Raqeeb v Barts NHS Foundation Trust

Raqeeb v Barts NHS Foundation Trust

The Trust's refusal to permit transfer was unlawful for failure to consider Tafida's directly effective EU rights under Art 56 TFEU, but any restriction was justified by imperative public interest in child welfare and legal certainty, as the dispute required court determination. On the evidence, it was not established that withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment was in Tafida's best interests: she was not in pain, was minimally aware, could be cared for at home, and continuation of treatment was consistent with her religious upbringing and parental wishes. The applications to withdraw treatment were dismissed.

Parties
Claimant: Tafida Raqeeb (by her Litigation Friend XX); Defendant/applicant: Barts NHS Foundation Trust; Interested Party/first Respondent: Shalina Begum; Interested Party/second Respondent: Muhhamed Raqeeb; Third Respondent: Tafida Raqeeb (by her Children’s Guardian); Fourth Respondent: XX
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review and Children Act/inherent Jurisdiction Applications / Final Judgment After Full Hearing
Outcome
Applications by the NHS Trust for withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment dismissed; judicial review relief refused.
Legal Topics
Withdrawal of Life Sustaining Treatment, Best Interests of the Child, Parental Responsibility, Freedom to Receive Services (eu Law), Freedom of Religion, Right to Life, Discrimination, Judicial Review of NHS Decisions
Public Law Family Law Medical Law Human Rights Law EU Law Withdrawal of Life Sustaining Treatment Best Interests of the Child Parental Responsibility +5 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tafida Raqeeb (by her Litigation Friend XX)

Claimant

Barts NHS Foundation Trust

Defendant/applicant

Shalina Begum

Interested Party/first Respondent

Muhhamed Raqeeb

Interested Party/second Respondent

Tafida Raqeeb (by her Children’s Guardian)

Third Respondent

XX

Fourth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review and Children Act/inherent Jurisdiction Applications / Final Judgment After Full Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the NHS Trust's refusal to allow transfer of a child for medical treatment abroad was unlawful under EU law and domestic public law
  2. 2 Whether it is in the best interests of the child to withdraw life-sustaining treatment
  3. 3 The weight to be given to parental wishes, religious beliefs, and the child's rights in medical decision-making

Ratio Decidendi

The Trust's refusal to permit transfer was unlawful for failure to consider Tafida's directly effective EU rights under Art 56 TFEU, but any restriction was justified by imperative public interest in child welfare and legal certainty, as the dispute required court determination. On the evidence, it was not established that withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment was in Tafida's best interests: she was not in pain, was minimally aware, could be cared for at home, and continuation of treatment was consistent with her religious upbringing and parental wishes. The applications to withdraw treatment were dismissed.

Court Disposition

Applications by the NHS Trust for withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment dismissed; judicial review relief refused.

Orders

  • Application for judicial review refused; no relief granted.
  • Applications for specific issue order and declarations under Children Act 1989 and inherent jurisdiction dismissed.