The Order

On 4th July 2024, Mr Justice Hayden announced it is not in Tom's best interests to receive the covid-19 vaccine.

The written decision is still awaited but The Sunday Telegraph has run the story and so a little more should be said. You can read the history of this case and further detail in previous updates but this is very much a brief overview.

18 months ignoring the mRNA risk to Tom

It is troubling that this senior judge of the Court of Protection, Mr Justice Hayden, and Tom’s Court-appointed legal representatives were in January 2023 presented with a report from Professor McCaffrey, an eminent American specialist in trisomy conditions, warning the novel gene therapy mechanism of the mRNA platform could be extremely dangerous to Tom yet chose to ignore it.

Instead, they continued seeking to enforce the September 2022 order made by County Court Judge, HHJ Burrows, that Tom should be vaccinated for the good of the wider community because that, HHJ Burrows reasoned via his imagination, was what Tom would say if he had capacity to do so. Tom's mother has always argued that reasoning was in clear breach of medical ethics, but the Court has never addressed her argument.

And so, with your safety and the upholding of Court procedures seemingly put before any risk to Tom, Tom’s mother suffered terribly while two teams of state-funded lawyers chased after her son for three years, needle in hand.

No significant covid risk to Tom

Fast track to 2024 and at the last minute they obtained a statement from Professor Adam Finn who had served on the government's Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) from before 2020 and through to 2024. In contrast to what was suggested in Court, Finn had expressly said he could comment on whether Professor McAffrey’s report would have influenced JCVI policy and/or recommendations (though that was never its purpose) but he was not competent nor able to provide a more detailed analysis of Tom's particular circumstances. It was surprising, therefore, that the Judge emphasised Professor Finn to have been the appropriate expert (see below). But perhaps the Judge had forgotten this, just as he had forgotten that the vaccine roll-out had started in December 2020.

Regardless, the importance of Finn's opinion was that it agreed with what Hayden J had said in February: in essence, the covid landscape had changed and Tom, having survived covid infection, should not be expected to be at particular risk. That was it. Hardly news to anyone but the staunchest covid fanatic.

The Judge also accepted without criticism the ICB's last minute reliance on a change in Green Book guidance that in late February 2024 had removed people with learning disabilities from recommendation for third or later doses ('boosters'). No explanation needed for why they didn't review their jab enthusiasm at that point.

Still, put together this was sufficient for the Judge to dispose of the case without having to address more uncomfortable issues pointed out through Tom's mother's statement.

No answer to Professor McCaffrey

What was conspicuously absent was any opinion to counter McCaffrey's red flag warning that the covid-19 mRNA vaccine technology employs “cell genetic processes as part of its therapeutic mechanism” and this “deserves special consideration in patients whose genetic processes are perturbed.” His warning was clear: the mRNA technology was the issue and the working assumption should be that trisomy individuals may be less able to cope with cellular oxidative stress induced by mRNA gene therapy technology.

As the Court knew, the ICB (and Hayden J) had seen McCaffrey’s warning in January 2023 and simply dismissed it out of hand in deference to the NHS Green Book guidance recommending the jab for those with learning disabilities.

Following the Court’s directions a year later in February 2024, however, they had spent more than 5 months seeking an appropriate expert to address the mRNA issue raised by McCaffrey, Hayden specifically identifying a key question as whether Tom, having chromosomal abnormality, may have a different response to oxidative stress than those with normal chromosomes.  With access to all of UK’s experts at their disposal, they drew a blank. They could not, it seems, answer McCaffrey's concern.

How convenient, therefore, that with a late-obtained report from Finn confirming what the public had known for a long time, this issue and their collective decision to ignore it and insist Tom take his chances, can remain hidden.  From the Judge’s decision, no one would be aware, but it is significant that the Order was that vaccination was positively not in Tom’s best interests.

More investigation is needed but anyone caring for those with trisomy conditions, such as Down Syndrome and Edwards Syndrome, should be made aware of McCaffrey’s warning.

Green Book: guidance (sometimes based on "poor" evidence), not rules.

Also absent from the decision was the Judge’s clear statement in the February hearing that the Green Book “is guidance, not rules.” The good sense in that was dramatically emphasised by Finn’s concession that the quality of the published evidence to support a consensus view that patients like Tom or with Down Syndrome are prone to severe COVID-19 (i.e. the consensus underlying the NHS guidance) was “even now…poor.”

It was confusing, therefore, that the Judge dismissed the clinical judgement of Tom’s GP in favour of consensus. It was, of course, consensus that facilitated Thalidomide, AIDS-infected blood and other scandals by the silencing of contrary opinions. This was mentioned by barrister, Paul Diamond, but without reply from the Judge. The idea that consensus could yet again lead to error or injustice does not, it seem, warrant entertaining when it comes to Covid.

