The late Scott Douglas Routley had a nasty road traffic accident around the turn of the century, which damaged his brain. By 2012, Scott had been comatose, persistently vegetative, “locked-in” – or however you want to put it – for 12 years. He couldn’t move, or talk.
Scott suffered from a “prolonged disorder of consciousness” (PDOC). Scott was therefore fed and watered by means of “clinically assisted nutrition and hydration” (CANH). In that respect, Scott’s condition was similar to that of the late Alfie Evans, about whose death I am presently trying to take the coroner to court, over his refusal to hold an inquest.
A few days ago, the UK’s Supreme Court ruled in An NHS Trust & Ors v Y & Anor  UKSC 46 that there was no need for hospitals to continue pestering the courts, whenever they wanted to get rid of somebody with PDOC by withdrawing his CANH, causing him to die of thirst whilst possibly beginning to feel a bit hungry too if he wasn’t asleep for the duration.
The Supreme Court explained that the Common Law said the hospitals should just get on with the euthanasia concerned, without bothering their lordships, unless the patient’s stubborn family, for example his parents, couldn’t be dissuaded from objecting to this proposed economy. That, reportedly, was the gist. You can read more scholarly and neutrally-worded summaries than mine of the case, which I will abbreviate as NHS v Y (and #NHSvY on Twitter), both here and here.
The claim I promised to make against the Senior Coroner for Liverpool, seeking judicial review of his decision not to hold an investigation into the death of Alfie Evans, was filed at the Royal Courts of Justice today, 27th April 2018.
In a nutshell, my case is that the public is entitled to an inquest into the death of Alfie, because the public does not know what killed Alfie. However, the cause of death is likely to have been the unknown illness that was said to have destroyed a large proportion of his brain. In any event, Alfie died whilst he was subject to a best-interests child euthanasia order of the courts, requiring Alfie to be retained by the hospital until he died, contrary to the wishes of his parents.
(In a nutsell, that’s it. Mind you, the court papers are a bit more long-winded than that.)
The papers I sent to the court can be read here.
Please note: This is not a legal action is not to get Alfie’s body exhumed. It is only an attempt to get the coroner to open an official investigation. (As he should have.) Do not believe the misinformation campaign, making out that I am trying to get Alfie’s body dug up. Check the truth, by reading the court papers.
The grievance of guest blogger Gagged Dad, the anti-abortion and lawfully homophobic author of
Two year-old’s contact stopped with homophobic dad
is mentioned in all these posts. After a court case in the UK that lasted more than four years, Gagged Dad’s grievance became expressed as an application to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). The full 267 pages of the ECtHR application are published here.
The all-important initial 42 pages of ECtHR application, outlining the facts and putting the legal arguments, are here.
STOP PRESS 14/4/18: THE APPLICATION WENT AHEAD TODAY, BUT IT WAS NOT SUCCESSFUL. I HAVE ORDERED A TRANSCRIPT.
THANKS TO ALL WHO SENT KIND MESSAGES TODAY AND YESTERDAY EVENING.
I STILL INTEND TO PRESS AHEAD WITH JUDICIAL REVIEW, AGAINST THE CORONER. TODAY’S FAILURE TO GET AN INJUNCTION, WHICH WAS ALWAYS AN OPTIMISTIC HOPE, DOES NOT WEAKEN THE FUTURE JUDICIAL REVIEW CASE. THE JUDICIAL REVIEW CASE IS MORE IMPORTANT ANYWAY.
Please follow this blog, to receive an email alert whenever there is a new development.
(Original post of yesterday follows.)
The funeral of Alfie Evans is reported to be planned for tomorrow. Having received no reply by 6 o’clock today to my email (copied below) to the lawyers of Alfie’s parents, I have concluded that it will probably be necessary for me to make an urgent application to the court tomorrow, in a bid to prevent the burial or the cremation of Alfie’s body without a prior post mortem examination and toxicology report to determine the cause of Alfie’s death reliably.
I shall be attending at Court 37, at the Royal Courts of Justice, at the start of business, on Monday 14th May 2018. Continue reading
This post is about a 2005 “Allman v UK” court case you probably haven’t read about yet.
Transgenderism is gender fraud. Fraud always has victims.
Gagged Dad has posted the following comment on
Parent vetted for political correctness – should the trial be in private?
I would like to thank the 21 who wrote to the judge and the 17 who attended the hearing, of whom four or more, three of them journalists, addressed the court. I would like especially to thank Stephen Green for his coverage before the hearing, in Christian Voice.
CORNWALL SOCIAL SERVICES WANTS A SECRET TRIAL IN GAGGED DAD CASE
Please act now. Hearing is on 23rd October 2015.
Question 1: Should social services separate a child from his mum or dad, when mum or dad openly opposes a government policy that he or she considers to be morally wrong?
Question 2: If social services does this, and that parent sues the council under the Human Rights Act for interference with his family life and discrimination on the grounds of his beliefs, should the trial be held in secret?