Judge Orders Fresh Hearing for Mentally Disabled Man Ordered to Be Vaccinated Against Mother’s Wishes

Media gather outside the High Court in London, in this file photo. Tim Ireland, File/AP Photo

A judge in a court of protection case has ruled that a fresh hearing will take place to decide whether a mentally disabled man born with a heart condition should receive the COVID-19 jabs after a local authority took his mother to court after she refused to have him vaccinated.

Mr. Justice Anthony Hayden had previously upheld the initial ruling that the 24-year-old should be vaccinated, but this week the court heard evidence from a U.S. expert that the mRNA vaccines could be life-threatening to the man, who cannot be named and was referred to as JD in the latest hearing.

His mother was represented by barrister Paul Diamond, who asked for a reconsideration of the “best interests” ruling made in the initial hearing in September 2022 by Judge Simon Burrows, and subsequently upheld by Judge Hayden in December that year.

JD was born with the rare chromosomal disorder trisomy-13, which caused him to have a heart condition and a cleft palate. He has no speech and a mental age of around 18 months and is cared for full-time by his mother with some help from the unnamed local authority, such as day centre provision.

Paediatrician Says Vaccines Could Prove Fatal

A world-leading expert in trisomy-13—also known as Patau’s syndrome—Professor Martin McCaffrey, provided a report stating that the mRNA vaccines could be dangerous and potentially even fatal to JD because his chromosomal abnormality means he processes both DNA and RNA differently to the majority of people.

After legal arguments, the judge agreed that Mr. McCaffrey’s evidence could be taken into account at the fresh hearing, but said the state could also bring its own expert witness, who must be British, so that two clinicians with opposing views could have a “dialogue”—a legal process known as “hot tubbing.”

JD’s previous GP had given evidence that he should be vaccinated, along with a consultant cardiologist, but his current GP had refused to administer the jabs after reading the expert report, saying it would be “unethical.”

The head pharmacist at the family’s local vaccination centre also refused to vaccinate the young man, citing insurance reasons, after seeing the report.

The local authority and the GP and cardiologist who gave evidence at the initial hearing stating it would be in JD’s best interests to have the injections cannot be identified for legal reasons.

The judge questioned why the professionals had refused to carry out the order to vaccinate JD, calling it “unacceptable,” but went on to say this delay had led to a “slight change in the COVID landscape,” although he maintained the virus was still a serious threat.

JD has already had COVID-19—as confirmed by an antibody test—without serious consequences, and the judge said this was a factor worth considering.

“The greatest risk to him is that to which he has already been exposed and survived,” Judge Hayden said, adding that this might “very significantly” impact upon weighing up the potential risks and benefits of the vaccines.

“He has shown himself able to fight off one COVID infection, and he is still fit and well ... he has only had it once, as far as we know, which I think is less than most of us now,” he told the court, which was sitting remotely.

He added that, in his view, “This isn’t the state versus the individual, or anything as shallow as that ... it is about what is in [JD’s] best interests.”

The judge said the vaccine was regarded as being “very effective” and that “mainstream international consensus supports this,” and that JD’s condition places him in an “at risk” group owing to his learning disability.

A health care worker prepares a dose Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine at the Michener Institute in Toronto on Dec.14, 2020. Carlos Osorio/AFP via Getty Images

‘A World More Questioning of Pandemic Regime’

However, he said: “The passage of time and the change of the [COVID] climate ... and the fact that we live in a world that is more questioning of the pandemic regime—and healthily so—makes me minded to reconsider.

“But the pandemic has not gone away. The boy is still vulnerable. But he has been living through the pandemic, as we all have, for however many years it is now.”

He gave the local authority’s integrated care board, represented by barrister Adam Fullwood, seven days to produce a satisfactory expert witness to argue the case in favour of vaccination.

Mr. Diamond expressed concern that the mother “is not a woman of means,” but the judge ordered she would have to bear one third of the costs of the new hearing, saying there were “consequences” to ignoring court orders, and that this was the usual split in such cases.

Mother Fundraising for Legal Fees

JD’s mother has a CrowdJustice page with a fundraising appeal for the case. She refers to her son as “Tom” in two online videos, but this is not his real name.

“He was one when he had his heart surgery. I just kissed him on the forehead and said ‘I will always protect you.’ And this is what I feel I’m doing at the moment,” she said in a video interview.

“It’s just like having a baby, he is a baby, he has a very young mental age. But he’s in a grown man’s body.”

She said: “They [the local authority representatives] suddenly appeared after the lockdowns. They said, we’ve come to just have a check-up—but it was an unusual visit. And the doctor approached me again and said, ‘Can you tell me again, why is it you don’t want to have the vaccine?’

“It was just after I'd spoken to the doctor I got a big envelope through the post and [they were] taking me to court. I just couldn’t believe it.”

Thanking her supporters for messages and donations, she said: “I have to stay strong. We’re a unit and I love him with all my heart. And I’m everything to him as well. He knows when I’m upset. He puts his arms around me and he kisses me all the time.”

Solicitor Stephen Jackson, who acts for the mother, told The Epoch Times that his team was “very pleased” with the outcome, but expressed concern about who the British medical expert produced by the state might be, because experts in trisomy-13 are “extremely rare,” and the mother had needed to track down Mr. McCaffrey in the United States.

“The other side suggested another cardiologist, but a cardiologist is not an expert in JD’s condition, and nor is a virologist, which the judge was suggesting. He really wants to hear from a British expert in trisomy-13, but I think they'll have trouble finding one.”

In the initial appeal ruling where he upheld the judgment of Judge Burrows, Judge Hayden found that the mother did not have parental rights because her son is over 18, despite the fact he cannot speak and could never look after himself.

“An adult who lacks capacity is not and should never be treated as a child. That paternalistic approach has long ago been consigned to history and recognised for what it is, a subversion of adult autonomy,” his judgment ruled.

He paid tribute to the “sincerity” of JD’s mother’s beliefs, and to the devoted care she has given to her son, but ruled that: “Children are not chattels of parents. Our domestic law emphasises responsibilities rather than rights.”

He echoed those sentiments in the latest hearing, saying: “What the mother says isn’t determinable. But nor is what the doctors say. It is about surveilling the whole tapestry.”

Judge Hayden agreed to the admission of the evidence of Mr. McCaffrey, which the local authority argued against, with Mr. Fullwood calling it “highly theoretical” and something “the court cannot possibly be expected to fully scrutinise.”

The judge said that “harm lies in getting it wrong either way” in terms of the vaccine, and ordered that the next hearing should take place “as soon as possible.”