NEW: Grounds in support of intervention in the Bell v Tavistock JR appeal published

(239 Posts)
ItsAllGoingToBeFine Tue 26-Jan-21 09:53:11

twitter.com/RadFemLawyer/status/1354002497753538562?s=19

This is going to fascinating to follow.

GIRES, Stonewall, Brooks and the Endocrine society are intervening.

OP’s posts: |
ItsAllGoingToBeFine Tue 26-Jan-21 09:53:56

Requesting to intervene that should say. Full doc can be downloaded via link above.

OP’s posts: |
NonHypotheticalLurkingParent Tue 26-Jan-21 10:12:18

It sounds like they’re basically arguing that trans children are special, have special comprehension powers and so can consent (to PBs) on account of being uniquely special. That no one considered that trans children, when denied what they want, will scweam and scweam and scweam until they’re sick.

ItsAllGoingToBeFine Tue 26-Jan-21 10:12:36

Funded by the Good Law Project

OP’s posts: |
Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g Tue 26-Jan-21 10:26:02

NonHypotheticalLurkingParent

It sounds like they’re basically arguing that trans children are special, have special comprehension powers and so can consent (to PBs) on account of being uniquely special. That no one considered that trans children, when denied what they want, will scweam and scweam and scweam until they’re sick.

Having just skimmed through it, I'd say that's an extremely astute summary!

Whatwouldscullydo Tue 26-Jan-21 10:30:47

But where was all this info befire?

Nothing that has come out since helps them in any way?

BuntingEllacott Tue 26-Jan-21 10:31:19

Section 16(3) is claiming that children with gender dysphoria going through the GIDS system are so well versed in their condition that they are uniquely placed to give consent. The implication is that while other children with other conditions might not be gillick competent, children with gender dysphoria are a special case and have more insight at an earlier age.

I really hope this gets laughed out of court. That is a ridiculous, evidence-free argument.

Advertisement

Whatwouldscullydo Tue 26-Jan-21 10:40:51

I really hope this gets laughed out of court. That is a ridiculous, evidence-free argument

Brain scans aren't part of the DX process though so I'm curious to know how they can claim that they have capability. That would require their brain development to be abnormally quicker ?

How can u argue that they have the capability whilst simultaneously arguing fir a medication that would reduce brain development?

NotBadConsidering Tue 26-Jan-21 10:41:57

I’m not a legal person, but they seem to be claiming that Gillick allows kids to do whatever they want to do. It says Gillick recommends a child centred approach that recognises children develop at different rates. Therefore they would have to admit that there are children with gender confusion that are not as fully developed.

And if these children are able to consent according to them, then they should have no problem meeting the eight criteria set out in the original judgment.

And to me, it’s laughable that they are going to base this on a challenge regarding Gillick, and somehow Stonewall et al are experts on children consenting to treatment?

OvaHere Tue 26-Jan-21 11:04:27

Also we know that children with co-morbidities such as autism do not necessarily develop in a linear way and children on the autism spectrum are over represented in the cohort that ends up at GIDS.

Defaultname Tue 26-Jan-21 11:04:33

ItsAllGoingToBeFine

Funded by the Good Law Project

Is it ?

Good Lawd above!

Apollo440 Tue 26-Jan-21 11:06:12

It all falls apart outside of twitter.

Defaultname Tue 26-Jan-21 11:10:29

BuntingEllacott

Section 16(3) is claiming that children with gender dysphoria going through the GIDS system are so well versed in their condition that they are uniquely placed to give consent. The implication is that while other children with other conditions might not be gillick competent, children with gender dysphoria are a special case and have more insight at an earlier age.

I really hope this gets laughed out of court. That is a ridiculous, evidence-free argument.

It sounds mighty like knowing one's the Messiah, but surely in that case, every child except the actual annointed one would be, well, labouring under a self-misapprehension?

turnedthewatersintoblood Tue 26-Jan-21 11:11:18

are the Good Law project funding the appeal, or just the interventions?

Datun Tue 26-Jan-21 11:22:23

It's my understanding that the Intervenors must provide evidence of their grounds for intervention. Which is why Stonewall and mermaids were thrown out last time and Transgendertrend wasn't.

Where is the evidence?

The Tavistock themselves said they thought some of the children were being coached what to say.

