The Role of Values and Participation in Judicial Deliberation and Mental Capacity Law

价值观和参与在司法审议和心理能力法中的作用

基本信息

批准号：
AH/R013055/1
负责人：
Camillia Kong
金额：
$ 102.28万
依托单位：
Birkbeck, University of London
依托单位国家：
英国
项目类别：
Research Grant
财政年份：
2018
资助国家：
英国
起止时间：
2018 至无数据
项目状态：
已结题

来源：
https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=AH%2FR013055%2F1
关键词：
Role Values Participation Judicial Deliberation

项目摘要

The empowering principle within the Mental Capacity Act 2005 in England and Wales (MCA) means that the participation and values of individuals with impairments are accorded importance in decisions about their care and treatment. Whether this empowering ethos has been realised in judicial practice is an urgent cause for concern. Judicial discretion currently determines the extent to which P (the subject of proceedings) is involved in decision-making about his or her capacity or best interests, rendering the participatory ideal of the Act contingent on the outcome of judicial deliberation. Some judges meet with P and make decisions in light of P's participation in proceedings; others argue that P's participation is relative to P's proximity to the capacity threshold. These discrepant practices are further complicated by the UN Convention for the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) which requires that the rights, will, and preferences of persons with disabilities ought to be respected (Art. 12) and such persons are to have effective access to justice on an equal basis with others (Art. 13). The possibility that judicial practices around P's participation in legal proceedings violate core principles in the MCA and CRPD suggests a pressing need for further critical scrutiny of the nature of judicial deliberation in mental capacity law. This project will clarify the normative function of values in judicial deliberation about (a) P's effective participation and values, (b) mental capacity, (c) best interests in mental capacity law, so as to ensure that such deliberation stands on clear justification. Judges in the practice of mental capacity law are consistently charged with making difficult decisions, ranging from whether or not P's testimony should have weight in deliberations, to judgments about P's care and treatment, which could result in P's death. Such decisions will invoke practitioners' deeper intuitions and values that go beyond legal principles. The project undertakes a long overdue analysis of this phenomenon in mental capacity law, which will demand interdisciplinary methods drawn from social science, philosophy, and legal analysis. The project will also have significant broader implications, such as improving transparency in judicial deliberation process and influencing future policy guidelines and rules around the participation and empowerment of individuals with disabilities in decisions which fundamentally affect their lives. Judicial deliberation determines both procedural decisions (i.e. meetings with P, the extent of P's participation in proceedings) and substantive decisions (i.e. P's capacity and best interests, the weight of P's values in such decisions). Particularly in ethically fraught cases featuring incommensurable values, published judgments can appear as post hoc justifications or impressionistic weighing exercises, with little discussion of how values influence such decisions. Further clarity about the deliberative function of values is necessary if certain judicial decisions in mental capacity law are to be explicable and justifiable. The project aims to:- Improve empirical knowledge of how judges currently invoke values in making procedural and substantive decisions in mental capacity law;- Provide a robust theoretical account of the obligations that are owed to P in light of legal and ethical principles of participation and empowerment and construct a defensible model of judicial deliberation which can help give effect to such principles;- Utilise this broadened empirical and theoretical understanding to construct urgently needed practical tools and principled guidelines which can be used by legal practitioners (i.e. judges, representatives, and advocates) so as to realise the court's obligations to P in ways that are aligned with MCA principles and CRPD commitments.

《 2005年英格兰和威尔士心理能力法》（MCA）中的授权原则意味着，有损害的个体的参与和价值观在决定其护理和治疗方面至关重要。在司法实践中是否已经实现了这种赋予精神的权力，这是引起人们关注的迫切原因。司法自由裁量权当前决定了P（诉讼的主题）参与有关其能力或最佳利益的决策，这使该法案的参与理想取决于司法审议的结果。一些法官会与P会面，并根据P的参与诉讼做出决定。其他人则认为，P的参与是相对于P靠近容量阈值的。联合国为残疾人的权利（CRPD），这些差异的做法更加复杂，该公约要求尊重残疾人的权利，意志和偏好应受到尊重（第12条），此类人必须与他人平等地获得司法的有效接触（第13条）。围绕P参与法律程序的司法惯例违反了MCA和CRPD中的核心原则，这表明需要进一步批判性地审查心理能力法中司法审议的性质。该项目将阐明价值观在司法审议中的规范功能（a）对（a）P的有效参与和价值，（b）心理能力，（c）对心理能力法的最大利益，以确保这种审议具有明确的理由。在精神能力法律实践中，法官一直负责做出艰难的决定，包括P的证词是否应该在审议中具有权重到对P的护理和治疗的判断，这可能导致P的死亡。这样的决定将援引从业者的更深入的直觉和价值观，这些直觉和价值观超出了法律原则。该项目在心理能力法中对这一现象进行了长期的分析，该法将要求从社会科学，哲学和法律分析中提取的跨学科方法。该项目还将具有更广泛的含义，例如提高司法审议过程中的透明度，并影响未来的政策指南和规则，围绕着残疾人的参与和赋予能力，从而在根本上影响其生活的决策中。司法审议确定了程序决定（即与P会议，P的参与诉讼的程度）和实质性决定（即P的能力和最大利益，P在此类决策中的P值的重量）。尤其是在具有不可判据的价值观的道德上有害的案件中，已发表的判断可以作为事后的理由或印象派称重练习，而对价值观如何影响此类决策的讨论很少。如果要在精神能力法中某些司法决定是可解释和合理的，则需要进一步清楚价值的审议功能。 The project aims to:- Improve empirical knowledge of how judges currently invoke values in making procedural and substantive decisions in mental capacity law;- Provide a robust theoretical account of the obligations that are owed to P in light of legal and ethical principles of participation and empowerment and construct a defensible model of judicial deliberation which can help give effect to such principles;- Utilise this broadened empirical and theoretical understanding to construct urgently needed practical tools and法律从业人员（即法官，代表和倡导者）可以使用的原则指南，以便以与MCA原则和CRPD承诺保持一致的方式实现法院对P的义务。