Keira Bell and Mrs A vs. Tavistock - Court of Appeal hearing 23 & 24 June 2021

[FindTheTruth]

The appeal hearing will be live streamed this Wednesday 23 & Thursday 24 June, 10:30am

Background

1. The High Court decided in Mrs A and Keira Bell’s favour on 1st December 2020 that puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones are experimental treatments which cannot be given to children in most cases without application to the court. Full details of the original case:

www.transgendertrend.com/keira-bell-high-court-historic-judgment-protect-vulnerable-children/

1. The High Court decided in the case of AB on 26 March 2021 thatPARENTScan consent to their children receiving puberty blocking treatment when their children lack the capacity to consent.

1. Court of Appeal 23 & 24 June 2021 Keira Bell and Mrs A’s legal team is dealing with legal submissions from 7 intervenors who want to see the judgement of the Divisional Court overturned. “A significant task in defending the judgement of the Divisional Court. We are facing very well resourced opponents – the Tavistock being funded by the State and the other intervenors”.

Not the only way. It would (in theory) be possible to bring in legislation that sets a different test from Gillick competence that should be applied in GD cases where the patient is below the age of 16.

Yes, true, but the point in the original case seemed to be that the judge was pointing out that GIDS was failing to apply Gillick competence, and the ruling was an attempt to correct that.

If the point of law is that the judges can only rule on Gillick competence in individual cases, and that what the former judge did was effectively an unofficial attempt to create a different test from Gillick competence, then it’s likely to be concluded he overstepped the mark in much the same way the judge in Maya’s case did.

One of the problems with all these cases is that they are so mired in emotion (on both sides) that even judges get sidetracked. If the original judge in Keira’s case was utterly shocked at what was being done to children, he might well have overstepped the legal rules constraining him.

It strikes me sometimes that our judicial systems all too often become hung up on points of law which prevent them from actually adjudicating between right and wrong.

In a way I can see that that would be the "best" result Sophoclesthefox. What seems to lie at the heart of this is the question of whether, based on medical knowledge and medical expertise, the Tavistock is applying the correct level of gatekeeping. Keira Bell's experience tells us that they're not. But how can a UK court intervene to make them operate properly? It shouldn't be the court intevening to radically reform the practice of the Tavistock but the Tavistock deciding to do so itself.

so like this?

1 Tavi had a policy
2 it was put aside after judicial review.

1. judicial review being appealed on grounds that...........?

-judges substituted an alternative competence test instead of considering whether Tavi policy was rational in light of actual legal test. - - -

any help appreciated.

Finally, which is not a direct issue concerning the Gender Recognition Act, but is relevant, making sure that the under 18s are protected from decisions that they could make, that are irreversible in the future. I believe strongly that adults should have the freedom to lead their lives as they see fit, but I think it’s very important that while people are still developing their decision-making capabilities that we protect them from making those irreversible decisions.

anyone know what happened to this. A statement by Liz Truss on 20th April 2020

As far as I can tell they are querying whether there should ever have been a JR ruling for this in the first place? Am just trying to catch up on tweets rather than the live feed.
So (?) - if it's currently legal to give PBs to children then the Tavi weren't breaking the law unless they were giving them incorrectly, so there's no case? Which seems a bit ridiculous given what's been uncovered.

Sorry Cardinal - I didn't mean you were making an argument, I was just pondering.

But then "Yes, true, but the point in the original case seemed to be that the judge was pointing out that GIDS was failing to apply Gillick competence, and the ruling was an attempt to correct that."

I don't know what the role of the court is in that.

My overall impression is that the Court of Appeal is questioning whether a JR was appropriate because the courts should be very reluctant to find unlawful medical decision making in general when it is in highly contested areas because this should be tackled by medical institutions behaving professionally based on robust evidence.

^ And while we wait for that to happen?

So..... Keira bell and representatives raised hundreds of thousands of pounds to take this case to judicial review, it was in the papers, on telly, has had loads of publicity, they eon the judicial review, which the Tavistock appealed....

...... and only now is someone pouting out that a judicial review might not have been the appropriate action?

Is that right?

The thing with sexual function is that you can never be in a position to know what you've lost because you'll never get it back. You can regret an abortion once you are in a position to have another children and realise what could have been. I guess that argument holds for fertility. You might not want to be a parent at 10/11/12/13 but you realise that you do at 23 and how much harder that process might now be.

@rabbitwoman

So..... Keira bell and representatives raised hundreds of thousands of pounds to take this case to judicial review, it was in the papers, on telly, has had loads of publicity, they eon the judicial review, which the Tavistock appealed....

...... and only now is someone pouting out that a judicial review might not have been the appropriate action?

Is that right?

