Mental capacity for handling the internet: Court of Protection

27 February 2019 by


A (Capacity: Social Media and Internet Use: Best Interests)  [2019] EWCOP 2

In this case Cobb J was asked to make declarations under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 regarding a learning disabled man’s capacity to use the internet and social media. (NB on 21 February judgment was also handed down in a similar case on which we will post shortly: B (Capacity: Social Media: Care and Contact) [2019] EWCOP 3.

The rapid development of the internet and proliferation of social media networks over recent years have fundamentally reshaped the way we engage with each other. We spend more time on our digital electronic devices than we do interacting with other humans and naturally this has brought huge benefits in terms of entertainment, communication and gathering information. The social media ‘apps’ available for instant messaging and networking are mostly easy and free to use, amongst them chiefly Facebook, WhatsApp, Snapchat, Facetime, Skype, Instagram, and Twitter. For people with disabilities the internet and associated social media networks are particularly important:

They enable ready access to information and recreation, and create communities for those who are otherwise restricted in leaving their homes. The[y] … have generally served over the years to promote social inclusion, rather than exclusion; they offer disabled users opportunities and enhanced autonomy, they provide a means to express social identity, and they enable the learning of new skills, and the development of careers.

Of course these advances in digital technology have their dark side. Not just the dark web, but the openly available internet can be a dangerous place, where “dehumanising” material is all too readily accessible. More and more frequently we hear stories of cyber- bullying, harassment, child sexual abuse, sexual grooming, trafficking, trolling and the theft of personal identity. As with most technology, the online world seems to be spinning beyond the reach of the law.

Background facts

This case concerned a 21 year old man, A, who identifies as a gay male. He has a learning disability, with an impairment in adaptive social functioning, and executive functioning. He resides in a supported living placement. Concerns about A’s internet use arose first when he was living alone. His parents discovered that he was sharing intimate photographs and videos of his genitals on Facebook. His social worker expressed the view that his

compulsion to communicate with others online seems to override any concern he may have for his own safety

Even in supported living A takes the opportunity when unsupervised to search compulsively for pornography. What prompted this application by the local authority was the realisation that A had developed a “considerable interest” in sites showing paedophiliac and extreme, even illegal, sexual activity. There were allegations that he had been searched out and raped.

In May 2017 his own device was temporarily withdrawn. But he got hold of a staff member’s mobile phone and in a short time accessed over 150 extreme pornography sites, and sent a number of unsocilited messages to a male who had been identified as the alleged rapist.

Cobb J stressed the importance of distinguishing the question of capacity for engaging in social media for the purposes of online contact from other forms of contact, or general issues surrounding care. There was a risk that if social medial and/or internet use were swept up in the context of care or contact, it would lead to the inappropriate removal or reduction of personal autonomy in an area which was extremely important to those with disabilities.

The test for capacity in the context of social media

For a person to have capacity in this area, the court needs to be sastisfied of the following factors:

  1. They do not have to understand the precise details or mechanisms of the privacy settings, but they do have to be capable of understanding that they exist. They should be able to decide, with support, whether to apply them.
  2. They need to understand the consequence of sending an email, making an offer on a file sharing platform, uploading to a site that other people have access to, and possessing with a view to distribute.
  3. They have to appreciate that by placing material or images (including videos) on social media sites which are rude or offensive, other people might be upset or offended.
  4. They must understand that by looking at or sharing “extremely rude or offensive” images, messages or videos online they may get into trouble with the police, because they may have committed a crime. (This last statement was designed to reflect the importance, that a capacitous person would understand, of not searching for, disseminating or investigating such material as it might have criminal content.)

The Court’s conclusions

The patient A had only partial understanding that the information and images which he shared on the internet or through social media could be shared more widely, including with people he did not know. He had a limited understanding of privacy settings, and only a partial understanding that people might be upset or offended by information shared online. He was not able to use or weigh that information. He had a poor understanding of the risks that people might pose online, and could not understand that people might disguise their identity to take advantage of him. Practical steps had been taken to help him understand the issues, without success. He lacked capacity to use the internet or social media.

Accordingly, Cobb J approved the local authority’s plan for him limit his access to the internet, and even then only under supervision.

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption ALBA Al Qaeda animal rights anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 Artificial Intelligence Asbestos assisted suicide asylum Australia autism benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery Catholicism Chagos Islanders Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners climate change clinical negligence Coercion common law confidentiality consent conservation constitution contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs Court of Protection crime Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation deportation deprivation of liberty Detention disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Family Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage Gaza genetics Germany Google Grenfell Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests international law internet Inuit Iran Iraq Ireland Islam Israel Italy IVF Japan Judaism judicial review jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid Leveson Inquiry LGBTQ Rights liability Libel Liberty Libya Lithuania local authorities marriage mental capacity Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery music Muslim nationality national security NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury Piracy Plagiarism planning Poland Police Politics pollution press Prisoners Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia Saudi Arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing statelessness stop and search Strasbourg Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treaty TTIP Turkey UK Ukraine USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wind farms WomenInLaw YearInReview Zimbabwe
%d bloggers like this: