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

2005年英格兰和威尔士《精神行为能力法》(MCA)中的赋权原则意味着，残疾个人的参与和价值观在关于他们的护理和治疗的决定中得到重视。这种赋权精神是否已经在司法实践中实现，这是一个迫切需要关注的问题。司法裁量权目前决定了P(诉讼主体)在多大程度上参与关于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。一些法官会见P，并根据P参与诉讼作出决定；另一些法官则认为，P的参与与P接近能力门槛有关。这些不一致的做法因《联合国残疾人权利公约》(CRPD)而变得更加复杂，该公约要求残疾人的权利、意愿和偏好应得到尊重(第12条)，这些人应在与其他人平等的基础上有效地诉诸司法(第13条)。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，这表明迫切需要进一步严格审查精神行为能力法中司法审议的性质。本项目将澄清价值观在司法审议中的规范作用，涉及(A)P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，以确保这种审议有明确的理由。在精神能力法的实践中，法官一直负责做出艰难的决定，从P的证词是否应在审议中具有份量，到关于P的护理和治疗的判断，这可能导致P的死亡。这样的决定将唤起从业者超越法律原则的更深层次的直觉和价值观。该项目在精神能力法中对这一现象进行了早就应该进行的分析，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。该项目还将产生重大而广泛的影响，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和赋权于从根本上影响其生活的决定的政策指导方针和规则。司法审议既决定程序性决定(即与P会面，P参与诉讼的程度)，又决定实质性决定(即P的能力和最大利益，P的价值观在这类决定中的权重)。特别是在具有不可通约价值的伦理问题案件中，发表的判决可能看起来像是临时的理由或印象主义权衡练习，几乎没有讨论价值观如何影响此类决定。如果精神行为能力法中的某些司法判决是可解释和合理的，就有必要进一步澄清价值观的审议功能。该项目旨在：-改善法官目前如何在精神能力法作出程序性和实质性决定时援引价值观的经验知识；-根据参与和赋权的法律和伦理原则，对欠P的义务提供强有力的理论说明，并构建一个可帮助实施这些原则的可辩护的司法审议模式；-利用这种扩大的经验和理论理解，构建可供法律从业者(即法官、代表和辩护人)使用的迫切需要的实用工具和原则性指导方针，从而实现法院对P的义务，其方式与MCA原则和CRPD承诺保持一致。

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.