We at @GoodLawProject have a paralegal attending the case management hearing in the Tavistock's appeal in the Bell case on behalf of our trans defence fund. Occasional updates from them as the hearing progresses...

The 'stay' - effectively a suspension of the legal effect of the first instance decision - will continue. That has been agreed between the parties.
Judge doesn't want oral submissions from any of the would-be intervenors at the case management hearing. (I wouldn't read anything in to that.)
Tavistock supports the intervention by @stonewalluk, @BrookCharity, @TheEndoSociety and @Genderintell, is neutral on those from @libertyhq and @TheBMA and opposes those from Transgender Trend and Dr Bell and a 'parents' group'.
Counsel for Bell opposes - I hope I have that right - the joint intervention.
They support the application from Dr Bell (no relation to Keira Bell but a supporter of the Divisional Court's decision).

A slight sense of Mandy Rice Davies about these submissions (from both sides).
The NHS Trusts just want it all done quickly.
(I don't apologise to trans-interest followers for my procurement content so I'm not apologising for procurement followers for the trans content. It's a heterodox feed: what can I say?)
Sorry, long and badly timed phone call. Now catching up at the end of the hearing.
So, tl;dr. @Genderintell, @BrookCharity and @TheEndoSociety have been given permission to intervene. As have various others including UCLH and Leeds, Transgender Trend, and the aforementioned Dr Bell.
The expectation seems to be that the full hearing of the appeal will be before the end of April.
A slightly disappointing outcome, I would say. Good bits: the joint intervention was given permission; the Court appreciated the need for urgency. Bad bits: no fresh evidence and we only got permission to make submissions on paper.
(Litigation isn't a sentiment game so there is really no incentive to be anything other than completely realistic about your assessment of how a hearing goes.)
Am told everything should be "ready to go" by the end of April. So hearing may be shortly thereafter.

More from Jo Maugham

If you want to know what happens to populations living in austerity who trade with the US on WTO terms, take a look at Tonga. THREAD

I visited Tonga in 1981 and it was, like so many other Pacific Island nations, slowly adjusting to Westernisation. The people ate mostly fish and vegetables. /1

Now it has rates of Type 2 diabetes of up to 40%, life expectancy has fallen by 10 years and well over half the population is obese. So what happened? (stats
https://t.co/1XQHdqL8o8) /2

What happened was that the US discovered that Tonga was a great dumping ground for a cheap and locally unsaleable product known as a Turkey 'tail', essentially a gland of 40-45% fat. /3

They were fatty and, because cheap, attractive to a poor population. By 2007, in another Pacific Island nation, Samoa, 20 kilos per person were being sold every year. But it banned them for public health reasons. https://t.co/2f1N8tuMp6 /4
So, just before Christmas, Government what it called a "response" to this New York Times account of cronyism in pandemic spending.

And I said, when that "response" - which you can read here
https://t.co/gLEJzuqoAx - was published that every single notional rebuttal by Government of a claim made by the New York Times was false, misleading or both.

And it's time for me to make good.

Here's the first "rebuttal" by Government to the New York Times' claim that: "The government handed out thousands of contracts to fight the virus, some of them in a secretive V.I.P. lane."


A number of points might be made.

(1) Government cannot say the NYT got it wrong. (2) the NAO found the VIP lane (later renamed the high-priority lane) "sat alongside" the normal lane. And I have shown elsewhere VIP contracts were handled by different teams all the way through.


(3) Although Govt says "offers of support raised by Opposition MPs were dealt with expeditiously" the NAO report does not record any referrals made by an Opposition MP leading to a contract - and the Government response telling does not say any did.
We need to talk about the 'expert' witness statement evidence led by Ms Bell in her successful case before the Tavistock. THREAD

You can see who gave evidence in her support from these extracts from the Tavistock's Skeleton Argument.


Helpful for you to bear in mind that her solicitor was a man called Paul Conrathe, who has a long association with the religious right in the US (I have talked about him a number of times but this is as good a starting point as any).


I am not going to address here other criticisms that might be made of the form in which that evidence was given or the timing of its service before the court. I am just going to address, in alphabetical order, the individuals whose evidence Mr Conrathe led on Ms Bell's behalf.

The first witness, alphabetically, was Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of Oxford, Michael Biggs.

Mr Biggs was exposed for posting transphobic statements online under a fake twitter handle: @MrHenryWimbush according to this report.

More from Law

There is a now-relevant parallel here to the difference here between matters before a judge & matters before a jury. Judges are far more reluctant to strike testimony or evidence if they are the only recipients of it, with the theory being that they are really smart about ...


law stuff & will know what they can & can't consider. For instance, there is a long-held rule that a fact witness can't make legal arguments, only a lawyer. So what will happen in a motion for summary judgment, where the entire proceeding is on paper, will play out like this:

1) Defendant makes a motion for summary judgment. It includes a sworn declaration from some fact witness.

2) The declaration includes all sorts of legal arguments about why the defendant should win. Often the declaration includes arguments the brief didn't even make.

Defendants (especially DOJ-represented ones) often do this to get around the word or page-limits placed on briefs.

3) Plaintiff moves to strike the declaration for its inclusion of inadmissible legal arguments.

4) Judge denies the motion to strike, on the grounds that a ...

judge is a sophisticated consumer of evidence & can choose what to consider & what to ignore, unlike a jury.

The legal fiction behind this impeachment exception is that Senators are also smart enough to know what to listen to & what to ignore. Now, that may not be ACCURATE, ...

You May Also Like

Department List of UCAS-China PROFESSORs for ANSO, CSC and UCAS (fully or partial) Scholarship Acceptance
1) UCAS School of physical sciences Professor
https://t.co/9X8OheIvRw
2) UCAS School of mathematical sciences Professor

3) UCAS School of nuclear sciences and technology
https://t.co/nQH8JnewcJ
4) UCAS School of astronomy and space sciences
https://t.co/7Ikc6CuKHZ
5) UCAS School of engineering

6) Geotechnical Engineering Teaching and Research Office
https://t.co/jBCJW7UKlQ
7) Multi-scale Mechanics Teaching and Research Section
https://t.co/eqfQnX1LEQ
😎 Microgravity Science Teaching and Research

9) High temperature gas dynamics teaching and research section
https://t.co/tVIdKgTPl3
10) Department of Biomechanics and Medical Engineering
https://t.co/ubW4xhZY2R
11) Ocean Engineering Teaching and Research

12) Department of Dynamics and Advanced Manufacturing
https://t.co/42BKXEugGv
13) Refrigeration and Cryogenic Engineering Teaching and Research Office
https://t.co/pZdUXFTvw3
14) Power Machinery and Engineering Teaching and Research