CASEWORK

Here are some highlights of selected casework undertaken in defence of individuals and families facing significant, and at times unjustified, intervention from public bodies. This includes challenging government decisions, supporting families in disputes with the NHS, and addressing cases involving social services acting on behalf of other institutions. Much of this work is complex and sensitive, so not all details can be shared. However, all cases presented are shared lawfully and are not subject to reporting restrictions or confidentiality orders.

Isherwood and Others v Welsh Ministers

I was closely involved in the preparation and development of the judicial review case Isherwood and Others v Welsh Ministers, a significant and high-profile legal challenge concerning parental rights in education and the Welsh Government’s introduction of controversial Relationships and Sexuality Education (RSE).

What the Case Was About

The case challenged the Welsh Government’s decision to introduce a new model of compulsory sexuality education, first adopted in policy terms around 2017 and later embedded into the national curriculum. Parents raised serious concerns about the content being taught to children, the removal of meaningful parental choice, and the way the Government described the programme to the public.

The central issue was whether the Welsh Government had acted lawfully in limiting parents’ ability to withdraw their children from this education, and whether it had been honest and transparent about what the programme involved.

Our Role and Legal Strategy

We played a key role in building the case, gathering evidence and shaping the legal arguments. In particular, we:

Demonstrated that the Welsh RSE model was not a purely Welsh or neutral programme, but part of a wider global framework promoted internationally.
Provided evidence showing that the Welsh Government had misrepresented the nature and origins of the programme, including downplaying its ideological elements and overstating parental safeguards.
Challenged the Government’s public claims using its own documents, international policy sources, and comparative evidence from other countries.

What the Court Decided

The court ultimately ruled against the parents on the narrow legal question of parental withdrawal rights, finding that the Welsh Government had the power, under current law, to limit those rights.

However, this was not a simple loss.

Why the Case Still Matters

The case achieved several important outcomes:

It established on the legal record that the Welsh Government’s sexuality education programme was part of a global policy agenda, not merely a local educational update.
It exposed government misinformation and forced greater public scrutiny of how the programme was being presented to parents.
It clarified the true legal position, showing that parental rights in education are far weaker than many parents had been led to believe—information that is vital for future legal and political action.

Overall Significance

Although the court did not restore parental withdrawal rights, the case was a serious and credible legal challenge that laid crucial groundwork for ongoing advocacy, policy reform efforts, and international collaboration. It demonstrated the importance of evidence-based legal action in holding governments to account on matters affecting children, families, and fundamental rights.

NHS Wales – Inherent Jurisdiction Proceedings (High Court, London)

I was directly involved in a serious High Court case in London concerning the attempted forced surgical intervention on a child by NHS Wales, raising profound issues of consent, safeguarding, proportionality, and misuse of state power.

Background

The case concerned a young girl diagnosed with a fibroadenoma, a common and benign breast lump frequently managed conservatively or with limited surgical excision. Despite this, NHS Wales proposed a mastectomy, involving the removal of the child’s breast.

This proposal was made against the expressed wishes of the child and without the consent of her mother. The mother refused to override her daughter’s consent, acting on medical advice that the lump was benign and did not warrant radical surgery.

Escalation by State Bodies

Rather than pursuing less invasive or evidence-based options, NHS Wales escalated the matter dramatically. They:

Claimed the situation was “life or death”, despite having no histology report or medical evidence to support this assertion.
Sought to rely on the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court to override consent.
Triggered six safeguarding referrals to Cardiff Local Authority, framing the mother’s refusal as a safeguarding concern.

Cardiff Local Authority then acted in effect as an agent of the NHS, applying for an Interim Care Order, with threats that both the child and her younger sister could be removed from the family home if the mother did not comply.

Legal Position and Challenge

We robustly challenged the application, highlighting that:

There was no clinical evidence justifying such a life-altering procedure.
The proposed intervention was disproportionate, irreversible, and unsupported by accepted paediatric standards.
The safeguarding process was being misused to enforce medical compliance, rather than to protect the child from harm.

Under pressure, NHS Wales sought to withdraw the proceedings. We refused to allow the case to conclude until the child’s future care was properly secured.

Outcome

We successfully negotiated that NHS Wales fund:

A private specialist surgeon
Appropriate follow-up appointments and monitoring

The lump was removed safely using a limited procedure, with no damage to the breast, no complications, and no lasting harm.

Significance

The child’s breast was saved. She is now healthy, thriving, and free from ongoing medical or state intervention.

This case stands as a clear example of how legal challenge can prevent unnecessary and irreversible medical harm, expose the misuse of safeguarding mechanisms, and ensure that children’s rights, consent, and bodily integrity are properly respected.