Abstract/Summary

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.