Horrorcow Hollie Dance / Lisa Pittaway / Ella Carter / Archie Battersbee / Lauren Summers/ Dignity For All / Archie's Army / Spread The Purple Wave - The Mama Nails of Essex, Her Whiteknights, and Her A-Logs

They back for reasoning

Link
This is the live link to the judgement being read out. Well worth watching even if you aren't currently watching live. The transcript of the judgement will be up in due course.

tl;dw - Andrew McFarlane isn't having any of this bullshit from Hollie et al
 
I’m expecting some storm the hospital shit we saw from Alfie Evan’s barmy army.

F8C44B6F-5D4E-429E-A83F-790CAA389154.jpeg
 
Looks like it maybe adjourned because of father illness (I missed the start)

Link

Edit 1: father had heart attack last year so history of heart issues. They gone into little room to discuss whether to adjourn

Edit 2: They back. No adjournment (I will keep updating this post)

Edit 3: Judge is based, decision first then reasons. Appeal refused on all grounds.

Edit 4: Reasoning after lunch break if people are interested.
Cynical thoughts is that was a last ditch attempt to delay, they knew they had no chance
 
Another appeal will only be granted if there was a major procedural error of the courts. There is no other compelling reason to appeal. All three judges have refused the current appeal. The European Court of Human Rights has been brought up by the appellants, they are seeking a stay for 7 days.
edit: words are hard
 
Her barrister is requesting a stay for THREE weeks now for the ECHR and new evidence.
I’m behind as I have to keep pausing. At some point someone is going to tell them to fuck off and stop wasting time.

Or at least I hope so.
oh for fucks sake they are seeking a stay to appeal to the ECHR plus also wanting to raise further High Court proceedings about the "new evidence" (Hollie saying she saw Archie breathe)
couldn’t say it better really. For fucks sake indeed.
 
Stay granted until 2pm Wednesday to confirm if Strasbourg will entertain the case.

Archie's circumstances fall squarely within the area of law considered pretty recently by Strasbourg in the Charlie Gard case, so there is no certainty that the ECtHR will be willing to entertain this. But we will know very quickly.
 
Cynical thoughts is that was a last ditch attempt to delay, they knew they had no chance
I'll be interested to hear the actual state of Mr. Battersbee, because you know H will screech it from the rooftops. From a medical standpoint, it's not hard to imagine that the death of his son, particularly in such a protracted manner, would cause the kind of stress that could lead to a very severe reaction.

OTOH, Hollie is full of poop and ill-conceived plots to have her own way. 🤷‍♀️
 
I'll be interested to hear the actual state of Mr. Battersbee, because you know H will screech it from the rooftops. From a medical standpoint, it's not hard to imagine that the death of his son, particularly in such a protracted manner, would cause the kind of stress that could lead to a very severe reaction.

OTOH, Hollie is full of poop and ill-conceived plots to have her own way. 🤷‍♀️
Given it's a "possible" heart attack or stroke, I would suggest it's possibly a panic attack, which can present with similar symptoms (breathlessness, chest pain) and if you've no history of panic attacks, it's hard to realise that that's what's happening. I would completely understand if under the serious stress of the court proceedings and Archie's state, Mr B did have a panic attack this morning.

As for the rest of it, things are going to move pretty fast now. The ECtHR decides very quickly in cases of this nature if they will hear the case and if they will, the hearing itself will be expedited. Important to note: the ECtHR doesn't rehear the case itself; it only looks at whether the procedure for making the decisions about Archie's treatment is compliant with the ECHR. So things like: does the procedure adequately consider Archie's right to life, are his interests properly represented in court etc. This is all shit that was litigated in the Gard case in Strasbourg so there's a recent standing precedent here. The court found no problem in the Gard case with the approach of the UK courts in considering withdrawal of treatment to dying kids, so it's difficult to see how Hollie could succeed here.

Here's the admissibility decision in Gard where the ECtHR refused to hear the full case. (To be heard in Strasbourg, you have to first persuade the Court you actually have a case. You can't just rock up with MUH RIGHTZ scrawled in crayon on the back of a scratchcard and use up the Court's time.) Worth a look to see how Hollie frankly doesn't have any better arguments against the standing precedents (Lambert, and Glass) than the Gards did.

 
also wanting to raise further High Court proceedings about the "new evidence" (Hollie saying she saw Archie breathe)
I'm not surprised but I'm also sort of surprised. Despite her ramblings on the Facebook group, Hollie has somehow managed to appear fairly okay in interviews which is what the majority of the public would see given that it's near impossible to get into that Facebook group

I didn't really expect the breathing stuff to actually make it into court or the general public domain but ah... she's gone there
 
I'm not surprised but I'm also sort of surprised. Despite her ramblings on the Facebook group, Hollie has somehow managed to appear fairly okay in interviews which is what the majority of the public would see given that it's near impossible to get into that Facebook group

I didn't really expect the breathing stuff to actually make it into court or the general public domain but ah... she's gone there
The only way to new High Court proceedings now is on the basis of new evidence. So.... new evidence had to appear from somewhere. There are no new medical "experts" toting quack cures (as happened in the Gard and other cases) to fulfil the new evidence requirement, and the hospital's observations on Archie remain that he is, er, dead, so.... Hollie has had to step into the breach herself.

You can make your own assessment of how likely the court is to accept that Archie, suddenly and at this stage of proceedings, has done something (i.e. breathe) in the presence solely of his mother which he has not done at any other time or under the observation of any other person, and which the medical evidence (which at this point is not contested) indicates he is not able to do. I assure you that you will not need to be a High Court judge to make that assessment.
 
oh for fucks sake they are seeking a stay to appeal to the ECHR plus also wanting to raise further High Court proceedings about the "new evidence" (Hollie saying she saw Archie breathe)
Christ, they are trying to create a movie-of-the-week drama.

Metaphorically and, I now-cynically have to consider, literally.

"Crisis at Chav Palace: The Hollie Story"
"Hollie: A Mother's Love"
"Archie's Army: The True Story of a Mother Who Refused to Say Good-bye"
 
Back