Shropshire Star

Parents of baby Charlie seek Supreme Court hearing after losing appeal

They want their nine-month-old son to undergo a therapy trial in the US.

Published
Last updated

A couple who want to take their sick baby son to the USA for treatment are preparing to ask the Supreme Court to analyse the case after losing the second round of a legal fight

Chris Gard and Connie Yates want nine-month-old Charlie Gard, who suffers from a rare genetic condition and has brain damage, to undergo a therapy trial.

Specialists at Great Ormond Street Hospital in London, where Charlie is being cared for, say therapy proposed by a doctor in America is experimental and will not help.

They say life support treatment should stop.

Chris Gard and Connie Yates, carrying a family law book, leave the High Court (Victoria Jones/PA)
Chris Gard and Connie Yates, carrying a family law book, leave the High Court (Victoria Jones/PA)

A High Court judge last month ruled against a trip to America and in favour of Great Ormond Street doctors.

Mr Justice Francis concluded that life support treatment should end and said Charlie should be allowed to die with dignity. Three Court of Appeal judges on Thursday upheld that ruling.

Charlie’s parents, who are in their 30s and come from Bedfont, west London, now want to appeal to Supreme Court justices.

Their lawyers say they aim to begin making written applications to the Supreme Court before the end of the week.

Charlie's parents in hospital. (PA)
Charlie’s parents in hospital (PA)

Bosses at Great Ormond Street say doctors will continue providing life-support treatment to Charlie over the next few days while applications are made.

A barrister representing the hospital told appeal judges how doctors felt they were reaching the stage where continuing to provide life support treatment would not be ethical.

Three appeal court judges dismissed the couple’s attempt to overturn Mr Justice Francis’s ruling after analysing evidence at a Court of Appeal hearing in London on Thursday.

Lord Justice McFarlane, Lady Justice King and Lord Justice Sales paid tribute to the couple.

But they said Mr Justice Francis had been entitled to reach the conclusions he reached.

“It goes without saying that all other things being equal the view of the parents will be respected and be determinative,” said Lord Justice McFarlane.

“But it is well recognised that parents in the terrible position these parents and other parents find themselves in will lose their objectivity.”

Lord Justice McFarlane said a trip to America for a therapy trial would expose Charlie to harm. He said there had been a “100% child focused” investigation.

The couple did not stay to listen to Lord Justice McFarlane outline the full reasons for the decision.

Richard Gordon QC, who led Charlie’s parents’ legal team, told appeal judges that the case raised “very serious legal issues”.

“They wish to exhaust all possible options,” Mr Gordon said in a written outline of Charlie’s parents’ case.

“They don’t want to look back and think ‘what if?’. This court should not stand in the way of their only remaining hope.”

A spokeswoman for Great Ormond Street said after the appeal court hearing: “The medical and legal consensus, confirmed by today’s ruling, is that it is in Charlie’s best interests to be allowed to die with dignity.”

Sorry, we are not accepting comments on this article.