A VULNERABLE Islander should continue receiving weekly cash payments despite the “distinct likelihood” he will spend the money on illegal drugs, the Royal Court has ruled.
In a recently published judgment, the court said it was faced with a “highly unusual” dilemma, but ultimately concluded that cutting off the man’s pocket money would put him at even greater risk.
The case concerned an anonymous 27-year-old man, who lacks capacity to manage his property and finances following serious injuries.
He has a history of cannabis misuse and was diagnosed last year with cannabis-induced psychosis. He is also considered highly vulnerable to exploitation, according to the judgment.
The man’s delegate asked the court to approve her decision to continue paying him £50 a week in pocket money, despite the “distinct likelihood” it would be used to buy drugs.
“The delegate is, understandably, concerned that funds advanced to [the man] may be spent on cannabis, alcohol, or, potentially, other illegal drugs,” the judgment said.
“The delegate is similarly concerned that depriving [the man] of funds could lead to a deterioration in his condition due to the loss of the small amount of independence it affords him and/or cause him to take detrimental steps, such as getting into debt,
in order to procure cannabis and maintain his social life.”
The court heard that previous attempts to restrict the man’s access to money had led to deterioration in his behaviour and mental health.
Dr Martine Stoffels, a consultant psychiatrist specialising in neuropsychiatry, said the case posed a “profound ethical dilemma”.
“On one hand, continued access to substances directly contributes to physical and psychological harm, psychotic relapse, and financial exploitation,” she said.
“On the other hand, strict prohibition or withdrawal of all funds has historically precipitated aggression, non-engagement, escalation of risk-taking behaviours, and covert substance seeking through unsafe channels.”
Dr Stoffels said the current approach did not “imply endorsement of substance use” but was instead “a harm-reduction measure” designed to allow “a degree of autonomy while containing the scale of potential damage”.
The court also heard evidence that, without any money at all, the man could “easily be lured into dealing as a way of earning funds to purchase cannabis”.
Approving the delegate’s decision, Commissioner Alan Binnington said the court was satisfied that it was made in the man’s best interests, emphasising that the law requires decisions for people lacking capacity to be taken in the least restrictive way possible.
The judgment said: “For the avoidance of doubt, our decision is not to be regarded as the court determining that it is in [the man]’s best interests to commit a criminal offence or declaring that illegal conduct is lawful.”
The Attorney General supported the application but made clear that the court’s decision did not grant immunity from prosecution.
The final order allows the delegate to continue paying £50 per week, guided by medical and care professionals, where she considers it to be in [the man]’s best interests.
