Pathways Puberty Blocker Trial - High Court Proceedings start 27th July

[FarriersGirl]

James Esses, alongside the Bayswater Support Group and Keira Bell, is involved in a High Court hearing beginning on July 27, 2026, seeking an emergency injunction and permission for a judicial review regarding the "Pathways" puberty-blocker trial. The JR itself is likely to be heard in the autumn if it gets the go ahead.

Although we have had quite a few threads discussing the Pathways trial more generally I thought it would be useful to have one for the court case. I'm not sure if we will have access to watch/listen as the representative from the Bayswater Group has been granted anonymity.

Thanks @FarriersGirl - def think a new thread is worth starting for this.

This recent video might be helpful for anyone who has not followed this story closely. Its a bit long winded but James gives a clear explanation of this issues [as usual]

s

Thanks for posting. Will be following closely next week and hoping my lingering faith in the legal system is not totally decimated.

Are there any intervenors?

Thanks for this OP! Let's hope they get a good result from the hearing.

The link below will take you to a pdf of the High Court application - Claimants statement. The case is listed for 2 days. James Esses says in in the video that he hopes for an outcome on the second day or very soon after that. The start time is 10.30 and fingers crossed we will be able to follow this if not live, then via TT or possible Nick Wallis will attend and be able to tweet onto his blog.

https://sex-matters.org/posts/other-resources/claimants-statement-pathways/

Do you know whether members of the public can attend in person? I assume so as I've been to the High Court before - however if there's an anonymity order...

I have just looked and it is at 10:30 am in court 1 at the High Court (Royal Courts of Justice) - listed under 'London Administrative Court' hearings.

It isn't listed as NOT being a public hearing.

I think the anonymity order relates to someone [presumably a parent] who will be representing Bayswater. IANL but hopefully this will only affect the reporting of the case with that individual not being named, rather than the wider case being kept under wraps.

yes, that's what I hoped

This case is due to start at 10.30. At this point I have been unable to find any log in that we might be able to use to watch/listen. Nothing on TT on X as yet and Nick Wallis is presenting on Times Radio ATM. I'll keep checking but if anyone sees a useful link do let us know.

Thank you @FarriersGirl

From TT:

We will be reporting all week - starting with at 10.30am with a two day application hearing at Royal Courts of Justice. The Bayswater Support Group, Keira Bell and James Esses are seeking permission to proceed with their Judicial Review to halt the clinical trials which would give children hormone suppressing drugs, known as puberty blockers. They will also make an application for an emergency injunction to stop the recruitment of children onto the trial.

The hearing is before Mr Justice Chamberlain and starts at 10:30 am. Defendants are the Health Research Authority and the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. We hope for permission to report live. https://tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/permission-hearing-judicial-review

The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) paused the trials in February 2026 over concerns of "potentially significant" biological harm to participants. We reported on the original application for a Judicial Review of Pathways Trial of Puberty Blockers on 6 March. Mr Justice Chamberlain granted an 8 week stay to allow concerns about the trial to be considered. In June, the MHRA and RSA confirmed the PATHWAYS trials would proceed after agreeing a modified protocol. You can read about the March hearing here: https://tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/judicial-review-of-pathways-trial?utm_source=publication-search

From TT:

We are a small group of volunteer citizen journalists. We receive no payment for our work. We accept paid subscriptions to our Substack to fund necessary expenses including travel, legal fees and digital costs. Please consider subscribing. A reminder that our reporting is not a transcript but attempts to convey in real time the substance of legal arguments and evidence presented in proceedings. The legal arguments and case names can be difficult for us to report. We use our best efforts.

From TT:

Abbreviations

J — Judge Mr Justice Chamberlain C- Claimants
BSG — The Bayswater Support Group
KB — Keira Bell
JE — James Esses

CB AMcC — Claimants’ barrister Angus McCullough KC
DB — Defendants’ barristers DB or
JM - Julian Milford KC for Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC)
JR - Jenny Richards Kc for HRA KC DB

IPB or IP — Barristers for the interested parties
AS Andrew Sharland KC for KCL
FS Fiona Scolding KC for SLAM

My note - quite a line up of KC's!

