Have had a proper detailed read of this judgment now - it’s a polite but very sharp evisceration of the High Court judgment. Particularly the way the lower court handled the evidence and factual findings
https://twitter.com/adamwagner1/status/1438879992595849219
It’s this bit and what follows. It is quite extraordinary that the claim failed and the court said it wasn’t its place to reach findings on controversial medical topics but nonetheless it went on to do exactly that 
The court of appeal was polite enough but the judges in court below will be wincing I imagine
I mean, this para, for anyone who practises in judicial review is pretty astonishing - the majority of “expert” evidence was served with the skeleton argument and was never given permission to be relied on as expert evidence?!
I wasn’t at the hearing so really can’t comment but was this a case where the judges got caught up with the general publicity or public feeling? What was going on?
These are not inexperienced or low quality judges (not that you get low quality in the high court) - they are absolutely top judges (to use the tabloid monicker)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
