Application for permission to appeal orders concerning whether a 22 year old should receive the Covid vaccine, a move vigorously opposed by his mother .
The judgment under appeal is An ICB & RN & TN  EWCOP 41, where the underlying circumstances of the case are set out. In this judgment the Vice President, Hayden J, identifies the central ground of appeal is that HHJ Burrows had erred through an incorrect application of Article 8 of the ECHR in relation to parental rights and that “the logic of this proposition of law is that if a child lacks capacity to understand, the parental right for the protection of the child continues.”.
Hayden J describes this position at  as “an elevated construct” and at  states
“An adult who lacks capacity is not and should never be treated as a child. That paternalistic approach has long ago been consigned to history and recognised for what it is, a subversion of adult autonomy.”
Furthermore, arguments advanced on the lines that adults should be at liberty to choose their own good were more about the mother’s rights and not those of RN. The judge also rejects requests to appoint a further expert witness as all the evidence to date regarding the risks of the vaccine could be described as delicate or finely balanced. He therefore dismissed the application.
Read the judgment on the National Archive
Case summaries on every Court of Protection case & other relevant decisions with links to the full judgment where available.
Support the Hub
This site is free to access but if you find it useful then please consider a contribution by way of support for our work. Click here to contribute.
Sign up for our free email alert
We do not share your details with any third parties and you can unsubscribe at any time
More from Bath Publishing