Introduction
Part 1 of my essay is split into 3 separate parts, the first being a summary and the interpretive issues of the case in question, the second being how has the judge interpreted these issues, and finally the third being how should the judge have interpreted these issues.
Summary of the case, and interpretive issues.
The case of Great Ormond Street Hospital v Constance Yates, Chris Gard, Charles Gard (A Child, by his Guardian Ad Litem), 11 April 2017 [2017] EWHC 972 (Fam) is about a young child, who at the time of the high court decision was 8 months old, named Charlie Gard. Charlie suffered from an exceptionally rare genetic mutation, known as severe encephalomyopathic mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome (MDDS). He required life …show more content…
As stated by Dominic Wilkinson, “Parents will not always make the best choices, but for the most part the state will not interfere or intervene. However, where parents’ decisions run a substantial risk of causing serious harm to their child, their decisions must be challenged, if necessary in a court”. In the Charlie Gard case there was conflict regarding what was in Charlie’s best interests between his parents and the hospital in which he was being treated. This is what led to the courts getting involved. A question commonly raised by people is why should the parents not be the ones to decide in the first place and why the courts should even intervene at all. This was however addressed by Mr Justice Francis, “A child’s parents having parental responsibility have the power to give consent for their child to undergo treatment, but overriding control is vested in the court exercising its independent and objective judgment in the child’s best …show more content…
It is important that I stress that I am not applying a subjective test. I am not saying what I would do in a given situation, but I am applying the law” and therefore we can say that Francis J is in the position of a happy interpreter. Using Adam’s and Brownsword’s definition of ‘a typology of judicial approaches’ the judicial approach carried out by Francis J is “purposive formalist”. This conclusion can be reach as “statues are to be interpreted with a view to implement the purposive scheme and decisions made by the legislature”. In the Charlie Gard case the purposive scheme and decisions of the statues referred to, helped the courts conclude that what needed to be looked at was what was in Charlie’s best interest. This judicial approach “signifies that the fidelity to legislative enactment overrides all other underlying values”. Francis J made this interpretation by receiving advice from medical experts who all said that the treatment would be futile, and stuck to the principle in mind which was the best interests of Charlie. He put Charlie’s best interests above all underlying values such as the
Part 1 of my essay is split into 3 separate parts, the first being a summary and the interpretive issues of the case in question, the second being how has the judge interpreted these issues, and finally the third being how should the judge have interpreted these issues.
Summary of the case, and interpretive issues.
The case of Great Ormond Street Hospital v Constance Yates, Chris Gard, Charles Gard (A Child, by his Guardian Ad Litem), 11 April 2017 [2017] EWHC 972 (Fam) is about a young child, who at the time of the high court decision was 8 months old, named Charlie Gard. Charlie suffered from an exceptionally rare genetic mutation, known as severe encephalomyopathic mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome (MDDS). He required life …show more content…
As stated by Dominic Wilkinson, “Parents will not always make the best choices, but for the most part the state will not interfere or intervene. However, where parents’ decisions run a substantial risk of causing serious harm to their child, their decisions must be challenged, if necessary in a court”. In the Charlie Gard case there was conflict regarding what was in Charlie’s best interests between his parents and the hospital in which he was being treated. This is what led to the courts getting involved. A question commonly raised by people is why should the parents not be the ones to decide in the first place and why the courts should even intervene at all. This was however addressed by Mr Justice Francis, “A child’s parents having parental responsibility have the power to give consent for their child to undergo treatment, but overriding control is vested in the court exercising its independent and objective judgment in the child’s best …show more content…
It is important that I stress that I am not applying a subjective test. I am not saying what I would do in a given situation, but I am applying the law” and therefore we can say that Francis J is in the position of a happy interpreter. Using Adam’s and Brownsword’s definition of ‘a typology of judicial approaches’ the judicial approach carried out by Francis J is “purposive formalist”. This conclusion can be reach as “statues are to be interpreted with a view to implement the purposive scheme and decisions made by the legislature”. In the Charlie Gard case the purposive scheme and decisions of the statues referred to, helped the courts conclude that what needed to be looked at was what was in Charlie’s best interest. This judicial approach “signifies that the fidelity to legislative enactment overrides all other underlying values”. Francis J made this interpretation by receiving advice from medical experts who all said that the treatment would be futile, and stuck to the principle in mind which was the best interests of Charlie. He put Charlie’s best interests above all underlying values such as the