Court of protection deliberates on capacity and breaches

5 Feb 2025Court Report

Court of Protection addresses capacity and multiple breaches of injunction by James Grundy

Court of Protection deliberates on capacity and breaches

The Court of Protection was tasked with determining the capacity of James Grundy and addressing alleged breaches of an injunction order. The hearing, presided over by District Judge Davies, took place at the Derby Justice Centre on 20 January 2025.

The case involved Derbyshire County Council as the claimant, with Mr. Grundy represented by the Official Solicitor and P, the interested party, represented by her litigation friend. The court was asked to consider Mr. Grundy's capacity to comprehend and make decisions regarding the injunction order and a suspended sentence previously imposed.

Mr. Grundy was absent from the proceedings, having refused to attend despite attempts to arrange transportation. The court decided to proceed in his absence, following guidance from previous case law.

The court examined four alleged breaches of the injunction, which prohibited Mr. Grundy from unsupervised contact with P. Evidence included police bodycam footage showing Mr. Grundy at P's home on multiple occasions, in violation of the injunction.

The claimant argued that Mr. Grundy had been properly served with all relevant documents and was aware of the consequences of breaching the injunction. The court considered evidence from various assessments regarding Mr. Grundy's capacity, ultimately determining that he possessed the capacity to understand the injunction and the consequences of breaching it.

District Judge Davies found all four breaches proven beyond reasonable doubt. The court concluded that Mr. Grundy had the capacity to understand the terms of the injunction and the suspended sentence, as well as the potential consequences of his actions.

The judgment highlighted the importance of ensuring individuals subject to court orders have the capacity to understand them, while also emphasising the need for compliance with such orders to maintain the rule of law.

The court did not address sentencing at this hearing, choosing instead to separate the determination of breach from sentencing, consistent with previous cases. Mr. Grundy retains the right to appeal the court's decisions.