An international comparison of legal frameworks for supported and substitute decision-making in mental health services

There have been important recent developments in law, research, policy and practice relating to supporting people with decision-making impairments, in particular when a person’s wishes and preferences are unclear or inaccessible. A driver in this respect is the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD); the implications of the CRPD for policy and professional practices are currently debated. This article reviews and compares four legal frameworks for supported and substitute decision-making for people whose decision-making ability is impaired. In particular, it explores how these frameworks may apply to people with mental health problems. The four jurisdictions are: Ontario, Canada; Victoria, Australia; England and Wales, United Kingdom (UK); and Northern Ireland, UK. Comparisons and contrasts are made in the key areas of: the legal framework for supported and substitute decision-making; the criteria for intervention; the assessment process; the safeguards; and issues in practice. Thus Ontario has developed a relatively comprehensive, progressive and influential legal framework over the past thirty years but there remain concerns about the standardisation of decision-making ability assessments and how the laws work together. In Australia, the Victorian Law Reform Commission (2012) has recommended that the six different types of substitute decision-making under the three laws in that jurisdiction, need to be simplified, and integrated into a spectrum that includes supported decision-making. In England and Wales the Mental Capacity Act 2005 has a complex interface with mental health law. In Northern Ireland it is proposed to introduce a new Mental Capacity (Health, Welfare and Finance) Bill that will provide a unified structure for all substitute decision-making. The discussion will consider the key strengths and limitations of the approaches in each jurisdiction and identify possible ways that further progress can be made in law, policy and practice.

Terrorism Laws and Legal Accountability

This chapter explores the extent to which courts can contribute to the countering of terrorism. It suggests that the contribution will depend on the type of actor the courts are attempting to hold to account as well as on the powers that are conferred on courts by national and international legal regimes. It concludes that courts are most legitimate and effective in relation to terrorist suspects and law enforcers, but less so in relation to counter-terrorism operatives and law-makers.

Concussion and Brain Injury in Contact Sport: Legal Implications

A concussed participant leaving the field of play is one of the most worrying sights in sport. It is also one that might have serious legal implications for sports governing bodies. Over the past number of years, a major class action suit has rumbled through the US courts as taken against that country's biggest professional sport, the National Football League. The NFL is at present attempting to settle the lawsuit from more than 4,500 retired players who claim that the NFL knew for decades about the chronic health risks associated with cumulative concussions in American football but failed to warn players or take preventative steps. Testimony from retired NFL players has revealed stories of chronic headaches, Alzheimer-like forgetfulness, altered personalities and sometimes a downward spiral into depression, violence and suicide. Medical research is suggesting that professional American football players are three times more likely to die as a result of certain neurodegenerative diseases than the general population. This paper notes that the concerns about concussion are not confined to the NFL and extend to contact sport more widely and notably rugby union. This paper also assesses the reaction of leading sports governing bodies globally to the recorded medical risks and accompanying legal vulnerabilities.

Childhood, Rights and Justice in Northern Ireland

Building on primary research and previous publications (Haydon, 2012; Haydon, 2014; Haydon and Scraton, 2008; McAlister, Scraton and Haydon, 2009; Scraton and Haydon, 2002), this chapter will provide a critical analysis of children’s rights and youth justice in Northern Ireland. More broadly, it will consider recent research concerning the criminalisation of children and young people in the United Kingdom and profound concerns regarding the policing and regulation of children raised in successive concluding observations about the UK Government’s implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, 1995, 2002, 2008). From this generic context, the chapter will map the ‘particular circumstances’ of Northern Ireland - a discrete legal jurisdiction to which powers for justice and policing were devolved only in 2010. Emerging from four decades of conflict and progressing through an uneasy ‘peace’, rights-based institutions and enabling legislation have, in principle, promoted and protected human rights. Yet children and young people living in communities marginalised by poverty and the legacy of conflict continue to experience inconsistent formal regulation by the police and the criminal justice system, while enduring often brutal informal regulation by paramilitaries. The chapter will explore evident tensions between the dynamics of criminalisation and promotion/ protection of children’s rights in a society transitioning from conflict. Further, it will analyse the challenges to securing children’s rights principles and provisions within a hostile political and ideological context, arguing for a critical rights-based agenda that promotes social justice through rights compliance together with policies and practices that address the structural inequalities faced by children and young people.

The inclusion and juridification of victims on the Island of Ireland

Concern for crime victims has been a growing political issue in improving the legitimacy and success of the criminal justice system through the rhetoric of rights. Since the 1970s there have been numerous reforms and policy documents produced to enhance victims’ satisfaction in the criminal justice system. Both the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland have seen a sea-change in more recent years from a focus on services for victims to a greater emphasis on procedural rights. The purpose of this chapter is to chart these reforms against the backdrop of wider political and regional changes emanating from the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights, and to critically examine whether the position of crime victims has actually ameliorated.

While separated into two legal jurisdictions, the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland as common law countries have both grappled with similar challenges in improving crime victim satisfaction in adversarial criminal proceedings. This chapter begins by discussing the historical and theoretical concern for crime victims in the criminal justice system, and how this has changed in recent years. The rest of the chapter is split into two parts focusing on the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. Both parts examine the provisions of services to victims, and the move towards more procedural rights for victims in terms of information, participation, protection and compensation. The chapter concludes by finding that despite being different legal jurisdictions, the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland have introduced many similar reforms for crime victims in recent years.