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.
On the downside, we failed to get permission on the others - we are *contemplating* asking the Court of Appeal for permission because we do think it was disproportionate to buy so much (the NAO said five years of supply) without a proper procurement process.
And the Judge thought (albeit at the permission stage, so without much evidence) that DHSC had basically done the right thing in buying so much PPE. I disagree with her - but she's the judge and I'm not.
We had to decide whether to agree with DHSC to push the February hearing back to allow us to contemplate an appeal to the Court of Appeal. And, although it was a difficult call, we decided that we should.
An important part of that reasoning was that we already have two other judicial review hearings in February (if memory serves) on Government's failure to publish the contracts and in Public First. And it might also allow the Saiger case and the other Pestfix cases to catch up.
The hearing is still likely to come on before the summer holidays of next year.
So, that's where we got to. We at @GoodLawProject (and I am sure @EveryDoctorUK) are hugely grateful for your support. And we'll keep on trucking.
• • •
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.
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.
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.