Permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal in the Bell v Tavistock case has been refused. 10 grounds of appeal were advanced. None succeeded, including an attempt at an Article 14 (discrimination) point which had not been suggested previously by the Defendant.

Here is a copy of the Order refusing the Defendant’s application for permission to appeal.

An application for permission to appeal will now to be made TO the Court of Appeal itself.

https://t.co/SXIaLLsQ5f
That appeal will only be allowed where the court below (the High Court) was wrong or the decision unjust because of some procedural irregularity. The High Court has already said no. Will the CoA?
In other words - permission has been refused by the High Court to appeal up to the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal now gets to decide ITSELF if it will hear the appeal. That we won’t know the outcome of for a few months.
Be sure to note you WILL hear about it.
High Court view on grounds 1 and 2:
On 3-5 (note the view on Gillick).
Grounds 6-8 (including the Article 14 argument)
Ground 9 (on Stonewall and Mermaids’ attempts to intervene).
And finally Ground 10 (parental consent).

(This is the same version that is circulating, just with larger font for easy read for everyone).
Note this key part in the Order. The implementation of the decision (i.e. the need for a “Bell Order” to allow puberty blockers for child patient) is stayed (itself paused) pending appeal. This is not unexpected. But it may mean blockers may still be prescribed for now.

More from Law

This thread will debunk "the judges didn't look at evidence" nonsense that has been going around.

Over and over again, judges have gone out of their way to listen to the evidence and dismantle it, enjoy the carnage!

1/

Bowyer v. Ducey (Sidney Powell's case in Arizona)

"Plaintiffs have not moved the
needle for their fraud theory from conceivable to plausible"

This is a great opinion to start with. The Judge completely dismantles the nonsense brought before her.

2/

https://t.co/F2vllUhM2G


King vs. Whitmer (Michigan, Sidney Powell case)

"Nothing but speculation and conjecture"

This is a good one to show people who think affidavits are good evidence. Notice how the affidavits don't actually say they saw fraud happen in Detroit.

3/

https://t.co/NZAtqivWkL


Trump v. Benson (Michigan)

"hearsay within hearsay"

Another good one to show people who think affidavits are absolute proof.

4/

https://t.co/17GeGhImHF


Stoddard v. City Election Commission (Michigan)

"mere speculation"

/5

https://t.co/ekqYEqiIL9

You May Also Like

राम-रावण युद्ध समाप्त हो चुका था। जगत को त्रास देने वाला रावण अपने कुटुम्ब सहित नष्ट हो चुका था।श्रीराम का राज्याभिषेक हुआ और अयोध्या नरेश श्री राम के नेतृत्व में चारों दिशाओं में शन्ति थी।
अंगद को विदा करते समय राम रो पड़े थे ।हनुमान को विदा करने की शक्ति तो राम में थी ही नहीं ।


माता सीता भी हनुमान को पुत्रवत मानती थी। अत: हनुमान अयोध्या में ही रह गए ।राम दिनभर दरबार में, शासन व्यवस्था में व्यस्त रहते थे। संध्या को जब शासकीय कार्यों में छूट मिलती तो गुरु और माताओं का कुशल-मंगल पूछ अपने कक्ष में जाते थे। परंतु हनुमान जी हमेशा उनके पीछे-पीछे ही रहते थे ।


उनकी उपस्थिति में ही सारा परिवार बहुत देर तक जी भर बातें करता ।फिर भरत को ध्यान आया कि भैया-भाभी को भी एकांत मिलना चाहिए ।उर्मिला को देख भी उनके मन में हूक उठती थी कि इस पतिव्रता को भी अपने पति का सानिध्य चाहिए ।

एक दिन भरत ने हनुमान जी से कहा,"हे पवनपुत्र! सीता भाभी को राम भैया के साथ एकांत में रहने का भी अधिकार प्राप्त है ।क्या आपको उनके माथे पर सिन्दूर नहीं दिखता?इसलिए संध्या पश्चात आप राम भैया को कृप्या अकेला छोड़ दिया करें "।
ये सुनकर हनुमान आश्चर्यचकित रह गए और सीता माता के पास गए ।


माता से हनुमान ने पूछा,"माता आप अपने माथे पर सिन्दूर क्यों लगाती हैं।" यह सुनकर सीता माता बोलीं,"स्त्री अपने माथे पर सिन्दूर लगाती है तो उसके पति की आयु में वृद्धि होती है और वह स्वस्थ रहते हैं "। फिर हनुमान जी प्रभु राम के पास गए ।