Tavistock Appeal Denied

[OhHolyJesus]

Appeal denied!!!

Lady Justice 👩‍⚖️ (@RadFemLawyer) Tweeted:
Permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal in the Bell v Tavistock case has been refused. 10 grounds of appeal were advanced. None succeeded, including an attempt at an Article 14 (discrimination) point which had not been suggested previously by the Defendant. twitter.com/RadFemLawyer/status/1335926918223433734?s=20

Anyone know what happens next?

[nauticant]

The irony of the evidence is that before the judgement the Tavistock had leeway to experiment and that was the golden time for evidence to be generated and now, after the judgement, that opportunity is significantly reduced.

However, although it looks like a missed opportunity 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.

[Manderleyagain]

@Datun

I'm sure I'm missing something here, but what's the point of the High Court saying no to an appeal, if the defendant can just ignore that and go straight to the appeal court?

Are appeals usually upheld by leapfrogging over a High Court refusal like that?

From what I can tell this is the more usual way. A court doesn't usually grant a right to appeal because they stand by their own judgement. Otherwise they are admitting there's a good chance they got it wrong. So you apply direct to court of appeal. In Miller v college of policing the court where it was heard gave permission to appeal (even the same judge?) but that's less common.
RadFemLawyer says on twitter that the amount if detail in the decline is unusual. Really worth reading, especially the comment on gillick, and the comments on mermaids & stonewall applications to intervene.

[PronounssheRa]

The order refusing permission to appeal is linked in those tweets. It explains (again) why mermaids and stonewall were not given permission to intervene.

Suggest Jolyon and friends give it a read.

[Siameasy]

Goodness me fancy using an ideology as a basis for experimental procedures on children! And then getting upset when a court says no.

[yourhairiswinterfire]

@ThatIsNotMyUsername

Will ex patients start suing now?

I've been thinking about this too.

Is what Tavistock has been doing actually classed as unlawful? Was it the Times or Telegraph that alluded to possible criminal proceedings?

Even if the patients and ex patients are happy with their 'treatment', could they still sue on the grounds that this was experimental and they weren't aware of that at the time?

Sounds like the shit could really be hitting the fan soon.

[Cygne]

I wouldn't read that much into this. Unsurprisingly, judges tend not to agree that their decisions are potentially mistaken, hence the availability of a direct application to the Court of Appeal.

[Signalbox]

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

[PronounssheRa]

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

[HecatesCatsInXmasHats]

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?

[NecessaryScene1]

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.

[PronounssheRa]

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?

[vivariumvivariumsvivaria]

Fucking delighted to see this.

[Signalbox]

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)

[Scout2016]

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.

[NecessaryScene1]

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.

[NecessaryScene1]

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

[nauticant]

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.

[Floisme]

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.'

[Signalbox]

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.

[AnotherLass]

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.

[JamieLeeCurtains]

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

Ditto the organisations who provide registration.

[WeeBisom]

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.

[allmywhat]

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

[ThatIsNotMyUsername]

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

[Abitofalark]

@Datun

I'm sure I'm missing something here, but what's the point of the High Court saying no to an appeal, if the defendant can just ignore that and go straight to the appeal court?

Are appeals usually upheld by leapfrogging over a High Court refusal like that?

It's a normal part of the review process, for the court to give its judgment and then to consider an application for leave to appeal, and if it refuses that, to consider whether to allow an application to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal.

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.