IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/medlaw/v29y2021i1p143-156..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Local Authority v JB [2020] EWCA Civ 735 and A Local Authority v AW [2020] EWCOP 24: Rethinking Sexual Capacity?

Author

Listed:
  • Laura Pritchard-Jones

Abstract

In A Local Authority v JB and A Local Authority v AW, the Court of Appeal and Court of Protection, respectively, had to consider questions regarding decision-making about sexual relationships. This case commentary suggests that both decisions are to be welcomed in many ways, not least in the primacy they give to the role of consent within sexual relationships. However, working through their implications also reveals a number of perplexing legal and practical binds that cannot easily be overcome, and that in fact stem from the way that the Mental Capacity Act 2005 itself works. In light of this, the commentary concludes by suggesting that it is likely that there will be continued dissatisfaction with this area of law and hints that the time may have come to rethink sexual capacity.

Suggested Citation

  • Laura Pritchard-Jones, 2021. "A Local Authority v JB [2020] EWCA Civ 735 and A Local Authority v AW [2020] EWCOP 24: Rethinking Sexual Capacity?," Medical Law Review, Oxford University Press, vol. 29(1), pages 143-156.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:medlaw:v:29:y:2021:i:1:p:143-156.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/medlaw/fwaa028
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:medlaw:v:29:y:2021:i:1:p:143-156.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/medlaw .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.