J, Re (Transgender: Puberty Blocker and Hormone Replacement Therapy)

Jeremy Hyam KC and Emma Sutton KC (instructed by Sinclairs Law) for the Applicant Dorothea Gartland KC and Andrew Powell (instructed by Harrison Clark Rickerbys Ltd) for the First Respondent Elizabeth Isaacs KC and Annie Dixon (instructed by Creighton & Partners Solicitors) for the Second Respondent Hearing dates: 19-21st and 23rd February 2024 ____________________

Resort to CA 1989, s 8 with respect to a child over the age of 16 is, however, restricted to exceptional circumstances by CA 1989, s 9(6):

It is against this accepted legal framework, which I have done no more than summarise, that the father's wider legal case is set.

i) The court should rule now on J's capacity to consent to any further treatment from Gender GP;

ii) Even if J does have capacity to consent to further treatment at Gender GP, the court should override his consent by exercising the inherent jurisdiction (as identified in Re W ) and that decision should be taken at this stage;