Bogeyface you said yourself that if you were being paid to do so then you could form an appeal.
I didn't say that. Attention to detail - I said that there is unlikely to be an appeal (because no-one is likely to appeal on behalf of DD). And that if I were being paid more money to form an opinion, I could do a better job than in 10 minutes looking over it on the internet at night.
But the fact is that that would be simply to prevent opening floodgates, it would not necessarily be the best thing for this woman in this case.
Well, that's probably true. We don't actually know what will happen to the woman - she could potentially be so distraught at a forced operation, she became suicidal as a result; alternatively it could encourage her to engage in even more risky sexual behaviour. But its not usually an argument for not opening the floodgates in other areas of law. The problem remains that it is a highly teleological judgment. If the UK wishes to have the power of sterilising women when it deems it in their best interests to do so, it would be fairer to either have it set out in a constitutional document (but the UK doesn't have a written constitution, so that's not possible), or in primary legislation, so that it can be debated properly before our elected representatives in Parliament (but that's not going to happen because its far too controversial, and too many people would object, unlike with the odd ad hoc highly purposive, teleological judgment, such as this one).
The problem with a teleological judgment is that the reasoning in it can be used very easily to extend boundaries in future judgments, and it leaves the law rather uncertain as a result. The facts in this case are very specific; the points of law are not sufficiently delineated and I would have preferred to see more restrictive statements in the judgment at the least, along with a recognition of the notion of the Charter fundamental rights (rather than a cursory explanation of the ECHR rights).
FightOrFlight Can I ask what aspect of law you specialise in?
Previously commercial property, now European competition law, via a role auditing the merits of decisions of a governmental institution.