I don’t think that’s as uncommon as you might think. As in MF’s case, the appeal found the tribunal had erred in law, and ordered a fresh tribunal.

Don't worry. Jeremy Hyam QC will be poring over the law this evening to make a coherent case in the morning. Hopefully he'll spell it all out and the judges'll be satisfied that they have jurisdiction.

@rabbitwoman

So..... Keira bell and representatives raised hundreds of thousands of pounds to take this case to judicial review, it was in the papers, on telly, has had loads of publicity, they eon the judicial review, which the Tavistock appealed....

...... and only now is someone pouting out that a judicial review might not have been the appropriate action?

Is that right?

and didn't it have to go through a stage beforehand to decide whether it was a correct case for a Judicial Review? So not only was the Judicial Review not appropriate but the decision for a Judicial review was inappropriate?????

It's all so baffling.

Jesus, we just want to protect little kids.

I am thinking, it should not be this hard, it should never have been this hard.

Maybe bitheby they're giving Mr Hyam a going-over to get the best case out of him so if they did decide to uphold the decision it will look very solid.

@bitheby

The thing with sexual function is that you can never be in a position to know what you've lost because you'll never get it back. You can regret an abortion once you are in a position to have another children and realise what could have been. I guess that argument holds for fertility. You might not want to be a parent at 10/11/12/13 but you realise that you do at 23 and how much harder that process might now be.

When you look at the hoops women who are absolutely certain that they do not want children or any more children have to go through in order to be sterilised and the number of times they are refused this procedure on the grounds they may change their minds and yet here we have a service determining that children can make this decision, fully understand the consequences of it and it's done. It's un-fucking-believable.

As to whether or not it's legal to give puberty blockers to children, as far as I know, none of the medication given is officially approved for use in children for the purpose of blocking puberty. Isn't it all used off-label?
What's the process for legal usage of off-label drugs? Surely, that would be relevant?

It's un-fucking-believable.

Yup. Adults being treated like kids, and kids with no life experience being treated like adults.

@OldTurtleNewShell

As to whether or not it's legal to give puberty blockers to children, as far as I know, none of the medication given is officially approved for use in children for the purpose of blocking puberty. Isn't it all used off-label? What's the process for legal usage of off-label drugs? Surely, that would be relevant?

They are not licensed for this use, no, but off-label prescribing is legal. The prescriber bears additional responsibility for safety and efficacy.

www.gov.uk/drug-safety-update/off-label-or-unlicensed-use-of-medicines-prescribers-responsibilities

An interesting extract is below (sorry for terrible formatting - using my phone)

Advice for prescribers says you should:

• be satisfied that an alternative, licensed medicine would not meet the patient’s needs before prescribing an unlicensed medicine
• be satisfied that such use would better serve the patient’s needs than an appropriately licensed alternative before prescribing a medicine off-label,

• before prescribing an unlicensed medicine or using a medicine off-label you should:

*be satisfied that there is a sufficient evidence base and/or experience of using the medicine to show its safety and efficacy *take responsibility for prescribing the medicine and for overseeing the patient’s care, including monitoring and follow-up *record the medicine prescribed and, where common practice is not being followed, the reasons for prescribing this medicine; you may wish to record that you have discussed the issue with the patient

I still find it bizarre that we even have to argue that it's wrong to medicate healthy children for not conforming to gender norms.
The world has lost the plot.

I'm not sure this is the same though gingerandbiscuits MF's case was asking the appeal court about protected characteristics so that she could then have her case re-heard. This is about a full JR and an appeal to that review. If the original JR should not have heard the case at all, then is that likely? That was a senior judge and although I can understand the AC saying that the ruling was to make Gillick essential to all cases where medication is needed and would that be the right thing to do. I am sure the previous Judge would have know that. I am confused (I'm not alone I'm sure), surely in the JR they were not talking about the process being correct but whether the ages of competece could be met in this case.... and on and on

This bit:

*be satisfied that there is a sufficient evidence base and/or experience of using the medicine to show its safety and efficacy
*take responsibility for prescribing the medicine and for overseeing the patient’s care, including monitoring and follow-up

So, what am I missing?

You know, reading this today and trying to get my head round all this I am starting to think I might give up, and I am just an interested observer, I guess.

I think Keira bell must be one of the bravest people on the planet. She could have sued, right? But decided a JR would protect others from going through what she went through?

And if it has all been for nought because, somehow, a JR isn't the appropriate course of action, well..... At the very least I would be wondering why noone had told me earlier.....

Isn't it to be expected that Tavi will take these procedural/jurisdictional points? because the alternative is to defend on the basis that Tavi policy was in fact rational, and that would mean the upper court combing through all the evidence again which it shouldn't usually have to do.