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.

英格兰和威尔士 (MCA) 2005 年《心智能力法案》中的赋权原则意味着，在有关他们的护理和治疗的决策中，残障人士的参与和价值观受到重视。这种赋权精神是否在司法实践中得以实现，是一个迫切需要关注的问题。目前，司法自由裁量权决定了 P（诉讼主体）参与有关其能力或最佳利益的决策的程度，从而使该法案的参与理想取决于司法审议的结果。一些法官与 P 会面并根据 P 参与诉讼的情况做出决定；其他人则认为 P 的参与与 P 接近容量阈值有关。《联合国残疾人权利公约》（CRPD）要求尊重残疾人的权利、意愿和偏好（第 12 条），并且这些人应有有效的权利，使这些不一致的做法变得更加复杂。在与其他人平等的基础上诉诸司法（第 13 条）。围绕 P 参与法律诉讼的司法实践可能违反 MCA 和 CRPD 的核心原则，这表明迫切需要对精神能力法中司法审议的性质进行进一步严格审查。本项目将明确价值观在司法审议中对（a）P的有效参与和价值观、（b）心智能力、（c）心智能力法中的最大利益的规范作用，以确保此类审议有明确的正当性。在精神能力法实践中，法官一直面临着做出艰难决定的责任，从 P 的证词是否应该在审议中发挥作用，到对 P 的护理和治疗做出判断（这可能导致 P 的死亡）。此类决定将激发从业者超越法律原则的更深层次的直觉和价值观。该项目对心理能力法中的这一现象进行了早就该进行的分析，这将需要社会科学、哲学和法律分析中的跨学科方法。该项目还将产生更广泛的影响，例如提高司法审议过程的透明度，并影响未来有关残疾人参与和赋权从根本上影响其生活的决策的政策指南和规则。司法审议决定程序性决定（即与 P 的会面、P 参与诉讼的程度）和实质性决定（即 P 的能力和最大利益、P 的价值观在此类决定中的权重）。特别是在具有不可通约价值的道德问题案件中，公布的判决可能会表现为事后理由或印象主义的权衡练习，而很少讨论价值观如何影响此类决策。如果精神能力法中的某些司法判决要能够解释和合理，就必须进一步明确价值观的审议功能。该项目旨在：- 提高法官目前如何在心理能力法中援引价值观来做出程序和实质性决定的经验知识；- 根据参与和参与的法律和道德原则，对 P 所承担的义务提供强有力的理论说明。赋权并构建一个可辩护的司法审议模式，以帮助落实这些原则； - 利用这种扩大的经验和理论理解来构建迫切需要的实用工具和原则性指导方针，可供法律从业者（即法官、代表和倡导者），以符合 MCA 原则和 CRPD 承诺的方式实现法院对 P 的义务。