Jo Maugham

[GoodbyePorpoiseSpit]

I follow Jo on Twitter and feel that the GoodLaw project is a needed and good thing when it comes to holding ministers/gov spending to account. He seems to take refuge in the rule of law and facts .... so, so WHY after the recent ruling on puberty blockers is he tweeting and retweeting Trans folk who are sharing (in emotive and extra detail) their experience post ruling. What his deal?? What’s his skin in the game? Looked through some old tweets and he really seems to have come down hard against women’s rights.
Ca anyone explain his deal here?

@purpleanorak

Simon Myerson QC may slightly restore your faith if you’re not already following him!

There is now a real fear among some women at the bar about engaging in this issue. It’s too easy for the nebulous “bringing the profession into disrepute” to be used as a complaint to try and disbar barristers who express views publicly. It is particularly concerning for people towards the start of their career who have no other options to fall back on, and particularly frustrating when they might be much more qualified in the relevant areas of law than certain other barristers I could mention...

I think Simon M has been peaked recently - some Rad fem accounts say they can't see quoted tweets from him because they are blocked, I suspect he was once one of the "be nice, be kind" brigade.

JM seems to be doing a really really good job of bringing a whole load of legal minds to critical consciousness on this issue.

I think you're probably right about Simon. He's very reasonable - doesn't really take a view just sticks to the law and evidence. It's good to see on twitter.

@AnotherLass

The GLP has published an update

goodlawproject.org/update/advisory-group-transgender/?utm_source=Twitter&utm_campaign=gids%20group%20tw%202312&utm_medium=social%20media

Their strategy seems to be based on trying to get the Tavi to prescribe on parental consent alone.

I am extremely confused by this. Throughout Keira's case, JM was shrieking that finding in her favour would undermine Gillick. But, if Gillick is at the centre of your argument, parental consent is irrelevant: a parent cannot consent to a treatment on behalf of a child who is Gillick competent (unless the child is temporarily incapacitated e.g. unconscious). The essence of the HOL judgment in Gillick was that parental rights to consent fall away as a child becomes competent.

But I think that’s the course of action the GLP are forced into by the Bell decision. Following Bell, those under 16 are not Gillick competent because of the nature and consequences of the treatment are not something an under 16 can generally be said to be competent to consent to. Since the Tavistock require the child’s (not their parents’) consent for PBs, they are now facing a dead end unless the court of protection finds a particular under-16 competent to consent.

The GLP want to sidestep the process of having to apply to the court for individual children to receive PBs and substitute parental consent for the child’s consent. An appeal against the finding that minors aren’t competent to consent would require some/new evidence that would change the way the HC applied Gillick.

JM seems to be doing a really really good job of bringing a whole load of legal minds to critical consciousness on this issue.

Interesting, and reassuring, watching it all unfold.

If he had been harbouring ambitions of becoming a judge, would hope the judgement/lack thereof he's displaying now would be factored in to his applications...

Pleased to see Mridul Wadhwa is on the panel. Excellent news.