The appellant appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board upholding a physician's finding that he was incapable of consenting to treatment with anti-psychotic medication.
The appellant argued the Board erred by relying on outdated medical history and by conflating his disagreement with the proposed treatment with incapacity.
The Superior Court of Justice applied the appellate standards of review from Vavilov, finding that the Board's treatment of medical history was a question of mixed fact and law entitled to deference.
The court concluded the Board correctly applied the legal test for capacity without resorting to a best interests analysis.
The appeal was dismissed.
