The appellant appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board upholding a finding that he was incapable of consenting to a Community Treatment Plan and confirming a Community Treatment Order.
The appellant argued that his capacity to consent to the plan should be assessed based only on his understanding of its administrative consequences, separate from his incapacity to consent to antipsychotic medication.
He also argued that the likelihood of substantial mental deterioration required for an order must occur within its six-month lifespan.
The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the therapeutic aspects of a plan cannot be ignored in the capacity test, and that the legislation does not require a precise temporality of within six months for the likelihood of mental deterioration.
