Advanced search

Tavistock Appeal Denied

(182 Posts)
OhHolyJesus Mon 07-Dec-20 13:06:54

Appeal denied!!!

Lady Justice 👩‍⚖️ (*@RadFemLawyer*) Tweeted:
Permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal in the Bell v Tavistock case has been refused. 10 grounds of appeal were advanced. None succeeded, including an attempt at an Article 14 (discrimination) point which had not been suggested previously by the Defendant.

Anyone know what happens next?

OP’s posts: |
Ereshkigalangcleg Mon 07-Dec-20 13:11:27

Goodness that was fast! I would have thought it would have take longer.

PhoebeSnow Mon 07-Dec-20 13:13:26

Good news ! No idea if they can try to appeal again , but this is really good news, the tide is turning and we need to keèp pulling .

nauticant Mon 07-Dec-20 13:15:14

An application for permission to appeal will now to be made TO the Court of Appeal itself.

It looks like business as usual. The court refused appeal so appeal must be sought from the higher court.

GCFeministNC Mon 07-Dec-20 13:18:12

That's great news. It's ridiculous they're appealing though. They're the NHS FFS. How about 'do no harm'?

SophocIestheFox Mon 07-Dec-20 13:18:15

That’s good news. There were certainly indications on the day of the judgement that this would be the case.

nauticant Mon 07-Dec-20 13:18:58

Note this: The Defendant is to pay eighty percent of the Claimants' costs, capped in the sum of £35,000.

Datun Mon 07-Dec-20 13:24:27

Crikey, discrimination? They're really going there?

StillAHarpie Mon 07-Dec-20 13:29:00

That’s good, it must have been stressful enough for those who brought the case without opening it all up again

yourhairiswinterfire Mon 07-Dec-20 13:31:53

As has already been pointed out, these children are being discriminated against, but not it the way they like to think.

They've been receiving inappropriate care and less safeguarding than any other children. Why should gender dysphoric children be treated to a lesser standard than anyone else?

I'm glad the appeal failed. We need a public inquiry now.

nauticant Mon 07-Dec-20 13:35:37

The matter won't be closed unless the Court of Appeal decides not to hear the appeal. In the meantime the decision of the High Court is stayed:

The implementation of this Order is stayed until 4p.m. on 22 December 2020.

The stay will be maintained if a request for an appeal is made to the Court of Appeal.

Imnobody4 Mon 07-Dec-20 13:36:28

Seems like it also means blockers can continue to be prescribed in the interim.

Datun Mon 07-Dec-20 13:38:35

I'm sure I'm missing something here, but what's the point of the High Court saying no to an appeal, if the defendant can just ignore that and go straight to the appeal court?

Are appeals usually upheld by leapfrogging over a High Court refusal like that?

Ereshkigalangcleg Mon 07-Dec-20 13:41:07

Maugham said on his Twitter on the day the judgement was released that he didn't think an appeal would necessarily succeed.

Nc135 Mon 07-Dec-20 13:47:17

Appealing against what? Giving an extra level of protection to kids against experimental drugs. It’s a joke

user191245365 Mon 07-Dec-20 13:47:48

It would be better for it to be appealed and upheld all the way up to the Supreme Court, as that would bind all courts. High Court decisions only bind lower courts to follow the judgement.

That's the only way to achieve certainty and finality.

yourhairiswinterfire Mon 07-Dec-20 13:48:18

Can Jolyon and everyone now shut the fuck up about girls rights being snatched away by this ruling, please?

AnotherLass Mon 07-Dec-20 13:49:03

£35,000 is not very much! Someone said on twitter that the cost to Keira's side was in the order of £300,000. Does anyone know if Keira is okay for money, and why she's been awarded so little? I thought in general that the winner gets costs in legal cases.

HecatesCatsInXmasHats Mon 07-Dec-20 13:58:33


Appealing against what? Giving an extra level of protection to kids against experimental drugs. It’s a joke


OhHolyJesus Mon 07-Dec-20 14:01:12

The crowdfunded will cover the lawyer costs but Keira and her partner have had to find a lot of personal costs which I don't think can be included, like travel expenses etc. There is no find for this. The personal cost is obviously more than financial so if anyone wants to support further perhaps you can contact through lawyers or friends or message me and I'll see if there is anything we can do to show our support.

What Keira and do have done it truly monumental and it saves so many children (and the parents who didn't want to endorse PBS) from harm and the Do No Harm thing is very apt. The fact the Tavi are pursuing this tells you all you need to know about that.

OP’s posts: |
OhHolyJesus Mon 07-Dec-20 14:01:39

Sorry for bad spelling

OP’s posts: |
yourhairiswinterfire Mon 07-Dec-20 14:01:41

It seems all this 'evidence' flying around Twitter still hasn't made its way into Tavistock's hands, eh?

It seems all they've got is 'waah, discrimination!'.

MichelleofzeResistance Mon 07-Dec-20 14:08:27

I don't think it matters what 'evidence' is flying around, does it?

The NHS, via Tavistock, were asked to provide the evidence they kept and were working from, and were using to under pin their provision of treatment to children. The judgement was based on the Tavistock's own evidence of what they did.

Someone handing helpful evidence to the Tavistock now does nothing to change this fact; if there is relevant evidence the Tavistock should have had it and been working from it. What Mermaids and Stonewall and Maugrim and anyone else thinks is irrelevant, unless they were working in the Tavistock, setting policies at the time. If it's the case that they're this involved because actually they were, then it's a whole other issue of why people with a lot of politics and personal agendas were involved in medical decisions they had no qualifications in, whether this involvement has influenced the practices the Tavistock has been taken to court over, and if so, why the qualified professionals permitted this to happen.

Appealing against the NHS having to obey the law, and stop carrying out experimental treatments on children? Seriously?

ThatIsNotMyUsername Mon 07-Dec-20 14:08:47

Will ex patients start suing now?

Floisme Mon 07-Dec-20 14:14:06

What startled me most on reading the judgement was the lack of data supplied by GIDs.
You would think, wouldn't you that, if you were facing a judicial review, you'd be all over it.

Join the discussion

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

Join Mumsnet

Already have a Mumsnet account? Log in