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?

[ChloeCrocodile]

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?

[Abitofalark]

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.

[persistentwoman]

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.

[nauticant]

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.

[Datun]

@Abitofalark

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 Lord Justice one, who is a judge at the court of appeal? Would they be allowed to hear the appeal at the court of appeal, too? Or do they have to sit this one out, because they've already heard it once?

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

[merrymouse]

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.

[MichelleofzeResistance]

Interesting that one of the judges sitting was from the court of appeal, considering the conclusions they came to.

Requesting the court of appeal is a democratic right, and a well made judgement should stand up to it if it is correct. If the court of appeal affirm the judgement as correct, then that sets it as a stronger ruling and precedent.

[MichelleofzeResistance]

If they affirm it as not correct I will be most interested to hear why.

[Datun]

Thanks for the explanations I meant!

[Coyoacan]

If it does go to appeal and Keira et al are not able to raise the money to fight the appeal, will that mean business as usual for the Tavistock?

[Abitofalark]

Datun, I wouldn't think the same judge would sit on the appeal. At the very least, they wouldn't want to give any grounds for appeal on that score. But I don't know.
I thought very significant that there was a heavyweight bench for this one. They knew the complexity of the law and the importance of it, the public interest and the implications for children and young people, for parents, for the NHS and medical profession and they were careful not to challenge Gillick principles and to take account of the Article 8 rights as well. They kept well away from the status and regulation of puberty blockers themselves and confined themselves to consent but even so, other legal cases could follow on from this. There are straws in the wind already. And it has been assumed by some commentators that there will be an appeal.

[Crazycatlady83]

@ThatIsNotMyUsername

Will ex patients start suing now?

I think this is an interesting point. Tavistock assumed that the patients had competence to give consent to the treatment. My simplistic view of the judgement was that I thought the Court stated that essentially consent could not be given by these children because the consequences of the experimental treatment were unknown and/or the consequences (loss of sexual function / fertility) couldn’t possibly be appreciated by a minor. So consent cannot be freely given without the consequences being explained (it’s not just a pause but had serious physical consequences for these children)

Therefore if consent was not obtained properly, surely this does leave the door open for future litigation?

[vivariumvivariumsvivaria]

That's interesting that there were 3 judges. I wonder whether they are bracing themselves for an enquiry. there are parallels with mesh implants - a lack of research, issues from big pharma nd a lack of actually listening to the patient group added to the pressures of waiting lists and the desire to help.

[Datun]

@Abitofalark

Datun, I wouldn't think the same judge would sit on the appeal. At the very least, they wouldn't want to give any grounds for appeal on that score. But I don't know.
I thought very significant that there was a heavyweight bench for this one. They knew the complexity of the law and the importance of it, the public interest and the implications for children and young people, for parents, for the NHS and medical profession and they were careful not to challenge Gillick principles and to take account of the Article 8 rights as well. They kept well away from the status and regulation of puberty blockers themselves and confined themselves to consent but even so, other legal cases could follow on from this. There are straws in the wind already. And it has been assumed by some commentators that there will be an appeal.

Interesting. Thank you.

Personally I feel that any sunlight is good.

I would still like to see exactly how one can make a 10-year-old understand what an orgasm is, and appreciate what adult sterility feels like. What words would one would use to describe it to them, and what possible words could they use to convince anyone they understand.

Jazz Jennings was told an orgasm was like a sneeze. No wonder they thought they weren't missing out.

It would be inappropriate to fully explain an orgasm to a 10-year-old, surely.

So for me, even if an appeal is granted, the lid is off now. Debating, opining, columns, articles, discussions, phone ins, they can all happen unrestricted.

[persistentwoman]

It's always been said on here that once these children reach adulthood and fully appreciate the extent of their surgeries, infertility, life long medication requirements and complexity of relationships, some of them will be enraged that they made these decisions before they were able to fully understand the implications. So this judgement will be critical for them.

[Apollo440]

I am afraid to say that the Court of Appeal will almost certainly grant them the right to appeal and I'd expect them to have cobbled together some evidence by then. How believable that will be remains to be seen.

[Floisme]

Not my area of expertise but my understanding is that they have to come up with legal arguments as to why the judgement on the evidence that was presented was wrong; which suggests to me that it might be a bit too late for the Tavistock to find some new data down the back of the sofa. But do correct me if that's wrong.

[OvaHere]

That's my understanding Floisme I don't think new evidence can be submitted as part of asking for an appeal. Just a critique of how you believe the law was applied incorrectly in the original judgement.

[yourhairiswinterfire]

That rejection sounds very stern, doesn't it?

"You've misunderstood the judgement here."
"Precocious puberty is irrelevant here."
"You're very wrong about Gillick."
"Mermaids and Stonewall had the same chance as other parties and they blew it."

(Who tried to submit the same witness twice but under different initials? What a daft blunder!)

[Tootsweets23]

Regarding future law suits. I remember speaking five years ago with a senior relevant person in this area who said what will blow this open will be the current children being treated in these clinics growing up and suing the crap out of those who treated and enabled this practice. That is exactly what this JR decision has enabled and everyone involved must be shitting themselves.

[EdgeOfACoin]

@OvaHere

That's my understanding Floisme I don't think new evidence can be submitted as part of asking for an appeal. Just a critique of how you believe the law was applied incorrectly in the original judgement.

That's my understanding too. The other side has to show a material error in law or fact for an appeal to succeed.

An appeal isn't a retrial.

[twoHopes]

Can someone remind me. Wasn't it Michael Biggs who analysed research by the Tavistock (?) and found that, contrary to the conclusions of their study, the data was showing that suicide ideation was actually increasing post-treatment? This was a couple of years ago so I'm struggling to remember the details.

If that's the kind of evidence base the Tavistock are sitting on then I'm not surprised it wasn't put before the judges. I wonder if the lack of evidence put forward was less to do with incompetence and more because it would be hurting their case rather than helping it?

[JamieLeeCurtains]

Like a cover up?

[Floisme]

The judgement refers to some research that, if I remember correctly, the Tavistock initiated in 2011, but that hadn't completed the peer review process and so wasn't ready.
You'd have thought, wouldn't you, that the Tavistock, knowing this case was pending, would have pulled out all the stops to get it completed in time?

[carlaCox]

Sorry I'm not suggesting a cover up, more that the evidence collected by the Tavistock is not showing particularly positive outcomes for their treatment and so perhaps the lawyers decided it wouldn't really help the case? I.e. it was a strategic legal decision rather than a lack of data collection/pure incompetence.