header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
06 June 2013 / Tim Spencer-Lane
Categories: Opinion , Mental health
printer mail-detail

Lost in translation

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Tim Spencer-Lane highlights some of the faultlines in the Mental Capacity Act

The introduction of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA 2005) was celebrated for establishing a groundbreaking legal framework which empowers and protects those who lack capacity. Yet only six years after its implementation, the criticisms of MCA 2005 have grown to such an extent that the House of Lords has established a post-legislative scrutiny committee. So what has led to this apparent volte face?

Poor implementation

The latest monitoring report by the Care Quality Commission found that MCA 2005 was poorly understood and implemented in practice (see Care Quality Commission (2013) Monitoring the use of the MCA DOLS in 2011/12). Practitioners were too quick to assume incapacity in respect of all decision-making, decisions were not always carried out within the best interests framework, and restrictions were being imposed without any consideration of the person’s capacity to consent or the need to maximise decision-making capacity. The report also found that relatives and friends were excluded from decision-making or asked to consent on behalf

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll