A man and woman who both have intellectual disabilities can marry, despite the objection of a residential care centre which argued that the man lacked capacity to consent.
Judge Geoffrey Shannon at the Circuit Civil Court dismissed an application by the centre which sought a declaration that the man, who is one of its residents and in his 40s, lacked the capacity to consent to marriage.
The case is believed to be one of the first tests of this section of the 2015 Assisted Decision Making legislation to be decided by the courts.
The couple have been in a relationship for two decades, in what the judge said was described by all who knew them as one of "genuine love, mutual support and enduring commitment".
Judge Shannon said the law presumed capacity to consent and the burden of proving the man did not have such capacity, rested with the centre.
He said under the 2015 legislation, the centre had to show that all practicable steps had been taken to support the man in making his decision.
But he ruled that despite commendable efforts by two psychiatrists, who found the man did not have capacity, their assessments did not meet that threshold.
In his ruling, the judge said the implications of the declaration being sought by the centre extended beyond the legal sphere and would constitute a profound intrusion into the personal autonomy and private lives of the couple.
He said it would amount to the denial of a fundamental personal right.
He said it would prevent the man and woman marrying notwithstanding their longstanding relationship and mutual wish to do so.
He said any interference with the right to marry must be justified by clear and cogent evidence.
He added it was essential that the legal threshold for capacity should not be set so high as to operate as a blanket exclusion for people with cognitive impairments.
In the current case, the judge found the couple's relationship was "longstanding, loving and resilient" and had been thoroughly tested over time.
Judge Shannon said that the assessments carried out on the man by two consultant psychiatrists were undertaken under a new statutory framework without previous court decisions or settled guidance about the threshold for the capacity to marry.
He said their task was onerous, complex and sensitive.
But he said he did not believe their assessments complied with the statutory requirements under the 2015 act and the associated code of practice.
In particular, he was not satisfied the assessments clearly identified the relevant information needed to make a decision to marry or that all practical steps were taken to support the man in understanding the information.
Judge Shannon suggested a four-part test for assessing capacity to marry in such circumstances: checking if a person can understand the nature of marriage, the duties and responsibilities it entails, the potential consequences and if they can give full, free and informed consent.
He also found there was no direct or reliable evidence of coercion, manipulation or undue influence and he said the man’s wish to marry the woman appeared to be genuine, enduring and freely expressed.
The judge said his ruling was confined to the specific issue and to the time at which the application was made.
He said the centre could make a fresh application if it wished to do so, if it had fresh evidence which would satisfy the legislation and the code of practice.
