Legal decisions don’t normally make for exciting reading, but can tell you a great deal about what happens when legislators and lawyers abandon straightforward morality. For a demonstration, you need look no further than a decision by the UK Supreme Court last week.
Just over two years ago, a social services department had a disconcerting request from a man in his 30s under their supervision – call him B – with considerable mental problems (including severe autism and semi-blindness). He needed sex. Not love, not a committed relationship, but – well – sex. When B also admitted that he had no real idea that sex required consent by the other party, worry turned to panic and the social workers turned to the Court of Protection.