From TT:

We have more abbreviations than usual today. We add any additional abbreviations to our substack page for the case.

PATHWAYS — Puberty Suppression and Transitional Healthcare with Adaptive Youth Services
GI — Gender incongruence
GD — Gender dysphoria
PB — Puberty blockers or GNRA
CSH — Cross‑sex hormones
LCM — Life‑changing medication

IS — Irreversible surgeries
PSD — Potential sudden death
CSH Rx — Cross‑sex hormone prescriptions
Rx — Prescription
Cass — Cass Review
PC - Protected characteristic
GR - Gender reassignment

Legislation, Regulation, and Research Frameworks 2004 Regs — Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) Regulations 2004
CA — Care Act 2014
REC — Research Ethics Committee
MHRA — Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency

CTIMPs — Clinical Trials of Investigational Medicinal Products
GAfREC — Governance Arrangements for Research Ethics Committees
IRAS — Integrated Research Application System
NIHR — National Institute for Health and Care Research

NHSE - NHS England
CHM — Commission on Human Medicines
HR(A) - Human Rights (Act 1998)
SC - Supreme Court (UK)

From TT:

We have permission to report.

While we are going into court, you may want to look at our open letters. We have a record of past open letters and a special page for those related to Amnesty.

From TT:

AMcC or AM — Claimants’ barrister Angus McCullough KC - Mr Milford has a further application. No objections on substance, just timing.
J - substitute a witness statement. (missed)
JM- substituting X's Ws, and the C's skeleton (and missed).

From TT:

J - number of individs anonymised as evidence they can be subject to abuse and threats. I've made orders that they be kept anonymous. An individ who was named has asked to be anonymised as should have been.

J - any objection to anon skeletons made available to press?

No objections? No. I'll make the order.

From TT:

AM: Reference to Dr AB throughout. JM's clerk's responsibility to redact bundles.

J - Fair. Mustn't be any delay in producing them. Entitled to have docs referred too in open court. Must be produced immediately.

From TT:

AM: outline's how he will make his case.
1 - repeated them with D that C's challenge in impermissible attack . We accept that the ct will generally afford respect t statutory regulators.

AM - not a merits challenge. A failure to recognise and apply the statutory safeguards that apply to the vulnerable category of children. Feeds into grounds 1. 2 & 5.

From TT:

Recognised exception due to Cass report - dearth of reliable evid was basis for her recommendations. However compelling, that cannot replace the safeguards.
That dearth of evid means it cannot be lawfully met.

1. Recognise trials , (ref Prof George's letter) gt deal of scrutiny ny MHRA incl CHM specialist advice.We don't recognise the same scruting by the legal medical ethics committee LME.

J - refer to KCL, MHRA < SLAM rather than !st and 2nd D.

From TT:

AM - REC - is MHRA.

$. - relationship bw Nov & June decision. Nov is primary approval, and June is substantial modification advanced by KCL It follows if Nov decn was flawed to invalidate approvals, it's unlikely to be saved by June decns and substantial modifications (SM).

1. Not practical to do normal exercise - ascertain admissibility of evidence in advance - KCL & SLAM, with extensive argued and opinion and etailed explanation on trial operation all constitute material which was not available to the decn makers (DM) in Nov and June aprovals (app)

From TT:

Cannot be justifiable as fresh evidence

J _ essentially - ordinarily detailed plans filed in normal JR claim - detailed grounds to explain more fully what's happened.
AN - have filed WS - which explain how well set up to operate from proponents who are professionally invested in the trial so can't be relevant.
J - you don't know what the Ds wouls have said.

AM (not AN) - no shortage pf documentary material. But post decisions justifications [not relevant].

From TT:

AM - Second heading - heightened care beyond arguability (HCBA) . We resist that. It may be KCL para 25 - grounds on which HCBA.
J - case law - Mass Energy.
AM - sent Plant B earth wh considered Mass Energy to yr clerk.

Hard copy handed up
Long judgment with short # of paras at end. CoA large scale litigation - Gatwck Airport expansion
para 262