Owen Bowcott illustrates the problems of “contested wills” by referring to Jarndyce v Jarndyce in Charles Dickens’ Bleak House (Report, 28 July). In the 19th century the government set up the public trust office to deal with such issues. The public trustee didn’t waste taxpayers’ money, but ensured the estate of a contested will was maintained, and charged a proportionate fee that did not affect the growth of the estate. But unfortunately the public trust office was slain at the altar of “free trade” by the New Labour government and once again we are facing cases similar to Jarndyce v Jarndyce.
The public trustee still exists, so it is not too late to do a little “insourcing” and bring back the public trust office, which would be a panacea to a problem illustrated by the Melita Jackson and Heather Ilott case. But privatisation is still being threatened in the Ministry of Justice, criminal bailiffs for example (Report, theguardian.com, 26 June). Do we have to wait for decades of maladministration, corruption etc before we wake up to the fallacy of this ridiculous project?
Phil Cosgrove
Public and Commercial Services Union
• As a practising clinical psychologist, I was deeply concerned by your article about a person who had left her money to charity, but then had that right revoked posthumously in favour of providing an income to her daughter. One can of course appreciate the complexity and sensitivities of the case. However, surely we must be afforded the right to set out our will, without judges deciding whether our motivations fit their own value-set.
The Mental Capacity Act 2005 guides assessments of a person’s capacity to make decisions. This includes the right to make “unwise decisions”. We all make judgments others would not agree with, but if we have the ability to appraise, recall, consider and communicate those judgments, then our rights are protected in law.
The values of each of us, whether we are laypeople or judges, inevitably interact with legislation and politics. In times when we are seeing pressures on the benefits system (the beneficiary was on benefits) and the Human Rights Act, one must consider decisions such as this within a broader political context.
If this decision is upheld, we must also review the Mental Capacity Act, which provides clear, structured, empowerment-based guidance. Now we are being asked not only to justify our decisions but to ensure those justifications match the morals of appeal court judges delivered after we have died.
Dr Stephen Weatherhead
Lancaster University
