Page values for "A Local Authority v JB (2021) UKSC 52"

"_pageData" values

1 row is stored for this page
FieldField typeValue
_creationDateDatetime2021-11-25 10:49:39 PM
_modificationDateDatetime2023-06-06 9:29:07 PM
_creatorStringJonathan
_fullTextSearchtext{{Case |Date=2021/11/24 |NCN=[2021] UKSC 52 |Essex issue=118 |Essex page=3 |Court=Supreme Court |Judges=Briggs, Arden, Burrows, Stephens, Rose |Parties=A Local Authority, JB |Judicial history first case=A Local Authority v JB (2019) EWCOP 39 |Sentence=Capacity and sexual relations |Summary=The joint ...
_categoriesList of String, delimiter: |2021 cases Cases Judgment available on Bailii Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function Sex and marriage cases Judgment_available_on_Bailii 2021_cases
_isRedirectBooleanNo
_pageNameOrRedirectStringA Local Authority v JB (2021) UKSC 52
_pageIDInteger14,000
_pageNamePageA Local Authority v JB (2021) UKSC 52
_pageTitleString

A Local Authority v JB [2021] UKSC 52

_pageNamespaceInteger0

"Cases" values

1 row is stored for this page
FieldField typeValue
SentenceWikitext

Capacity and sexual relations

SummaryWikitext

The joint expert described JB's number one priority as "to get" a woman as a sexual partner, with the sole goal being physical and sexual contact with a woman and any woman, and that JB lacked understanding of concepts of consent by the other person and so posed a risk of sexual offending to women. The Supreme Court (dismissing the Official Solicitor's appeal) decided that in assessing JB's capacity "the matter" was his "engaging in" (rather than consenting to) sexual relations, and that information relevant to that decision includes the fact that the other person must have the ability to consent to the sexual activity and must in fact consent before and throughout the sexual activity. The Supreme Court reiterated that capacity assessments should first ask whether the person is "unable to make a decision for himself in relation to the matter" (which involves formulating "the matter" and consequently identifying "the information relevant to the decision" which includes information about the reasonably foreseeable consequences to the patient and others) and secondly ask whether that inability is "because of" an impairment of, or a disturbance in the functioning of, the mind or brain. In relation to sexual relations "the matter" will ordinarily be formulated in a non-specific way: in this case JB's wishes were non-specific, but in another case "the matter" might be person-specific (e.g. sex between a long-standing couple where one person had a relevant impairment, or between two mutually-attracted people both with relevant impairments). The question of JB's capacity was remitted to the original judge for reconsideration.

DetailText
SubjectList of String, delimiter: ,Sex and marriage cases
Judicial_historyWikitext
Judicial_history_first_pagePage
DateDate2021-11-24
JudgesList of String, delimiter: ,Briggs Arden Burrows Stephens Rose
PartiesList of String, delimiter: ,A Local Authority JB
CourtStringSupreme Court
NCNString[2021] UKSC 52
MHLRString
ICLRString
ICLR_IDString
EssexString
Essex_issueString118
Essex_pageString3
Other_citationsList of String, delimiter: ,
CitesList of String, delimiter: #
External_linksText*[https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2021/52.image.pdf BAILII: Press summary] *[https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2020-0133.html Supreme Court: Case page] - including videos of the hearing and an "easy read" summary
JudgmentFile

"News" values

1 row is stored for this page
FieldField typeValue
Which_tableStringCases
RSS_titleWikitext
RSS_descriptionWikitext
RSS_pubdateDatetime2021-11-25 9:51:18 PM