NEWS & INSIGHTS
News & Insights
Key contributions to complex cases, practice, and professional standards
Court Approves Least-Restrictive Funding Decision in Acquired Brain Injury Case
In January 2026, the Royal Court of Jersey approved a decision taken by E’s court-appointed Delegate to continue paying him a limited weekly allowance, notwithstanding a recognised risk that the money could be used to purchase illegal cannabis.
Applying the Capacity and Self-Determination (Jersey) Law 2016, the Court concluded that the decision was lawful, proportionate and in E’s best interests, expressly rejecting the notion that risk must be eliminated where doing so would cause greater harm [2026]JRC002 (1).
E sustained a traumatic brain injury at the age of 12 and has lived with complex cognitive, behavioural and executive impairments since childhood. I have acted as his case manager for approximately 14 years, supporting him through adolescence and into adulthood, and working closely with his treating clinicians, support team and Delegate. As E has matured, the issues faced have become increasingly complex, particularly in relation to fluctuating capacity, substance misuse, vulnerability to exploitation and the tension between safeguarding and his strong desire for independence.
My role has involved long-term, day-to-day oversight of E’s functioning, behaviour and risks, and translating that lived clinical and practical knowledge into defensible recommendations for the multidisciplinary team and the Court. Central to the case was my evidence that a complete withdrawal of funds would be more likely to escalate risk, disengagement and criminal exploitation, whereas a tightly controlled allowance formed part of a harm-reduction approach that preserved engagement, motivation and stability.
The Court expressly recognised the importance of this MDT-led, least-restrictive approach, informed by professionals who had worked with E over many years.
This judgment is significant because it reflects the realities of long-term case management in acquired brain injury. It confirms that best-interests decision-making is not theoretical, but grounded in evidence, experience and proportionality. For case managers, delegates and deputies, the decision provides reassurance that carefully balanced, risk-aware decisions - even where those decisions are uncomfortable - can be lawful, ethical and fully aligned with the individual’s best interests when supported by robust multidisciplinary evidence.