In the matter of AH [2021] EWCA Civ 1768


25th Nov 2021 | News


The Court of Appeal today overturned a decision which permitted a hospital to withdraw life sustaining treatment for AH, a 56 year old women who is said to be “the most complex Covid patient in the world”. The appeal was brought by AH’s children, A, M, S and K who were represented by Edward Devereux QC. The decision overturns the earlier decision of Mr Justice Hayden.

Edward Devereux QC commented that:

“It was an honour to have represented the children of AH, a wonderful lady, before the Court of Appeal and to have succeeded before that court. Cases involving the withdrawal of life sustaining treatment of a person can be some of the most challenging to come before the courts of England and Wales. The law in relation to them is easy to understand; the application of the law to the particular facts can be profoundly difficult.”

Facts

AH contracted Covid-19 in December 2020 and was admitted to Hospital in late December 2020. By January 2021 her condition deteriorated, and she developed severe complications which led to multi-organ failure. AH sustained extensive damage to her nerves, muscles and brain.

AH is currently cared for in a critical care unit of the Hospital. She is dependent on mechanical ventilation, continuous nursing care, nutrition and hydration delivered via a nasogastric tube. AH is able to feel and show some degree of emotion and communication but does not have capacity to make decisions about her future treatment.

After hearing evidence from members of AH’s family and a number of doctors and individuals who were involved in the care of AH, Mr Justice Hayden gave permission for the hospital to withdraw all life sustaining treatment for AH.

Following the decision of Mr Justice Hayden, AH’s children sought permission to appeal from the Court of Appeal.

Appeal

The appeal by AH’s children was based on five grounds of appeal:

(i) that Mr Justice Hayden had failed to give sufficient consideration to AH’s capacitious decision that she wished to receive ‘full escalation’ of treatment;

(ii) that Mr Justice Hayden had failed to appreciate the overwhelming importance to AH of her religious and cultural views and the impact of those views in relation to the withdrawal of medical treatment;

(iii) that Mr Justice Hayden had failed to consider adequately AH’s past and present wishes and feelings;

(iv) that Mr Justice Hayden had failed properly to balance the interference with AH’s human rights under the European Convention on Human Rights; and

(v) that Mr Justice Hayden used a visit to AH in hospital as an evidence gathering exercise to establish what AH’s views were which likely influenced his overall conclusions.

In relation to point (v) the Court of Appeal gave further consideration as to what guidance should be given in relation to visits to patients by Judges in cases involving applications for the withdrawal of life sustaining treatment.

The Court of Appeal said that in advance of any final hearing the following matters should be determined: (i) whether the Judge will visit any patient; (ii) the purpose of any visit; (iii) when the visit is to take place and the structure of the visit (in other words, how the visit is to be managed; what is to happen during it; and whether it is to be recorded and/or a note taken); and (iv) what is to happen after the visit (this will include, depending on the purpose of the visit, how the parties are to be informed what occurred, when and how this is to happen, and how this will fit within the hearing so as to enable it to be addressed as part of the parties’ respective cases).

Click here for the full judgment.


Do you have a similar case?

If you would like some help or advice, talk about a similar matter, call our clerks on 020 7353 6961.

Author

Recent

We are delighted to announce that Matthew Stott has joined Harcourt Chambers 

Matthew is a family law specialist with extensive knowledge and experience across all fields of family law. He is regularly involved in complex care cases for local authorities, parents and guardians. He has been involved in cases concerning infant deaths, shaken babies, fabricated illness, serious sexual and physical abuse, honour based violence including attempted assassination, forced marriage, unlawful removal from the jurisdiction, serious neglect and cases involving breaches of Human Rights. 

Matthew’s arrival further strengthens our team of experienced, specialist family practitioners, supporting our growing workload and reputation in the field. 

Somerset County Council v NHS Somerset Clinical Commissioning Group & Ors [2022] EWFC 31

Nick Goodwin QC appeared on behalf of the Applicant, Somerset County Council, and Damian Garrido QC on behalf of the Clinical Commissioning Group for Somerset, in protracted High Court litigation relating to breaches of the Adoption Agencies Regulations 2005 (AAR 2005) – specifically a failure by its Agency Decision Maker to adhere to the regulations relating to the provision of medical reports from the Agency Medical Adviser.

In this final judgment, it was decided by the President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, that although breaches of AAR 2005, reg 15/17 had occurred, an application for a declaration as to the validity of existing placement orders or adoption orders was not required or appropriate, because (a) such orders…

Rob George appointed as Special Advisor to the House of Lords Committee on the Children and Families Act 2014

Rob George has been appointed as Special Advisor to the House of Lords Committee on the Children and Families Act 2014. Rob’s academic and practice expertise will be used to assist the Committee, which is reviewing the operation of the Act.

Search

Shortlist close
Title Type CV Email

Remove All

Download