Again, without commenting on the substance of the Tavistock decision, there is a high profile lawyer who regrets the decision who is criticising the court for the procedure it took in reaching its decision.

Those criticisms are misconceived.

/1

First is the argument that at least two charities interested in the result, Stonewall and Mermaids, sought to intervene (ie be represented in the hearing) and were refused permission.

/2

This would be a problem if arguments those parties wished to make would not be made by parties already before the court (eg if they had a different interest from the Tavistock Trust and so would make different arguments from them.

/3

There is no reason to think that is true, or to think that relevant arguments were not put.

Court cases are not public hearings before the passing of legislation. There are good reasons why we don't allow anyone potentially interested in an outcome to intervene.

/4