No5’s Khalique represents party who lacked capacity to make decision about amputation
No5 Chambers’ Nageena Khalique has appeared in the Court of Appeal before Laws LJ, Richards LJ and Gloster LJ, instructed by the official solicitor as litigation in friend to represent a protected party who lacked the capacity to make a decision about amputation.
The appellant challenged the decision of Mrs Justice King in the Court of Protection where she had decided that X lacked capacity to consent to a below-knee amputation to treat her foot infection, and that this treatment was in her best interests. The Court of Appeal refused her son permission to appeal.
The judge’s decision on capacity was correct. The judge was also correct on best interests: there was no need for further tests to determine best interests; the medical experts had no difficulty reaching their conclusions and there was no disagreement; the alternatives were unsuitable (for example antibiotics would cease to be effective); the son was worried about death in theatre, but in fact surgery gave X the best chance of survival; and her condition was deteriorating and the infection would spread without amputation.
Permission to appeal was refused.
News from No5 Chambers
Briefings from No5 Chambers
In the final part of this series, Richard Gibbs writes that the criminal justice system is predicated on finding the fairest way of dealing with juveniles.
In the third of this four-part series, Richard Gibbs writes that the criminal justice system is predicated on finding the fairest way of dealing with juveniles.