TORONTO -- The U.K. , a superior court created under the 2005 Mental Health Act with jurisdiction over the welfare of people who lack mental capacity to make decisions for themselves, has ruled that a man who cannot understand consent must be allowed to pursue sexual relationships as it is a 鈥渇undamental鈥� human right.

The man, a 36-year-old dubbed 鈥淛B鈥� in the judge鈥檚 ruling, has complex diagnoses of autism combined with impaired cognition, and currently resides in a supported residential placement with a 鈥渃omprehensive care plan which imposes significant limitations on his ability to function independently,鈥� .

Justice Jennifer Roberts said in a ruling dated September 17 that requiring JB to demonstrate that he understands consent would limit him in a way that 鈥渁 capacitous individual may not share.鈥�

Roberts said, that while not having knowledge of consent could potentially expose JB 鈥渢o the risk of criminal prosecution,鈥� he was 鈥渆ntitled to make the same mistakes which all human beings can, and do, make in the course of a lifetime.鈥�

Roberts ruled it would be 鈥渋nappropriate鈥� to not allow JB 鈥渁 fundamental and basic human right to participate in sexual relations.鈥�

Roberts acknowledged that the restrictions on JB were to stop him from 鈥渂ehaving in a sexually inappropriate manner towards women,鈥� and that JB 鈥渓acks the insight or ability鈥� to communicate in an appropriate manner towards women that he finds attractive.

鈥淭here is a concern that his behaviour, if unrestrained, may result in his exposure to the criminal justice system and risk to potentially vulnerable females,鈥� the ruling said.

The lawyer arguing on behalf of the local authority in charge of JB鈥檚 welfare, Vikram Sachdeva, accused the court of 鈥渄erogation of responsibility鈥� if they permitted JB to be released from the restrictions imposed on him.

The local authority wanted the comprehensive care plan with its restrictions and legal precedent under the 2005 Mental Health Act to stay in place as protection for both JB and any potential sexual partners, but Roberts said in her ruling that JB 鈥渋s anxious to have a sexual partner and believes that the current restrictions represent an unfair and unwarranted interference in his basic rights to a private and family life鈥� citing .

A past capacity assessment of JB by a clinical psychologist found that he 鈥渞epresented a moderate risk of sexual offending to women,鈥� and in the report, listed the 鈥渕ost likely鈥orm of sexual harassment鈥� would be 鈥渞epeated, unwanted sexually explicit messages to females鈥� either by telephone, social media or dating sites.

The clinical psychologist also noted that JB had 鈥渓imited social boundaries around women,鈥� and he acknowledges that he is unable 鈥渢o judge women鈥檚 reactions to him鈥nd is unwilling to directly ask for clarification of these issues,鈥� and that there is a risk of JB touching women in a sexual manner without consent.

The report warned that vulnerable women 鈥渨ho do not have the capacity to consent to sexual relations,鈥� are at risk from JB 鈥渘ot recognizing or respecting this fact, resulting in the potential for rape to occur,鈥� the assessment concluded.

It is understood that the local authority plans to appeal the judge鈥檚 ruling, .