E (A Child) (Rev 1)

E (A Child) (Rev 1)

The law governing applications under the inherent jurisdiction for declarations that it is lawful to withdraw treatment is not in breach of Article 14 ECHR; the best interests of the child is the correct legal test, not significant harm; parental views were fully considered; there is no discrimination between care proceedings and inherent jurisdiction proceedings; permission to appeal is refused except for one sub-ground, on which the appeal is dismissed.

Parties
Subject Child: Alfie Evans (E); Appellants (parents): Tom Evans and Kate James; First Respondent: Alder Hey Children's NHS Foundation Trust; Second Respondent: Children's Guardian (CAFCASS Legal)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Permission to Appeal (with Appeal to Follow If Granted) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Permission and Appeal
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused except for Ground 1(2); appeal dismissed on that ground.
Legal Topics
Withdrawal of Life Sustaining Treatment, Best Interests of the Child, Parental Responsibility, Discrimination Under Article 14 ECHR, Significant Harm Threshold, Inherent Jurisdiction, Care Proceedings, Specific Issue Orders
Family Law Medical Law Human Rights Withdrawal of Life Sustaining Treatment Best Interests of the Child Parental Responsibility Discrimination Under Article 14 ECHR Significant Harm Threshold +3 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 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alfie Evans (E)

Subject Child

Tom Evans and Kate James

Appellants (parents)

Alder Hey Children's NHS Foundation Trust

First Respondent

Children's Guardian (CAFCASS Legal)

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Permission to Appeal (with Appeal to Follow If Granted) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Permission and Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court failed to properly weigh parental views in the best interests decision and breached Article 14 ECHR (read with Article 8) and Article 8 ECHR
  2. 2 Whether the judge failed to consider appropriate palliative care pathways and management of consequences
  3. 3 Whether the judge failed to assess matters relevant to best interests or weigh available alternatives

Ratio Decidendi

The law governing applications under the inherent jurisdiction for declarations that it is lawful to withdraw treatment is not in breach of Article 14 ECHR; the best interests of the child is the correct legal test, not significant harm; parental views were fully considered; there is no discrimination between care proceedings and inherent jurisdiction proceedings; permission to appeal is refused except for one sub-ground, on which the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused except for Ground 1(2); appeal dismissed on that ground.

Orders

  • Application for permission to appeal refused on all grounds except Ground 1(2), which is granted.
  • Appeal dismissed on Ground 1(2).