Emma Sutton has recently successfully completed the ‘25 for 25’ Challenge which involved undertaking a significant number of hours of pro bono work through Advocate. Emma was instructed by the first respondent mother in Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust & Ors v MBC & Ors [2021] EWHC 2574 (Fam) before Mr Justice Peel. The case involved a serious medical treatment application where declarations were sought that it was lawful and in the best interests of a 19 month old child who sustained a profound neurological injury at birth for ceilings of care to be imposed; including any form of invasive ventilation, escalation of intensive care support or CPR.

Please see here for the judgment.

Mr Justice Peel stated within the judgment that he ‘[could] not forbear from comment that it seems to me to be little short of scandalous that in cases of serious, and often urgent, medical treatment for children, where issues of life and death are frequently considered, parents such as these have little option but to rely upon the goodwill, availability, and dedication of members of the Bar acting for free’.

In Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust & Ors v MBC & Ors [2021] EWHC 2574 (Fam), Michael Mylonas QC was instructed by applicants, Emma Sutton was instructed for the first respondent mother, and Neil Davy and Susanna Rickard for the second respondent father. Both parents were represented on a pro bono basis through Advocate.

The case was before Mr Justice Peel and involved a serious medical treatment application where declarations were sought that it was lawful and in the best interests of a 19 month old child who sustained a profound neurological injury at birth for ceilings of care to be imposed; including any form of invasive ventilation, escalation of intensive care support or CPR.

Having heard the clinical evidence, the first respondent did not oppose the application as she did not consider that her daughter’s life should be prolonged at all costs (acknowledging that the suffering her daughter felt may outweigh what little benefit she received from her life). The father opposed the application in terms of  the withholding “Any invasive forms of ventilation”.

The critical issue in the case by its conclusion had narrowed to one aspect of the relief sought, namely whether withholding of invasive ventilation should be authorised. The court ultimately granted the application. The case involved cultural and religious issues in addition to complex medical issues. Please see here for the judgment.

Of note, in relation to the advocates for the parents appearing pro bono, Mr Justice Peel said this:

1. All parties have been represented by counsel, to whom I am grateful for their clear and able written and oral submissions, as well as their immense courtesy towards all the witnesses, and their sensitive handling of difficult human issues. I would like to acknowledge in particular Ms Sutton, on behalf of M, and Mr Davy and Ms Rickard on behalf of F, who have acted pro bono, dedicating a great deal of time, energy and commitment to these intensely personal and demanding proceedings.
2. I cannot forbear from comment that it seems to me to be little short of scandalous that in cases of serious, and often urgent, medical treatment for children, where issues of life and death are frequently considered, parents such as these have little option but to rely upon the goodwill, availability, and dedication of members of the Bar acting for free.