The Role of Values and Participation in Judicial Deliberation and Mental Capacity Law

《2005年英格兰和威尔士精神能力法》中的授权原则意味着，在关于残疾人的护理和治疗的决定中，残疾人的参与和价值受到重视。这种授权精神是否在司法实践中得到了实现，是一个迫切需要关注的问题。司法自由裁量权目前决定P（诉讼主体）在多大程度上参与有关其能力或最大利益的决策，使该法的参与性理想取决于司法审议的结果。一些法官与P会面，并根据P参与诉讼的情况作出决定；另一些人则认为，P的参与与P是否接近能力阈值有关。《联合国残疾人权利公约》（CRPD）要求尊重残疾人的权利、意愿和偏好（第12条），并要求残疾人在与其他人平等的基础上有效地获得司法救助（第13条），这使这些不一致的做法变得更加复杂。围绕P参与法律程序的司法实践可能违反了MCA和CRPD的核心原则，这表明迫切需要对精神能力法中司法审议的性质进行进一步的批判性审查。本项目将明确价值观在司法审议中的规范功能，包括：(a)当事人的有效参与和价值观，(b)精神能力，(c)精神能力法中的最大利益，以确保司法审议有明确的正当理由。在精神能力法的实践中，法官一直被要求做出艰难的决定，从P的证词是否应该在审议中有分量，到对P的护理和治疗做出判断，这可能导致P的死亡。这样的决定将调用从业者超越法律原则的更深层次的直觉和价值观。该项目对心理能力法中的这一现象进行了早该进行的分析，这将需要从社会科学、哲学和法律分析中汲取跨学科的方法。该项目还将产生更广泛的重大影响，例如提高司法审议过程的透明度，影响未来有关残疾人参与并赋予其权力的决策的政策准则和规则，这些决策从根本上影响残疾人的生活。司法审议决定程序性决定（即与当事人会面，当事人参与诉讼的程度）和实质性决定（即当事人的能力和最大利益，当事人的价值观在这些决定中的权重）。特别是在道德上充满争议、价值观不可通约的案件中，公开发表的判决可能看起来像是事后的辩护或印象主义的权衡练习，很少讨论价值观如何影响这些决定。如果要使精神能力法中的某些司法判决具有可解释性和正当性，则有必要进一步明确价值观的审议功能。该项目的目的是：-提高法官目前如何在精神能力法的程序和实质性裁决中援引价值的经验知识；-根据参与和赋予权力的法律和道德原则，提供对P的义务的有力理论说明，并建立一个可辩护的司法审议模式，有助于实施这些原则；-利用这种扩大的经验和理论理解，构建法律从业人员（即法官、代表和律师）急需的实用工具和原则性指导方针，以符合《MCA》原则和《残疾人权利公约》承诺的方式履行法院对残疾人的义务。

The empowering principle within the Mental Capacity Act 2005 in England and Wales (MCA) means that the participation and values of individuals with impairments are accorded importance in decisions about their care and treatment. Whether this empowering ethos has been realised in judicial practice is an urgent cause for concern. Judicial discretion currently determines the extent to which P (the subject of proceedings) is involved in decision-making about his or her capacity or best interests, rendering the participatory ideal of the Act contingent on the outcome of judicial deliberation. Some judges meet with P and make decisions in light of P's participation in proceedings; others argue that P's participation is relative to P's proximity to the capacity threshold. These discrepant practices are further complicated by the UN Convention for the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) which requires that the rights, will, and preferences of persons with disabilities ought to be respected (Art. 12) and such persons are to have effective access to justice on an equal basis with others (Art. 13). The possibility that judicial practices around P's participation in legal proceedings violate core principles in the MCA and CRPD suggests a pressing need for further critical scrutiny of the nature of judicial deliberation in mental capacity law. This project will clarify the normative function of values in judicial deliberation about (a) P's effective participation and values, (b) mental capacity, (c) best interests in mental capacity law, so as to ensure that such deliberation stands on clear justification. Judges in the practice of mental capacity law are consistently charged with making difficult decisions, ranging from whether or not P's testimony should have weight in deliberations, to judgments about P's care and treatment, which could result in P's death. Such decisions will invoke practitioners' deeper intuitions and values that go beyond legal principles. The project undertakes a long overdue analysis of this phenomenon in mental capacity law, which will demand interdisciplinary methods drawn from social science, philosophy, and legal analysis. The project will also have significant broader implications, such as improving transparency in judicial deliberation process and influencing future policy guidelines and rules around the participation and empowerment of individuals with disabilities in decisions which fundamentally affect their lives. Judicial deliberation determines both procedural decisions (i.e. meetings with P, the extent of P's participation in proceedings) and substantive decisions (i.e. P's capacity and best interests, the weight of P's values in such decisions). Particularly in ethically fraught cases featuring incommensurable values, published judgments can appear as post hoc justifications or impressionistic weighing exercises, with little discussion of how values influence such decisions. Further clarity about the deliberative function of values is necessary if certain judicial decisions in mental capacity law are to be explicable and justifiable. The project aims to:- Improve empirical knowledge of how judges currently invoke values in making procedural and substantive decisions in mental capacity law;- Provide a robust theoretical account of the obligations that are owed to P in light of legal and ethical principles of participation and empowerment and construct a defensible model of judicial deliberation which can help give effect to such principles;- Utilise this broadened empirical and theoretical understanding to construct urgently needed practical tools and principled guidelines which can be used by legal practitioners (i.e. judges, representatives, and advocates) so as to realise the court's obligations to P in ways that are aligned with MCA principles and CRPD commitments.