Uncategorized

LIFE BITE: Baby Charlie Gard’s parents lose Supreme Court appeal for US medical treatment

/ Karen / Leave a comment

apple-150579_1280The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal made by the parents of sick baby Charlie Gard, over plans to take him to the US for experimental medical treatment.

Charlie suffers from a rare genetic condition called mitochondrial depletion syndrome. His parents Chris Gard and Connie Yates, both from London, want to take their 10-month-old son to the US to undergo a therapy trial there.

Earlier this year, both the High Court and Court of Appeal ruled in favour of medical staff at Great Ormond Street Hospital in London, who said it was kinder for brain damaged Charlie to be given end-of-life care and that he should not be taken to the US for experimental treatment, despite his parents’ wishes.

On 8th June 2017, the Supreme Court has also dismissed the couple’s latest challenge for their son to receive US medical treatment. Charlie’s parents have now made an emergency appeal to the European Court.

This case highlights the difficulties faced when parents and doctors are at loggerheads as to the best way to medically treat a minor child.  It raises the question –Who should have the ultimate say when it comes to deciding what is best for a child in terms of medical care?

If you are interested in where the law stands on this topic in Northern Ireland please click onto our blog post Medical Treatment and Your Children

Should you need any further information, please feel free to contact us confidentially by email

LIFE BITE: Blind woman wins landmark NI Court challenge over kerb height

/ Karen / Leave a comment

apple-150579_1280A recent ruling before NI’s High Court highlights how the legal actions of an individual can help both effect change and highlight the need for equality in our society.

On 12th May 2017, a blind woman from Lisburn won a landmark High Court challenge against Lisburn & Castlereagh City Council’s plan to reduce kerb heights in Lisburn city centre as part of  the city’s regeneration scheme.

This regeneration scheme is aimed at transforming the streets in the centre of Lisburn and creating new paving and kerbs around the Bow Street and Market Square areas of the city centre.

Joanna Toner had taken a legal case against Lisburn & Castlereagh City Council after fearing that the scheme would result in her being excluded from parts of her own city centre due to the risk of stepping out and being hit by traffic.   Joanna commented;  “If you can’t tell where the path ends and the road begins you’re just not safe from stepping out into traffic.”  She was supported in her challenge by Guide Dogs NI and the Royal National Institute of Blind People in Northern Ireland.

The Court ruled that the Council had breached its legal duty to ensure equality for disabled people, particularly the blind, and quashed the Council’s decision to lower the kerb height.

In his judgment, Mr. Justice Maguire said: “There is clear evidence that the blind or partially sighted as a group of disabled people were likely to be affected by the way the scheme was designed and built.”

Mrs. Toner was delighted with the outcome of the case and commented that; “The Council have to take into consideration the needs of disabled people in every decision they take.”

Our legal system in Northern Ireland plays a primary role in ensuring that the rights of people like Mrs. Toner are protected within society.
Judicial Review is a type of Court proceeding in which a Judge reviews the lawfulness of a decision or action made by a public body.  The decisions of our government, local authorities and other public bodies are all able to be challenged via our Court system if it can be shown that the decision made was  unlawful.
For more information on Judicial Review, please feel free to contact us here confidentially or email us on kconnolly@fhanna.co.uk

LIFE BITE: Other explanation for alleged Shaken Baby Syndrome highlighted in recent England case.

/ Karen / Leave a comment

apple-150579_1280A recent case in England has highlighted the importance of fully and thoroughly investigating cases of suspected Shaken Baby Syndrome.

‘Shaken Baby Syndrome’ is one of many names given to an injury normally termed as ‘Abusive Head Trauma’.

This is an injury which is normally caused by someone (most often a parent or other caregiver) forcefully shaking a child or striking a child’s head against a surface.   It is presumed that many cases of Shaken Baby Syndrome occur when the caregiver cannot get the baby to stop crying and, out of frustration or anger, shakes the baby.   Unfortunately, this shaking can have the effect of causing brain damage to a very young child.

Last year, a young couple in England, Craig Stillwell and Carla Andrews, had their baby daughter Effie removed from their care for almost 8 months after Social Services were concerned that an injury akin to Shaken Baby Syndrome had been caused to Effie’s brain.

Effie collapsed last August 2016 aged five months and at the hospital, Mr Stillwell was arrested by the police and accused of causing grievous bodily harm to her.   The local Council took the case to the Family Court, alleged a non-accidental injury had been caused to Effie and they sought an Order for her to be placed in care.  Effie was placed in foster care whilst the case was investigated and her parents were only allowed to see her three times a week for 90 minutes in a supervised environment.

It was only when Effie’s mother Miss Andrews researched what could have caused the bleeding in her daughter’s brain and after subsequent medical tests, that it was revealed that Effie suffered from a rare medical condition known as Ehlers-Danlos syndrome type IV (EDS).   This is a condition which causes “thin and translucent skin, easy bruising, vascular and arterial rupture”.

