7.146 Assessingcapacityisaverycomplexundertaking.Therearenodefinitive,objective
testsandrelativelyfewprofessionalsarespeciallytrainedtoconductcapacityassessments.ProfessionalswithdecadesofexperiencehavesuggestedtotheCommissionthatcapacityassessmentactuallygetsharderovertime,aspractitionersbecomemoreawareofthecomplexandindividualisednatureofcognitiveabilityandinability.160
7.147 TheCommissionbelievesthatclearprinciplesshouldinformtheprocessofcapacityassessmentunderguardianshiplaws.Theseprinciplesshouldprovideguidancewhenanyone—includingclinicians,tribunalmembers,orpersonsappointedunderenduringpowers—isrequiredtodeterminewhetheranotherpersonhascapacitytoengageinaparticularactivity.
160 ConsultationwithAustralian&NewZealandSocietyforGeriatricMedicine(7April2011).
121
7.148 TheprinciplesproposedbytheCommissionintheconsultationpaperwerestronglysupportedinconsultationsandsubmissionsand,withsomeadditions,haveformedthebasisoftheCommission’srecommendations.TheVictorianParliamentLawReformCommittee’sInquiry into Powers of Attorneyalsorecommendedsimilarprinciples.161
Presumption of capacity7.149 Whileitwouldeffectivelybearestatementofthecommonlaw,astatutory
recognitionofapresumptionofcapacityissymbolicallysignificant.
7.150 ThelegalpresumptionofcapacityisaparticularlyimportantstartingpointforVCATwhendeterminingwhetherasubstitutedecisionmakershouldbeappointed.Thepresumptionisalsoimportantwhenanassessmentismadeaboutwhetherapersonalappointmentshouldbeactivatedduetolossofcapacity.
ReCommendATionPresumption of capacity
26. Apersonmustbepresumedtohavecapacityunlessitisestablishedthatthepersonlackscapacity.
Capacity is decision-specific and time-specific7.151 Itisunhelpfultoviewcapacityasanattributethatapersoneitherhasordoesnot
have.Impaireddecision-makingcapacitymaybetemporaryorpermanentandcanfluctuateovertimeoraccordingtothedecisiontobemade.
7.152 Whilesomepeoplemaylosesomeormostcapacitypermanently—forexample,apersoninthelatestagesofdementia—othersmayonlytemporarilylosecapacity.
7.153 Similarly,aninabilitytomakedecisionsinonearea—suchasthemanagementofmoney—doesnotnecessarilymeanthatapersonisunabletomakeotherdecisionsaboutotheraspectsoftheirpersonalcircumstances,suchasdecisionsaroundhealthcareoraccommodation.
7.154 Whiletheseprinciplesalreadyappeartoinformapproachestocapacityassessment,theCommissionbelievesthereisbenefitinincludingtheminnewguardianshiplaws.
Capacity is support-dependant7.155 Thisprinciple,drawnfromtheUnitedKingdom’sMentalCapacityAct,recognises
thataperson’scapacitytomakeadecisioncanbeaffectedbythesupportavailabletothem.Somepeoplewhostruggletomakeadecisionalonemightbecapableofmakingtheirowndecisionwiththesupportofatrustedperson.
7.156 ThisprinciplewouldalsoobligeVCATtoconsideroptionsthatarelessrestrictiveofaperson’sautonomywhendecidingtoappointasubstitutedecisionmaker.ThisprincipleisconsistentwithAustralia’sobligationsundertheConvention.162
Capacity should be properly assessed, and should not be based on assumptions7.157 Theseproposals,alsodrawnfromtheMentalCapacityAct,areconsistentwitha
modern,functionalapproachtocapacityassessment.
161 Inquiry into Powers of Attorney,aboven155,113–120.162 Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilitiesarts12(3),(4).
Victorian Law Reform Commission – Guardianship: Final Report 24122
7Chapter 7 Capacity and incapacity7.158 Anadult’slackofcapacitytomakeadecisionshouldnotbeassumedbecauseoftheir
age,appearance,condition,oranaspectoftheirbehaviour.Additionally,apersonshouldnotbeconsideredtolackthecapacitytomakeadecisionmerelybecausetheymakeadecisionthatothersconsiderunwise.
