We're in the Royal Court of Justice today challenging the ban on private prescriptions of puberty blockers. We have permission to live tweet, and will capture what we can. Follow this thread for live updates throughout the day.
Housekeeping: The first thing which will happen is the determination of whether this case will be heard, followed by submissions from the respective legal teams. We are unlikely to receive a ruling today.
This thread will be an account of what happens only, we will offer further commentary when it is appropriate.
We have brought this judicial review against what we believe is an unlawful use of Section 62(1) of the Medicines Act 1968, targeted at preventing new private prescriptions of puberty blockers, without consulting impacted groups.
As we will argue, this has had further reaching consequences, with even those still legally accessing puberty blockers being denied them by GPs due to the chilling effect from this criminalisation of trans healthcare.
TransActual is one of two claimants who have brought this judicial review, the other being an affected young person (referred to as claimant YY) and their ‘litigation friend’ (claimant ZZ).
Housekeeping ends. Proceedings will begin shortly.
The Applicants (us, TA, as well as YY & ZZ), are represented by Mr Rob Harland (RH), and Mr Jason Coppell (JC).
JC: Will first discuss the regulations, and then the Cass review, before the Secretary of State (SoS)'s statements.
JC describes the power of the act - to restrict supply of medications. The act details the requirements for consultation.
JC: the exception to the requirements in Section 62(3) states that the SoS can bypass the consultation if the SoS considers it is essential to make the order with immediate effect to avoid serious danger to health.
JC: this has been allowed previously on two occasions.
JC: our grounds is that there were defects in the decisionmaking process, "a number of demonstrable flaws" in the reasoning of the SoS. We do not know why the SoS decided that there was a seriuos danger to health.
JC: Secondly, the Cass report. (CR). In the defendants arguments that the Cass review 'concluded that puberty blockers should only be prescribed as part of a research protocol'.
JC: what was meant is that puberty blockers should only be prescribes *on the NHS* as part of a research protocol.
JC: it does also make recommendations about private prescription of puberty blockers. These are recommendations in the context of how private provision may impact provision on the NHS.
JC: For example, one discusses the potential impact of private provision on research protocols. And the other refers to concerns about the use of unregulated medications and providers not regulated within the UK.
JC: The Cass report recognised a proven benefit of puberty blockers. It was clear it was not recommending a complete ban on puberty blockers.
JC: the review found that not enough is known about the longer term impacts of puberty blockers about whether they are safe or not. Notes that medicines are only banned on safety grounds.
JC: The evidence is simply not there to justify a ban. Cass advocated for the prescription of puberty blockers within a research protocol.
JC: That is absolutely consistent. The Cass report did not find a danger to patients from Puberty Blockers (PBs), but that there was not enough evidence of their benefit.