Keira Bell's JR - judgement on December 1st.

Thanks Purple, that is helpful.

Plenty of time for gardening then

The application for permission to appeal will almost certainly be on points of law (probably the grounds on which they sought permission to appeal previously). It’s very rare to obtain permission to adduce new evidence (and permission to do so won’t be granted unless it is somehow new evidence that couldn’t have been available at the first stage).

Keira’s team can put in a statement in response on why permission to appeal should be refused but won’t normally be allowed their costs of doing so.

Determination of permission to appeal applications on paper can take anywhere between a month and several months, although there might be grounds for this to be expedited given the arguable risk of harm to children (either way). I wouldn’t expect a decision on whether they have permission until around the end of January at the earliest, but I have known permission to be granted sooner.

If they obtain permission, a hearing of the appeal will be listed. If it’s expedited, this could take place within a few months. In the normal course, it could take a year or more.

They need to get the permission to appeal. That doesn't mean it will be granted

Or do they not get to do that at this stage?

I imagine Keira and Co will want to put in a response. So, more digging?

Appeal update here (yes, they have applied for permission to appeal)

tavistockandportman.nhs.uk/about-us/news/stories/update-gids-judicial-review-and-timetable-clinical-reviews-22-december-2020/

But I can imagine any application is likely to go in at the 11th hour, so still plenty of time before 4pm, if that's the deadline.

That's my understanding too.

My understanding was that the Tavistock will have to argue points where they think the judges were incorrect in their judgement, and it won't be a second chance to present facts they couldn't be arsed to provide the first time.

I would very much welcome an appeal, and am interested in what evidence the Tavistock have that they didn't present for the original hearing, especially as it seems to just dig themselves into a hole.

I imagine the Beeb has had a tip-off

The other possibility is that Ben Hunte just makes things up.

I imagine the Beeb has had a tip-off

Was just coming to check - hoping there is an appeal as this is an important enough issue to make it very well worth toothcombing all the way through again to be certain.

Am I getting this right, that the application hasn't yet been put in?

Or have they?

Looks like they have applied for leave to appeal, according to the BBC article that is being discussed on another thread:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-55369784

Correction: Just looked at the Court Order made on 1 December and tomorrow at 4pm is the deadline for them to put in their application for leave to appeal. It doesn't say the Court will give a decision on the application tomorrow.

It's an application for leave to appeal. The Court of Appeal will give a decision on that tomorrow.

I would be great to hear that each and every child or teen on their list (including waiting list) got the benefit of that wonderful crowdfunder to have some intense mental health care (rather than one zoom session with some discredited clinic). Wouldn't all that money go a way to subsidise those who cannot afford private mental health care of the unbiased kind?

I'd rather they spent more money actually researching, collecting decent data, tracking outcomes, and providing decent mental health care to children, rather than waste thousands trying to reverse a judgement that told them they're experimenting on children and taking consent from them when it wasn't at all appropriate. But they seem rather arrogant, so I expect they'll go with the latter.

I am looking forward to seeing the appeal actually. Because if the standard of the research that they published directly after the court sessions closed is the best they have, they still have nothing. And the WPATH have done some jiggery wottery in renaming their 'standard' as 'guidelines'. Somewhat of a demotion....

I'd love to see some new data that can be robustly reviewed and replicated.

It depends on whether they want to try to win or would prefer to lose but be seen to have fought hard. I suspect that at least some in the gender clinics would see the latter as getting themselves out of an impossible corner.

There must be huge pressure on them to appeal, but surely it could do them even more damage?

Would they really want to appeal?

Surely it would require evidence that PBs are efficatious at treating GD enough to warrant the risks? At the moment we only have evidence of short term effectiveness (not efficacy and not long term) and the evidence on risk is poor.

That's not the kind of thing you can magic up overnight. It would seem mad to squander money on a quixotic appeal when the review conclusions can be amended if evidence appears in future.

Isn't the deadline for the Tavistock appeal tomorrow. Anyone have an update?