Competing Professional Knowledge Claims About Mental Capacity in the Court of Protection.

This article analyses the role of evidence in resolving Court of Protection proceedings, drawing on qualitative data obtained from observations of the Court of Protection, a review of Court of Protection case files and interviews with social workers. It is argued that there is a hierarchy of professional evidence in mental capacity law. Psychiatric evidence is at the top of this hierarchy, whereas social work evidence is viewed as a less persuasive form of knowledge about mental capacity. The article argues that this is because mental capacity law views psychiatric evidence as a form of objective and technical expertise about capacity, whereas social work evidence is viewed as a form of subjective, experiential knowledge. In challenging this hierarchy, it is instead argued that mental capacity law should place greater weight on experiential knowledge emanating from a relationship with the subject of the proceedings, rather than elevating the status of psychiatric evidence about mental capacity.