Chapter 7 Capacity and incapacity

27
7 Chapter 7 Capacity and incapacity 97 CONTENTS Introduction 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

Transcript of Chapter 7 Capacity and incapacity

Page 1: Chapter 7 Capacity and incapacity

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

Page 2: Chapter 7 Capacity and incapacity

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.

Page 3: Chapter 7 Capacity and incapacity

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>.

Page 4: Chapter 7 Capacity and incapacity

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).

Page 5: Chapter 7 Capacity and incapacity

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.

Page 6: Chapter 7 Capacity and incapacity

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.

Page 7: Chapter 7 Capacity and incapacity

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).

Page 8: Chapter 7 Capacity and incapacity

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.

Page 9: Chapter 7 Capacity and incapacity

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.

Page 10: Chapter 7 Capacity and incapacity

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.

Page 11: Chapter 7 Capacity and incapacity

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).

Page 12: Chapter 7 Capacity and incapacity

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).

Page 13: Chapter 7 Capacity and incapacity

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’.

Page 14: Chapter 7 Capacity and incapacity

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].

Page 15: Chapter 7 Capacity and incapacity

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).

Page 16: Chapter 7 Capacity and incapacity

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.

Page 17: Chapter 7 Capacity and incapacity

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.

Page 18: Chapter 7 Capacity and incapacity

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).

Page 19: Chapter 7 Capacity and incapacity

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).

Page 20: Chapter 7 Capacity and incapacity

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).

Page 21: Chapter 7 Capacity and incapacity

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).

Page 22: Chapter 7 Capacity and incapacity

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.

Page 23: Chapter 7 Capacity and incapacity

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.

Page 24: Chapter 7 Capacity and incapacity

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).

Page 25: Chapter 7 Capacity and incapacity

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).

Page 26: Chapter 7 Capacity and incapacity

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>.

Page 27: Chapter 7 Capacity and incapacity

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.