Permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal in the Bell v Tavistock case has been refused. 10 grounds of appeal were advanced. None succeeded, including an attempt at an Article 14 (discrimination) point which had not been suggested previously by the Defendant.
Here is a copy of the Order refusing the Defendant’s application for permission to appeal.

An application for permission to appeal will now to be made TO the Court of Appeal itself.

https://onedrive.live.com/?authkey=%21ALFXLLZwM6geKgo&cid=D54BC006B96DEE00&id=D54BC006B96DEE00%2113142&parId=D54BC006B96DEE00%215967&o=OneUp
That appeal will only be allowed where the court below (the High Court) was wrong or the decision unjust because of some procedural irregularity. The High Court has already said no. Will the CoA?
In other words - permission has been refused by the High Court to appeal up to the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal now gets to decide ITSELF if it will hear the appeal. That we won’t know the outcome of for a few months.
Be sure to note you WILL hear about it.
High Court view on grounds 1 and 2:
On 3-5 (note the view on Gillick).
Grounds 6-8 (including the Article 14 argument)
Ground 9 (on Stonewall and Mermaids’ attempts to intervene).
And finally Ground 10 (parental consent).

(This is the same version that is circulating, just with larger font for easy read for everyone).
Note this key part in the Order. The implementation of the decision (i.e. the need for a “Bell Order” to allow puberty blockers for child patient) is stayed (itself paused) pending appeal. This is not unexpected. But it may mean blockers may still be prescribed for now.
You can follow @RadFemLawyer.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled:

By continuing to use the site, you are consenting to the use of cookies as explained in our Cookie Policy to improve your experience.