The Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 marked a turning point in the statutory rights of people who may lack capacity. The legislation sought to place the individual at the centre of decision-making and was viewed as having the potential to give people a voice and an opportunity to be heard. Section 44 of the legislation introduced a criminal offence of ‘ill treatment or neglect’ of a person who lacks capacity. The maximum sentence of five years’ imprisonment (or a fine or both) was intended to underly the seriousness of the offence, especially considering the vulnerability of potential victims. Interpreting s 44 has, however, proved a real challenge and the courts have acknowledged the difficulties which its drafting presents. The recent Court of Appeal (COA) decision in R v Kurtz is illustrative of the kind of issue that the statute has generated. The court was tasked with deciding whether proving a lack of capacity on the part of the victim is required when the donee of a power of attorney is charged with the offence under s 44(1)(b). This article considers Kurtz within the context of the MCA 2005 and notes three related COA decisions. It examines what impact Kurtz may have on future prosecutions brought under s 44(1)(b) and considers the future of the s 44 criminal charge more generally.

中文翻译：

---

2005 年《心智能力法案》下的授权书和“缺乏能力”：第 44 条罪行的缩小范围？R v Kurtz [2018] EWCA Crim 2743

2005 年《心理能力法案》(MCA) 标志着可能缺乏能力的人的法定权利的一个转折点。该立法试图将个人置于决策的中心，并被认为有可能让人们有发言权和被倾听的机会。该立法的第 44 条将“虐待或忽视”缺乏行为能力的人列为刑事犯罪。最高刑罚为五年监禁（或罚款或两者兼施）旨在强调罪行的严重性，尤其是考虑到潜在受害者的脆弱性。然而，解释第 44 条已证明是一项真正的挑战，法院也承认其起草存在困难。最近上诉法院 (COA) 在 R v Kurtz 案中的裁决说明了该法规产生的问题类型。法院的任务是决定当授权书的受赠人被指控犯有第 44(1)(b) 条规定的罪行时，是否需要证明受害人缺乏行为能力。本文在 MCA 2005 的背景下考虑 Kurtz，并指出三个相关的 COA 决定。它研究了 Kurtz 可能对根据第 44(1)(b) 条提出的未来起诉产生什么影响，并更广泛地考虑第 44 条刑事指控的未来。