Thread by @AdamWagner1

Bell -v- Tavistock overturned. Court overstepped the mark by giving guidance on puberty blockers in a case which the claimant had effectively lost. Sounds like the right outcome judiciary.uk/judgments/bell…

Here is the very simple official court summary judiciary.uk/wp-content/upl…

Here is the judgment judiciary.uk/wp-content/upl…

The Court of Appeal was clear that it was not for the High Court in this judicial review to reach factual conclusions on matters of highly contested (in these proceedings) issues

Turns out they were!

https://twitter.com/AdamWagner1/status/1408102066468368385

The judgment has restated Gillick which was never overturned, and (importantly) said there was nothing inherent in the prescription of puberty blockers which made it different to the subject matter of Gillick (contraception) or Axon (abortion). This is an important statement

The courts found that the High Court understandably (I guess from a psychological perspective?) wanted to opine on the general question of when a child might consent to puberty blockers but should not have

The court also put an unnecessary and in the circumstances unjustified hurdle in front of parents and children by suggesting a court order would be appropriate to obtain puberty blockers in many cases

Some unnecessary windowdressing at the end but judges can’t resist on these topics, can they? Anyway, the summary is that Gillick has been restored and the first court hugely overstepped by treating puberty blockers as a special case

I expressed some concerns about the judgment originally, including the issue which the court now raise about puberty blockers leading inevitably to other treatments, but I didn’t spot the basic errors that the Court of Appeal now highlight. The benefits of the appeal system