Judicial Review to PB trial is to go ahead

[impossibletoday]

https://x.com/i/status/2019684018699301031

Fabulous news!

https://x.com/i/status/2019684025321783542

This is fabulous news!

Campaigners launch legal action to stop puberty blockers trial

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/26af53e880cd3b8b

Sorry, am a bit dusty on legalise. Has the JR been given permission to go ahead? Or is this just an application for a JR?

.

Yes. I've (skim) read all that. It doesn't say if the JR has been granted permission to go ahead. Isn't that what needs to happen?

(As I said, I'm nolt sure of the process.)

I just saw this. Meeting minutes from research oversight board from May 2023 - a year before Cass was published - proposing and agreeing the trial. Cass was at the meeting. Did I miss this??!

I agree It's confusing. Lawyer needed!

From the Telegraph article.

Researchers said in November that they wanted to recruit about 226 young people aged between 10 and almost 16 after confirmation came that ethical and regulatory approval for a trial had been granted.

However, the complainants have now sought permission in the High Court to challenge the decision and said they will “if necessary” ask for recruitment to be paused while legal proceedings are under way.

The complainants are taking action against the Health Research Authority (HRA) and the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC), claiming the ethical approval process for the trial “contained serious flaws”.

Mr Esses said: “The recruitment of children is due to commence imminently, yet the conspiracy of silence continues. If they won’t safeguard children of their own accord, we will compel them to do so.”

Hopefully the PB trial will be put on hold at least.

Great good luck to them

I wish someone would explain what is actually happening. Is it a Letter Before Action type thing?

Why are people going "Yes! Great news!", when it's not clear what's being done?

Much as I hate the GLP, this is the sort of thing they do. Get people all excited and riled up, for not much.

From what I can make out the permission stage is an admin/paper process. So the fact that they are going to the High Court means permission has been granted.
If they don't win their case there they will need to apply for permission to take to Supreme Court.

I think the important thing is to get the trial suspended during legal proceedings.

If permission is granted, the claim can proceed. A further round of pleadings (and sometimes evidence) is exchanged between the parties which culminates in a full hearing in the High Court. Hearings usually last for a day, although in more complex cases, they may take longer. The period of time between first instructing solicitors and receiving judgment (often several months after the hearing) can last a year.

Oh, I'm all for the trial to be delayed, and hopefully cancelled.

I just can't get a grip on what's actually happening. Why are they not being clearer? Esse's statement didn't help much.

The initial message is a bit misleading. The Claimants have issued a claim for judicial review. They first need to obtain permission from the court to proceed. If they have only issued it today (which appears to be the case), they cannot already have obtained permission. I expect they will either be asking for expedition so the hearing will be held prior to the commencement of the trial, or if that is not possible, they will be asking the court for an interim order suspending the start of the trial pending the main hearing. If the claim (which will be in Administrative Court) is unsuccessful, the Claimants can apply for permission to the Court of Appeal and then onwards to the Supreme Court,

Thank you! I thought something wasn't stacking up.

Permission for a JR is very much not an admin process. The High Court has to grant permission for a JR before the applicants can proceed to the actual JR itself, also in front of the High Court.

We saw this with the GLP's JR to the (withdrawn) interim guidance from the EHRC. In that case the original application was defective but the Judge said they could present the application for the JR, and the JR itself at the same time. The Judge would look first whether an applcation should be granted, and if not, disregard the actual application itself.

So - stage 1 - get permission for a JR. Stage 2 - the review itself.

This is an application for stage 1.

Thanks to you also, for explaining this.

So, they are asking permission to bring legal action against the PB trial? Wish they'd just said that.

I suppose you can say that since the application for permission is also a kind of legal action, if they've asked for permission they've kicked off the legal process.

Posting links to twitter can be a bit frustrating for those not on twitter, and also attached documents are unreadable.

Is there a campaign group web site or facebook group or whatever so that more people can read about what is being said!

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/02/06/campaigners-legal-action-stop-puberty-blockers-trial/

Archive link https://archive.is/zi3wX

Yes, but you know, and I know, that they are being a bit disingenuous about this.

Page 1

Page 2

Why are you postintg those screenshots again? We saw them! And realised that they weren't stating the legal facts of the matter.

ETA: Okay, a bit more legally stuff at the bottom. But still not just saying this is an application. as far as I can see. Too tired now!

Because as I said the screen shot from twitter is unreadable for anyone with visual impairments. This comes up over and over again when posters think because they can read it every one can.

I posted the pages as seperate images in the hope they would be more legible to all, not just to the few with good eye sight.

althouhg as I said if there was a link to a text version of the statement that would be best.

But I have checked Bayswater Support Group and then haven't posted anything but maydo later.

So just a reminder because you are lucky enough to have eyesight that lets you read tiny blurred writing, doesn't mean everyone can.

Please don't have a go at me because a) the screenshots could have been better done, and b) the information was not clear. As we have dug out on this thread.

We're all on the same side here. But I could tell that something was not forthcoming, when everyone was going Yay!!