Simon Wilkinson, Parklane PlowdenThe Covid-19 pandemic has infiltrated every aspect of our lives. Within the courts and tribunals service there has been a plethora of guidance since March 2020 which...
Mani Singh Basi, Barrister, 4 Paper BuildingsLucy Logan Green, Barrister, 4 Paper BuildingThis article considers the interplay between private and public law proceedings, focusing on the law relating...
The Ministry of Justice has launched a consultation on the proposed transfer from Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service to the Legal Aid Agency of the assessment of all civil legal aid bills of...
Meta Title :Reversing the retreat from Gillick? R (Axon) v Secretary of State for Health
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article :
Prioritise In Trending Articles :
Apr 17, 2007, 04:23 AM
Article ID :89035
Rachel Taylor, Christ Church, Oxford. In the case of R (Axon) v Secretary of State for Health  EWHC 37 (Admin) (Axon) a parent's challenge to the policy of granting confidentiality to children seeking advice on sexual matters failed, and the case defended the policy of child confidentiality strongly. The judgment emphasises the rights and autonomy of mature minors.
This article considers Axon against the background of the case of Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority  AC 112, where it was held that minors had the capacity to consent to medical treatment provided that they had sufficient maturity and understanding to decide on the matter in question. The concept of the Gillick competent child has been limited through future case law and although Axon did not challenge these limiting factors, it would seem that the case presents a powerful reassertion of the unrestricted Gillick principles.
This article examines the issues presented by Axon including in particular the relationship between the adult's right to parental authority and the child's right to confidentiality. The potential difficulties emerging from the ruling are also considered, and whether or not it can be said that there is a new dawn for children's autonomy. For the full article see Child and Family Law Quarterly, Vol 19, No 1, 2007.