Which is not exactly a secret. Anywhere online shows that.

gardenbird48 Tue 26-Jan-21 11:22:24

Interesting. I thought that i) is irrelevant because there were testimonies (?) from affected children in the original case (I can’t see why JM keeps claiming they didn’t - were they the wrong sort? ii) I thought the judgement found that parental consent would not override the fact that the child cannot consent (and informed consent may not be possible because there is no actual information on which to base a decision?) and iii) the judge was very clear that this doesn’t impact Gillick - so what possible impact could it have on other (well researched, non health/fertility destroying procedures?

AlwaysTawnyOwl Tue 26-Jan-21 11:25:58

The CQC report found that consent forms were often not even completed so this will be interesting.

Manderleyagain Tue 26-Jan-21 11:27:59

Good law proj are just funding the intervention. They seem to have assembled this consortium. Mermaids not included.

As I understand it the court did not consider parental consent because it didn't arise. That was because Gids always took the view that they needed the patient's consent, so did not base treatment on parental consent. I expect informally parent consent was needed because the children wouldn't have been there without it, but their process was to refer the child for pb based on the child's consent. So the intervention is asking the court to force Gids to change this process? I think?

ItsAllGoingToBeFine Tue 26-Jan-21 11:28:03

turnedthewatersintoblood

are the Good Law project funding the appeal, or just the interventions?

Just the intervention (I think)

twitter.com/GoodLawProject/status/1353994123666223106?s=19

OP’s posts: |
Manderleyagain Tue 26-Jan-21 11:30:25

It's interesting that Brook is there - because they think the Jr's result has negative consequences for their work that relies on gillick? But the high court made clear that it doesn't. Brook obviously doesn't believe that.

BuntingEllacott Tue 26-Jan-21 11:32:43

They're also trying to get around the fact that Stonewall et al were refused permission to intervene before by making it a joint intervention with the Endocrine Society who appear to be the only ones approaching a useful addition to the evidence base, and even that looks rather thin. Rather sneaky, all things considered.

ItsAllGoingToBeFine Tue 26-Jan-21 11:34:36

It's my understanding that the Intervenors must provide evidence of their grounds for intervention. Which is why Stonewall and mermaids were thrown out last time and Transgendertrend wasn't.

Where is the evidence?

Quite. On skimming the grounds for intervention is seems to be, as others have said, relying on anecdotes from children / young people / adults with an agenda. There's seems to be a lack of what most people would consider evidence. And while qualitative data can be useful, as far as I can tell there isn't enough to be rigourously analysed.

Besides, I thought you couldn't introduce new evidence in an appeal?

OP’s posts: |
Whatwouldscullydo Tue 26-Jan-21 11:38:28

Besides, I thought you couldn't introduce new evidence in an appeal

I thought so to, and all they had befire was sone 12 year olds having sex being abused and asexuality.

The report basically confirmed blockers were in deed a first step and not a stop gap.

They just got found to be inadequate including consent firms improperly completed

So what new evidence could there even be?

nauticant Tue 26-Jan-21 11:48:18

Besides, I thought you couldn't introduce new evidence in an appeal?

There's no absolute bar:

further evidence would be admitted on the hearing of an appeal only in the following circumstances:

if it is shown that the evidence could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence for use at the trial;

if the further evidence is such that, if given, it would probably have an important influence on the result of the case, although it need not be decisive; and

if the evidence is such as is presumably to be believed.

www.internationallawoffice.com/Newsletters/Litigation/United-Kingdom/Herbert-Smith/Admissibility-of-New-Evidence-on-Appeal

This is subject to Rule 52.21 of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR): www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part52#52.21

Manderleyagain Tue 26-Jan-21 12:28:43

I thought 16.4 was interesting. Sorry can't work out how to copy.

They are right to say the court should have heard evidence on the comparison between the welbeing of children who do and don't take pbs. That they should have considered evidence about children for whom things did improve. It will be interesting to find out what evidence they supply. Will it be anecdotes? Or do they know if studies the court were not shown.

My understanding was that Gids could not or did not provide evidence that the treatment had a positive effect and that was one of the reasons the court described it as experimental. The empiracle evidence was not there. So they are right that the court should have heard evidence, except the reason they didn't was because there was no evidence to hear.

Will the ibtervenors have to supply a list of the evidence they plan to provide to illustrate this?

Join the discussion

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

Join Mumsnet

Already have a Mumsnet account? Log in