The procurement hearing presently taking place in the High Court is not the only @GoodLawProject hearing today. We also have a hearing in relation to an incredibly important environmental matter.
EU law recognises something called the Precautionary Principle: “where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.”
That definition comes from the Earth Summit’s Rio Declaration of 1992. It is part of EU law but - at least this is the Government's position - it is not part of our domestic law.
We say that the growing body of evidence around the relationship between air pollution and Covid-19 - and we have commissioned what a literature review from Aaron Benstein hsph.harvard.edu/c-change/team/… - engages the precautionary principle.
We say that Government must review its position on acceptable levels of air pollution in light of that evidence - we can't wait for "full scientific certainty" because "there are threats of serious or irreversible damage."
The case is a difficult one - but astonishingly important. It would be a radical, a profound, shift in how we think about Government's legal responsibilities to guard against climate catastrophe if it could not hide an absence of "full scientific certainty."
We are funding this case from @GoodLawProject's own resources, drawn from thousands of monthly direct debits. We think it is right that we take a portfolio of cases - from the demonstrably right to the difficult but incredibly important. And we are proud to be taking it on.
We should publicly express our thanks to the legal team at @HausfeldGlobal who have worked incredibly hard and without payment.
In line with our transparency principles you can read the bundle in the case here. rebrand.ly/clean-air-bund…
We have not been given permission to bring this claim by the High Court. But we will consider with Counsel whether we wish to renew our application in the Court of Appeal and we will, of course, report back once we have made a decision.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I made these points - that the Bell case was an attack on the right to consent with clear implications for abortion rights brought by a lawyer with a long history of attacking abortion rights - back in June.
There is powerful evidence from around the world that access to trans affirming health care is closely correlated with reduced suicide risk. Here is, eg, Canada. mentalhealthcommission.ca/English/media/…
Here is an extract from a similar paper published by Public Health England and the Royal College of Nursing. Note the first "protective factor". gov.uk/government/pub…
Looking at these statistics, you would expect the decision of the High Court this week - at which it refused to hear from a single trans person or charity representing them - and which denied healthcare to trans young people would lead to increased numbers of suicides.
So a quick update on the procurement case management hearing today.
We already had 'permission' on 2/5 grounds in Pestfix and Clandeboye and 3/5 grounds in Ayanda (having permission means that you can argue a case at the full hearing).
Overall I would say (and I'm not in the business of overselling litigation or prospects) we had a slightly disappointing day. We were given permission to bring an extra ground in Pestfix and Clandeboye.
In P and C we got permission on an extra ground - that the contracts were irrational - because the Court was concerned by what the VIP lane meant for the fairness of the procurement process. This, importantly, means there will be some proper judicial scrutiny of the VIP lane.
The High Court gave us 'permission' to bring some of our judicial review arguments in relation to the Government's odd PPE contracts. We are today asking again for permission to bring the others. You can read our (remarkable) Skeleton and Statement here. goodlawproject.org/update/were-in…
We chose these three contracts (Clandeboye/Ayanda/Pestfix) in June/July when we had much less understanding than we do now about what was going on. Once you appreciate that fact, what we have already uncovered (before disclosure) about those three is all the more remarkable.
Let me just focus on one aspect of those contracts: the quality of the product supplied by those companies (respectively, a confectionery wholesaler, a 'family office', and a pest control specialist).
In a 2004 decision (Re Alex) the Family Court of Australia found that the court's permission was required for puberty blockers. It took until 2013 for that decision to be reversed in Re Jamie.
The Court in Re Jamie held that Stage 1 treatment could be described as therapeutic. Because Stage 1 was reversible, none of the concerns of the High Court of Australia about risk of the wrong decision, or grave consequences, arose.
There's a long discussion of the journey back from Re Alex in this extraordinary presentation from Justice Steven Strickland, Judge of the Appeal Division and Chair, Law Reform Committee, Family Court of Australia. familycourt.gov.au/wps/wcm/connec…
We at @GoodLawProject are taking advice from several leading QCs in relation to yesterday's decision of the High Court which we believe to be legally, scientifically and morally flawed.
We have identified two separate legal interventions which we expect to make to secure that the international scientific consensus that exists around the treatment of trans young people is applied in the United Kingdom.
We will make announcements in relation to those actions as soon as we sensibly can. We are acting with the benefit of advice from the leading public and healthcare lawyers in the United Kingdom.