Upon discovering this alternative cause of the injuries to Effie, the Court case was withdrawn and Effie was returned home to her parent’s care.

Miss Andrews told the media that it was “amazing” to have her daughter back home but that she and her partner had been treated “like monsters” at the hospital and that the whole ordeal was “heartbreaking”.

The couple were not going to take any action against the local Council but wanted to raise awareness of the condition.   Miss Andrews said: “I feel bitter towards the hospital. I know they have to do their job but they should’ve gone about it differently.”  Mr Stillwell added: “We want to get the awareness out there that these connected tissue disorders do exist.  They may be invisible but they can cause a lot of damage and they do mimic child abuse and shaken baby syndromes.”

Unfortunately, the Courts here in Northern Ireland see cases of suspected Shaken Baby Syndrome.  The above example highlights how important it is in each case to explore all other possible causes of the injury and to ensure that there is minimal delay in collecting medical evidence from experts in this field.
If you require any further information on Shaken Baby Syndrome or non accidental injury, please feel free to contact is confidentially here

LIFE BITE: Loss of airline to Isle of Man may leave TT fans out of pocket

/ Karen / Leave a comment

apple-150579_1280The Real Road Racing season is almost upon us and which inevitably means the return of the popular Isle of Man TT races which take place every May/June on the island.

The TT is always a busy time for the Isle of Man as the sport brings and influx of bike racers and their families and friends to the island to enjoy the sport.

Unfortunately, there have been reports in the media that the provider of flights between Belfast and Douglas, Citywing, have gone into administration leaving travel plans in disarray and race fans out of pocket.

While another airline has stepped in and taken on this route, many travellers are still likely to have suffered financial loss in any forward booking they had made via Citywing.

While you scramble to make alternative travel arrangements, it may be worth knowing that under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 you may apply to your credit card provider for a refund of the costs of any flights you had purchased provided they cost over £100.00.

While bookings on debit cards do not have the same statutory protection, many of the larger debit card providers are part of a voluntary scheme called ‘Chargeback’ which may offer you similar protection.  The Chargeback scheme may also be used for credit card payments under £100.00.

Anyone affected by the administration of Citywing should contact their credit/debit card providers and notify them of your claim to get the process started.

Life Law NI would like to wish all attending the Isle of Man TT races this year a safe and enjoyable trip.

LIFE BITE: Wife refused divorce as unreasonable behaviour claimed is “expected in a marriage”

/ Karen / Leave a comment

apple-150579_1280The wife of a multimillionaire farmer has asked the Court of Appeal to overturn the decision made by a lower Court to refuse her a divorce after the Judge hearing her divorce ruled that her husband’s behaviour was to be “expected in a marriage”.

Tini Owens, 65, married her husband Hugh Owens, 78, in January 1978.  In November 2012, Mrs Owens, had a brief fling with another man, which ended in August 2013.

In her divorce petition, Mrs Owens stated that her husband had behaved unreasonably in his “continued beratement” of her.  She outlined his conduct in her petition,  which included criticising her in front of their housekeeper, arguing with her in an airport shop, not speaking to her during a meal and making her pick up bits of cardboard in the garden.  She submitted in her divorce petition that this behaviour amounted to unreasonable behaviour.

Mr Owens has to date claimed that he had forgiven his wife for her “misguided” fling in 2012, and told the Court that he wanted to remain married to his wife as they “still have a few years of old age together”.

The Judge hearing the divorce, Judge Robin Tolson QC, concluded that Mr Owens’  behaviour towards his wife had not been unreasonable and refused her divorce petition last year.

Judge Tolson QC described the farmer’s attitude as “old school” and stated that Mrs Owens’ allegations against her husband were “exaggerated” and “at best flimsy”.  The Judge further claimed that the conduct described by Mrs Owens were “minor altercations of a kind to be expected in a marriage” and “an exercise in scraping the barrel”.

Judge Tolson also found that Mrs Owens was “more sensitive than most wives” and that she had “exaggerated the context and seriousness of the allegations to a significant degree”.

Mrs Owens claimed that as a result of the Court’s refusal to grant her a divorce, she was effectively “locked in” to her marriage with Mr Owens. She claimed that it was unfair that under current law she would have to wait five years before being allowed a divorce without her husband’s consent.

Mrs Owen’s legal representatives have submitted that it is unreasonable to expect her to stay in the marriage, with her barrister adding: “There doesn’t have to be violence, or threats of violence, or gambling or drinking or shouting. There is cumulative effect of what may be regarded as inconsequential conduct, which may justify a finding that it is unreasonable to expect her to stay with him.”

Mr Owens legal representative told the Court that the initial divorce Judge had been “entitled to reject the wife’s case”. ”

The Court of Appeal judges are expected to reserve their decision on Mrs Owens’ appeal and give their ruling at a later date.

For more information on the grounds for divorce here in Northern Ireland, you can read our earlier blog piece ‘Divorce – What are the Grounds?’ or contact us here.

 

Go back

Your message has been sent