Charlie Gard: Supreme Court turns down appeal, now all depends on Strasbourg

9 June 2017 by

Yates and Anor v Great Ormond Street for Children 

Earlier this week, Rosalind English posted on the Court of Appeal’s decision here. The case was heard by the Supreme Court during the afternoon of 8 June, but the SC agreed with the courts below that the Hospital was entitled to withdraw artificial ventilation. 

Lady Hale gave a short explanation of her reasons: see here and my summary below.

Charlie is ten months old. He has a rare inherited disease, which means that his condition has deteriorated seriously since he was born. He cannot move his arms or legs or breathe unaided. His brain is severely affected. He is kept alive by a mechanical ventilator.

All agree that his present quality of life is not worth living. But the parents have been offered the prospect of a new treatment in the USA, nucleoside therapy, which, it is thought, might result in some amelioration of this disease.  The judge concluded that ‘the prospect of the nucleoside treatment having any benefit is as close to zero as makes no difference. In other words, as I have said, it is futile’. The judge therefore granted the Hospital’s request to withdraw Charlie from the ventilator.

Charlie’s parents asked the hospital to continue to keep Charlie alive by artificial means until they can take him to the United States for the treatment which has been offered there and for which they have raised the funds to pay. How, they argue, can the hospital try to prevent them from transferring the care of their son to another team?

Lady Hale pointed out

We are bound to accept the factual findings of the trial judge, who has heard the evidence, including the evidence of the doctor in the USA who is prepared to offer treatment, and the judge found that further treatment would be futile. The legal test which he applied was whether further treatment would be in Charlie’s best interests and in his order he expressly found that it would not be.

The parents said that this is not the right legal test. The hospital can only interfere in the decision taken by the parents

if the child is otherwise likely to suffer significant harm.

Decisions taken by parents who agree with one another are non-justiciable. Parents and parents alone are the judges of their child’s best interests. Any other approach would be an unjustifiable interference with their status as parents and their rights under Article 8 ECHR.

Lady Hale gave several answers to this argument.

Firstly, applications such as this are provided for by statute, namely the Children Act of 1989, as well as under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court. Both are governed by the same principles. Section 1, sub-section 1 of the Children Act 1989 provides that the

welfare of the child shall be the paramount consideration in any question concerning the upbringing of the child in any proceedings.

See also Article 3.1 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which says that in any official action concerning the child, the child’s best interests shall be a primary consideration.

Furthermore, where there is a significant dispute about a child’s best interests the child himself must have an independent voice in that dispute. It cannot be left to the parents alone. The guardian agrees with the hospital and with the judge’s decision.

So, parents are not entitled to insist upon treatment by anyone which is not in their child’s best interests. It is in any event likely that Charlie will suffer significant harm if his present suffering is prolonged without any realistic prospect of improvement.

Finally, the Strasbourg Court has said that in any judicial decision where the rights under Article 8 of the parents and the child are at stake, the child’s rights must be the paramount consideration. If there is any conflict between them the child’s interests must prevail.

In short, therefore, it is quite clear that the hospital was entitled to bring these proceedings, and the judge was required to determine the outcome of these proceedings. In doing so, he applied the right test and his factual findings cannot be challenged on appeal.

So permission to appeal was refused.

Conclusion 

 

Even this may not be the last word.

The Supreme Court ordered that a further stay of the High Court’s order be granted until 5pm today, Friday 9 June. This gives the parents the opportunity to ask the Strasbourg Court to give an indication to the United Kingdom of any interim measures which it considers should be adopted in the interests of the parties.

3 comments


  1. S says:

    If this were a child of a High Court or Supreme Court Judge Charlie would already be in America having treatment, because the powers that be at Gt Ormond Street would have caved in by now, and allowed him to travel to the US. I wonder how the grad olde lady Hale would feel if this were her grandchild, these high court and supreme court judges and the doctors do not know everything that is why there are experimental treatments, this experimental treatment may become a routine treatment in 25 years time thanks to the bravery of Charlie’s parents, and other courageous parents of little children in similar positions who are willing to try them out

  2. As this Case proves, ‘Our lives in their Control’.
    Parents have no rights of choice.
    A very sad world, NHS (National Health Slaughter) of ‘con-sumers’.
    NHS should not have initially commenced artificial ventilator.
    Though, man will only get what he deserves.

  3. kelly says:

    give them a chance its there child there choice no law is above them parents none

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: