The Court of Appeal has judged that parents should have been allowed to find a lawyer, rather than represent themselves in a case involving the withdrawal of treatment to their seriously ill child.
The parents were forced to represent themselves in a case where the NHS wanted to withdraw treatment to their child as the trial was not delayed despite the parents applying for an adjournment.
Judge Justice Hayden refused the request stating the proceedings had been before the court for over a month. The withdrawal of treatment was granted; however, the parents appealed the decision so they could now get legal aid.
For the appeal, it was argued the withdrawal of treatment breached Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In addition to this, the speed of the proceedings of the original trial, the need for cross-questioning of witnesses, the complexity of the treatment for the child, and that the parents are not native speakers all acted as grounds for appeal.
Lord Justice Baker, who led the judgement in the Court of Appeal, stated there was “plainly a number of strong arguments” for delaying the trial in order for the parents to gain legal aid. He continued:
“Even a parent who had been involved in the proceedings and was familiar with the evidence and issues would find it very challenging to conduct a hearing when they had not been expecting to do so… and they would be required to do so at a time when their child was lying desperately ill in hospital.
In the circumstances, we conclude that the judge’s decision to refuse the adjournment was unfair and must be set aside.”
The case has been set for review by another judge, by which time it is hoped the parents can get sufficient legal representation. The court added:
“We would hope that legal representation can be obtained, if necessary on a pro bono basis, to enable the substantive hearing to take place in the next two weeks.”
Join nearly 1,000 other family lawyers – sign up to our newsletter
