Keira Bell - confirming appeal to Supreme Court

[OhHolyJesus]

All power to you Keira! I thank you for your persistence and determination and I'm (still) standing with you.

Text from the crowdfunder update:

APPEAL DECISION
On 17th September 2021 a decision at the Court of Appeal was reached. You can read it here. I am obviously disappointed with the ruling of the Court and especially that it did not grapple with the significant risk of harm that children are exposed to by being given powerful experimental drugs. I am surprised and disappointed that the Court was not concerned that children as young as 10 have been put on a pathway to sterilisation.
I have no regrets in bringing this case along with Mrs A and Sue Evans. It has shone a light into the dark corners of a medical scandal that is harming children and harmed me.
There is more to be done. It is a fantasy and deeply concerning that any doctor could believe a 10 year could consent to the loss of their fertility. In a medical service that sits outside conventional medical practice it is inadequate to say "trust the doctor". I am therefore seeking permission to appeal to the Supreme Court. Due to this, we have upped the target by 20k.
I wish to thank those who have supported me and Mrs A throughout this case whether through your messages or finances. Thank you so much.

@TooWicked

I will happily chip in again.

Even if permission to appeal is not granted, the sunlight this is allowing to shine on the issue is worth every penny for me.

I don't have any optimism that it will be covered appropriately in MSM. However, if it does give HCPs pause for thought, and emboldens them to make research recommendations and rethink the current pathways, then it's well worth it.

Obvious Keira and her team are keeping their appeal arguments under wraps for the time being which I'm sure is wise. Perhaps the recent admissions by Bowers (and by association WPATH) will be able to form some of it.

I'm still not convinced an appeal will be granted because of the conclusion of the last court that this whole issue needs to be thrown back to the liable medical practitioners to sort out their own house.

I will be happy if I'm wrong and she is granted leave to go the the SC.

I'm still not convinced an appeal will be granted because of the conclusion of the last court that this whole issue needs to be thrown back to the liable medical practitioners to sort out their own house

Yes, that is why I am wondering about the grounds upon which appeals are granted or denied.

I'm still not convinced an appeal will be granted because of the conclusion of the last court that this whole issue needs to be thrown back to the liable medical practitioners to sort out their own house.

I think you're right about this. At some point, even if there's been a misunderstanding about the evidence (as in the reality of PBs and the claimed reversibility), it's all about procedure and not the evidence even when it's wrongly interpreted.

Yes, I thought it might be about the procedure and not evidence ...

Being reported on the Daily Mail on line - sorry I do not have the IT skills to be able to share.
The more sunlight the better.

I wonder if KB will go down the civil route and sue them as the last step, if the appeal is not granted. She deserves compensation. It would be good if a class action could be mounted by de-transitioners in the UK but I don't know the numbers (and neither does anyone else).

@gailforce1

Being reported on the Daily Mail on line - sorry I do not have the IT skills to be able to share. The more sunlight the better.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10060533/Detransitioned-activist-takes-war-puberty-blockers-Supreme-Court.html

Keep fighting Keira

Best get out my gardening gloves again. Well done Keira, she is a truly inspirational young woman.

I was under the impression that a JR could be for any decision that a public body had made; e.g. if your child (like mine) has an EHCP that is not being carried out, the only way to achieve the provision that is in the EHCP is to ask for a judicial review. In some cases, this could mean that the JR tells a medical body (e.g. the NHS OT services) that they have to do what it says.

Keira is admirable, and I've happily rummaged down the back of the sofa cushions to dig out a few more quid towards funding the proceedings.

Just a small contribution to show support, while I continue to wait for that generous money transfer/bribe the American far right are supposed to be sending. That and my lesbian bride.

Actually, if anyone in the bride distribution business is reading this, I'll settle for a cook/housekeeper, especially if she enjoys gardening. Getting a bit too old and frail for hanky panky nowadays, but I do still enjoy a nice cup of tea and slice of freshly baked cake in the garden.

Thanks DrSpouse for setting it out- as you say, JR’s a way to challenge whether a public body made a decision lawfully or not and just get the decision remade.

More here: www.judiciary.uk/you-and-the-judiciary/judicial-review/

What’s very worrying is that this Johnson government have been reviewing JR with a view to making some changes to it. They don’t like the idea that judges can overrule secondary legislation made by Parliament or a minister’s decision. For example that happened over Brexit process in some instances. JR can’t be used to ask a judge to overrule primary legislation which is fine. But ministers or prime ministers can and do make some odd decisions. As can public bodies.

I’m not a lawyer so I don’t fully understand it all but it seems an important form of legal challenge to keep, for individuals to be able to make where government is going in an unfair, illegal or irrational direction
.
More on proposed changes here- see final box: www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/judicial-review

I believe JR's were brought in to help paper over the cracks of bad legislation, rather than go through the whole parliament route. Someone might be able to clarify

@MrsWooster

Dig we must, for a better Britain.

“Dig for victory” has a ring to it, doesn’t it?