Tavistock Appeal Denied

Given that there is also an independent enquiry going on, it seems likely that there will be ample opportunity for all evidence to be examined.

It's the explanations, by the way. It's interesting.

It's brought to pass what people have been saying for ages. The ideology has been very effective by using no debate tactics and where terms having well known meanings forever now change meaning from argument to argument, sometimes within the same sentence.

As people have said, the only way to deal with this is to get them into court and make them present their case. This is the result.

Look at the criticism last week's judgement is getting on social media. It is incomprehensible riddled with misinformation and denial. It's toddler rage mixed with very unpleasant guilt-tripping.

That's interesting Abitofalark

It seems that this is the first time that anyone in authority has actually said no to this movement. Hence the major tantrums we're seeing. I'm just so pleased that the no was in relation to the safety children.

It's an indication of how seriously the High Court viewed this case that it sat with three judges rather than one and even more when you look at who they were: one was the President of the Queen's Bench division, the most senior High Court judge in that division and one was a Lord Justice - a judge of the Court of Appeal - and the third a High Court judge.

The Court of Appeal will consider the application and take a view on and whether it raises a point of importance and wide implication about the interpretation or application of the law which merits further consideration and argument.

So the court of appeal can hear a case because it is a really importance case, even if they think the grounds for appeal are crap?

The court has refused leave to appeal for the reasons stated in the Court Order. However, it has given the applicant leave to apply to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal - to itself!

The Court of Appeal will consider the application and take a view on and whether it raises a point of importance and wide implication about the interpretation or application of the law which merits further consideration and argument. That's what it is there for.

Isn’t he a tax lawyer? So a bit like a haematologist commenting on a nose job?

I've never read an appeal judgement before. Is that a normal tone for them? I can't help reading it as exasperated.

Just a word of caution that Maugham being fairly certain there will be an appeal doesn't mean much considering that he seems to utterly fail to understand what the judgment itself is saying. It's also worth noting that in an appeal no new evidence or arguments can be put forward. You can only appeal if the original judgment was wrong on a point of law or procedure.

I'd be interested to know how the companies who insure these clinicians feel right now.

Ditto the organisations who provide registration.

I suppose that the judges may have capped the costs paid because they knew that there was a crowdfunder that had paid for most of it.

Another thing I wonder is whether people at the Tavistock are secretly relieved that the judiciary has taken control of this mess out of their hands

I can imagine they might well be relieved. The pressure to prescribe must have really built up over the last few years. And all those clinicians must have a sense that at some point the lawsuits are going to start rolling in. The requirement for court order would offer clinicians (and their registration) a degree of protection.

Imagine a school telling an Ofsted inspector, 'Oh we haven't kept any records on that, but anyway here are some students who will tell you how happy they are.'

Another thing I wonder is whether people at the Tavistock are secretly relieved that the judiciary has taken control of this mess out of their hands. In terms of moving the treatment regimes over onto something rational and science-based, I don't think the Tavistock would have been able to do it had they remained completely in control.

(Did the Emperor not wear his new clothes to court, or did the judges just not look at them properly?)

Jolyon apparently disagrees (which is a surprise)

Well, when there is zero evidence available (as appears to be the case here), it's going to be hard to agree on whether they had the zero evidence and just didn't look at it properly, or whether they didn't get the zero evidence.

In the end there will presumably be a common activist narrative on this, but it'll take them a while to figure out the approved line...

The fact that the evidence exists is taken as a matter of faith. They need to come up for the explanation of why the judges just can't see it.

I can't believe how unprepared they were. I don't think any of the information the court asked for couldn't have been anticipated. Even if it hadn't been collated going along, get it together retrospectively, you're being taken to court!
Are there grounds to sue on something like malpractice or negligence, because their practice was so sloppy?
That said I wonder if the costs are capped because it's public money.

I've seen a lot of trans activists suggest that the Tavi presented a week case and that there was missing evidence that Stonewall/Mermaids et al would have been able to present to the court had they been allowed.

Jolyon apparently disagrees (which is a surprise)

Fucking delighted to see this.

I'm wondering how much involvement the department for health and social care and/or NHS England will have in the decision to appeal.

Presumably the Tavistock arent working in a vacuum and SpAds/ministers have been advised of what is going on?

You would think, wouldn't you that, if you were facing a judicial review, you'd be all over it.

This is why the judgement used the word "surprising" so many times.

I can't help but think that the Tavistock didn't want to create an evidence base because they suspected it would tell a story that would go against their activities.

You do have to wonder don't you?

Will be interesting to see if the Tavistock decide to waste even more NHS money pursuing this.

Jolyon is saying it's normal for the High Court to refuse an appeal and for parties to apply direct to the CoA. He seem fairly certain that there will be an appeal and he is also saying that the effect of the decision of the HC will be suspended until after the appeal is heard.

twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1335919371554869248