5(A)(iv). Challenge stigma, prejudice and stereotypes directly

Courts and judges may very well reflect the same stereotypes and misconceptions that are prevalent in the rest of society, and they may assume that someone under guardianship is incapable of making any decisions. In societies where people with mental disabilities have been kept out of sight and prevented from exercising their autonomy, courts may still view guardianship and institutionalisation as protective, rather than restrictive, measures. All lawyers must have a good grounding in very basic arguments against stigma and prejudice and should never assume that courts will be familiar with legal concepts relating to mental disability and human rights. Compile research and arguments to inform judges about supported versus substituted decision-making, and framing this as a human rights issue. Encourage judges to speak to the individual directly and assess their competence for themselves, rather than relying on expert reports. Commission an independent medical assessment corroborating the client’s ability to give free and informed consent to litigation and to give clear instructions.