7.159 Whileaperson’sconditionorrepeatedlypoordecisionsmightgiverisetoconcernsabouttheircapacity,thesemattersshouldnotbeacceptedasproofalonethatapersonlackscapacity.
Capacity should be assessed in an appropriate environment7.160 Aperson’scapacitytomakeadecisionmayvaryaccordingtothecircumstances
inwhichanassessmentoccurs.Whenassessingaperson’scapacity,everyattemptshouldbemadetoensurethattheassessmentoccursatatimeandinanenvironmentinwhichtheircapacitycanmostaccuratelybeassessed.Forexample,apersonmaydemonstrategreaterdecision-makingabilitywhenassessedintheirhomeenvironmentratherthaninanunfamiliarsettingsuchasahospitaloratribunalhearingroom.Theymayalsoperformbetteratcertaintimesofthedaythanatothers.
ReCommendATionsCapacity assessment principles
27. Newguardianshiplegislationshouldcontainthefollowingcapacityassessmentprinciples:
(a) Aperson’scapacityisspecifictothedecisiontobemade.
(b) Impaireddecision-makingcapacitymaybetemporaryorpermanentandcanfluctuateovertime.
(c) Anadult’sincapacitytomakeadecisionshouldnotbeassumedbasedontheirage,appearance,condition,oranaspectoftheirbehaviour.
(d) Apersonshouldnotbeconsideredtolackthecapacitytomakeadecisionmerelybecausetheymakeadecisionthatothersconsidertobeunwise.
(e) Apersonshouldnotbeconsideredtolackthecapacitytomakeadecisionifitispossibleforthemtomakethatdecisionwithappropriatesupport.
(f) Whenassessingaperson’scapacity,everyattemptshouldbemadetoensurethattheassessmentoccursatatimeandinanenvironmentinwhichtheircapacitycanmostaccuratelybeassessed.
meAns of Assessing CAPACiTy
Victoria capacity assessment toolkit7.161 ConsistentwiththerecommendationoftheVictorianParliamentLawReform
Committee,163theCommissionbelievesthatthedevelopmentofacapacityassessmenttoolkitinVictoriawouldbebeneficial,andcontributetocapacityassessmentstandards.
7.162 TheNewSouthWalescapacitytoolkit164—whichhasreceivedbroadsupport—shouldbeadaptedtotheVictoriancontext,andinparticulartoreformsofVictorianguardianshiplaws.
163 Inquiry into Powers of Attorney,aboven155,113–130.164 NSWGovernmentCapacity Toolkit(15February2001)Lawlink:AttorneyGeneralandJustice<http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/
diversityservices/LL_DiversitySrvces.nsf/pages/diversity_services_capacity_toolkit>.
123
ReCommendATionMeans of assessing capacity
28. TheVictorianGovernmentshoulddevelopacomprehensiveresourceaboutcapacityandcapacityassessmentbasedontheNewSouthWalescapacitytoolkit.
Qualified capacity assessors7.163 TheCommissionbelievestheVictorianGovernmentshouldconsiderintroducinga
trainingandcertificationsystemforcapacityassessmentbasedonthedesignatedcapacityassessorsystemsdevelopedinOntarioandAlberta.Thisconsiderationshouldinvolvekeyorganisationswithaninterestinguardianshiplaws,suchasthePublicAdvocate,StateTrusteesandotherprofessionaladministrators,andVCAT.
7.164 Thequalityofcapacityassessmentswouldclearlybeimprovedbyrelyingontrainedandcertifiedcapacityassessors.Asthereisconsiderablecostassociatedwithsuchascheme,theCommissionrecommendsthattheVictorianGovernmentfurtherevaluatethisproposal.
ReCommendATionQualified capacity assessors
29. TheVictorianGovernmentshouldconsiderthedevelopmentofasystemofdesignatedcapacityassessors,basedontheAlbertamodelofdesignatedcapacityassessors.