The first indication in public that a 13 year old trans child would be taking part in the judicial review came in Sue Evans's "case update" dated 7 September. She wrote:
"There has been a significant amount of interest from groups that have wanted to become formally involved in the case. Transgendertrend has been allowed to participate, as has a 13 year old trans-child. Mermaids and Stonewall have been refused permission to get involved."
But two days before the case was heard, Jolyon seems to have broken the news that, in fact, the child's request had been refused. He wrote on twitter on 5 October: "The case against the Tavistock... will hear no submissions from trans kids. They, and charities representing them, asked to be heard but were denied all voice."
Then with the judgment of 1 December came the description of the 13 year old, given the name S, as "a 13 year old trans boy who is on the waiting list at GIDS" and is now a GenderGP customer. (para 87). In the judges' order refusing permission to appeal (at Ground 9), it was explained that S had applied to intervene "to ensure that the voice of the child was heard" but it turned out that he had already made a statement, using a different initial, which had been included in the evidence by the defendant, but using a different initial letter for his name. But S had not disclosed this. The judge commented: "The voice of the child, and this particular child, was heard."
Is it a conventional legal thing to talk about 'hearing voices', or should we connect Jolyon's 5 Oct complaint of 'all voice' being denied, and the judge's retort that the child did indeed have a voice? And did Jolyon's complaint on 5 October simply reflect things that any lawyer could have known anyway, about who was intervening and who wasn't - even though it wasn't part of the news reporting at that time - or would it be because he was involved in the application to intervene, or was in touch with those who were?
I honestly don't know the answers!