In Re JB, a local authority, concerned with the risk the respondent posed to vulnerable women, successfully appealed against an order made in the Court of Protection that declared JB, an autistic man with impaired cognition, possessed capacity to consent to sexual relations. In this recent decision, the Court of Appeal has arguably reset the last 15 years of jurisprudence concerning P’s capacity to make decisions in regard to sexual relations. Previous case law focused on P’s ability to consent to such relations, and whether P understood the information relevant to that decision. Notwithstanding the abundance of legal authority, including the recent appellate judgments of Hayden J in London Borough of Tower Hamlets v NB and AU (consent to sex) [2019] EWCOP 27. and B v A Local Authority [2019] EWCA Civ 913. there was a lacuna in the existing law in relation to what information was relevant for the purposes of assessing the issue of capacity to consent to sexual relations. Judges have traditionally adopted a protectionist stance in understanding “the information relevant to the decision” under s3(1) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA), with an emphasis on whether P understood the risks of pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. However, the Court of Appeal in Re JB has broadened its interpretation of ‘relevant’ information to also include the ability to understand the importance of a partner’s consent to such relations. This is a welcome change to previous courts’ interpretations of the ‘nature’ of the sexual act, moving from an approach focused on the physical sexual mechanics to one which views the nature of sex as a mutually consensual engagement. However, a fundamental shift in how we view such cases is likely to have far-reaching consequences, particularly for local authorities and professionals seeking guidance in relation to their care planning.

在Re JB中，一个与被告对弱势女性构成风险有关的地方当局成功地对保护法院作出的一项命令进行了上诉，该命令宣布JB是认知能力受损的自闭症男子，具有同意性关系的能力。在最近的这一决定中，上诉法院可以说重新设定了过去15年有关P对性关系作出决定的能力的判例。先前的判例法关注于P同意这种关系的能力，以及P是否理解与该决定相关的信息。尽管拥有足够的法律权力，包括海顿·J（Hayden J）最近在伦敦《塔姆哈姆雷特自治市诉NB和AU（同意性）》 [2019] EWCOP 27一案中的上诉判决，以及B诉地方当局[2019] EWCA Civ913。在现行法律中，为了评估同意性关系的能力问题，哪些信息是相关的存在空白。传统上，法官在理解《 2005年心理能力法案》（MCA）第3（1）条中的“与该决定有关的信息”时采取保护主义立场，重点是P是否理解怀孕和性传播疾病的风险。但是，上诉法院在JB已经扩大了对“相关”信息的解释，以包括理解伴侣同意这种关系的重要性的能力。这是对以前法院对性行为的“性质”的解释的可喜变化，从关注物理性行为机制的方法转变为将性的本质视为相互同意的行为的方法。但是，我们对此类病例的看法发生根本性变化可能会产生深远的影响，特别是对于地方当局和寻求有关其护理计划的指导的专业人员。