Instead, covid continues to occupy a special status in the minds of so many. The Judge repeatedly referred to the ‘pandemic’ as a ‘dark period’ and ‘frightening’. It clearly left its scar on him and on the barrister for Tom, Dr Oliver Lewis (PhD in Human Rights law), who insisted the government guidance should be regarded as absolute authority, who sought to undermine McCaffrey by reference to his faith and an article on abortion, who had scoffed at Tom’s GP for suggesting the government had stoked a campaign of fear, who had sought contempt proceedings against Tom's mother and who had repeatedly asked that she be jailed and her assets seized if she should stand in the way of the vaccination order. Covid didn't frighten Tom's mother, but this barrister did his best to, presumably imagining that would be what her son would want.

Knowing all that to be an irrelevance, however, to bring home that this decision to release Tom was based on evidence, the Judge finally also relied on statistics produced by the ICB. They were of reduced numbers of covid cases and covid deaths, but none age-stratified to be relevant to Tom and all so small as to be meaningless to anyone. The statistics in Tom's mother's statement were not mentioned, of course, as was always the most important statistic: Tom did not die in infancy as expected but, by his mother’s love and consistently good decision- making, he made it to being a physically healthy 24 year-old.

Who needs evidence when the Court has imagination?

Tom's mother would like to tell you about Tom and how this Court has treated her and her son, but the Court bars her from identifying herself or Tom. The Court has expressly recognised Tom’s mother to be reasonable and there has been no evidence whatsoever that she is emotionally or otherwise vulnerable (as may be argued to be relevant in other more high-profile life and death cases). And Tom, of course, has no concept of privacy given his mental age, but such becomes an irrelevance when the Court, again relying purely on its imagination, decides Tom would want to retain his privacy if he could speak to us and that the Court knows better than his mother.

So again, the Orwellian 'Transparency Order' (an anonymity order ensuring it is difficult for its subjects to talk publicly about the Court of Protection) is extended for another 6 months. Again, the Court and the State, the lawyers and medics who’ve never even met Tom, make decisions for Tom. Again, the Court emphatically denies that the family has any rights at all once their offspring reach age 18, Hayden J insisting that anything else would be "regressive".

If nothing else, this case has been valuable to expose the politically progressive management of the Court of Protection. The State overreach and attack on the family unit could not be clearer that in this case. It is a situation being faced by many families up and down the land.

Nevertheless, this was a good day. Tom's mother held out and has shown it is possible for us all to stand up against the State and defend our children. She has won her battle but the war is far from over.

Appeal for funds

This legal fight has been ongoing for over 3 years. It has needed solicitors and specialist barristers to be instructed over that period, involving several hearings, management of expert testimony and complex medical, factual and legal issues, all the while facing a two sets of barristers and solicitors fully funded by the State.

Although over £58,000 has been raised for Tom's mother, there remains a significant deficit in paying Tom's mother's legal costs. Thanks are repeated to all those who have given to support this case. If you can afford to pledge your support, no matter how large or small, this will be appreciated.

If you cannot afford anything, then you can still share this case and Professor McCaffrey's report nationally and internationally.

Thank you.

Artwork by Bob Moran, who also made generous donation to this case

Following the last hearing in February, the hearing has been set for two days over 4th and 5th July 2024.  

At the February hearing, the Judge had said he would provide his written decision following the hearing.  That has not been received but, when it is, it will be posted here.

It is also not yet known who is the expert the authorities will seek to 'hot tub' with Tom's specialist, or what that expert will say.  

Meanwhile, the case is attracting wider mainstream attention, having been front page on The Telegraph on 3rd April and and the focus of an emotional video presentation by John Campbell that had more than 200,000 views within 24 hours.  

Thank you for keeping sharing this important and disturbing case, for each and every donation received and for your comments which mean so much to Tom's mother.      

At the public hearing on 08 February, watched by many via video link, Mr Justice Hayden refused to make orders to enforce the existing order, made in September 2022, that Tom should be injected 'as soon as possible'. Instead, he accepted that the advice of the specialist in Tom's condition, Trisomy 13, warning against injection for Tom given what is both known and unknown about that condition, should now be considered.

Directions were given that a expert should be appointed who can provide written evidence and, with the Trisomy 13 specialist, be examined and engage in open discussion in future hearing (a process referred to as 'hot tubbing'), if at all possible to be before Hayden J.

Dates for that hearing have yet to be set, but it is unlikely to be before the summer.

The Judge had, of course, seen the specialist's warning nearly 12 months ago in March 2023. Although confirmed reasons in writing are yet to be received, in essence the explanation for this change of course was that:

• The risk from vaccination must be looked at context that an unvaccinated Tom has survived infection for years.
• With the passage of time, we now live in world more questioning of pandemic regime and there is opportunity to evaluate the specialist's advice in a formal process.
• The specialist emphasises that efficacy and safety of the C19 vaccine in a cohort of Trisomy 13 patients has never been studied in randomised clinical trials and the data for the vaccine does not cover individuals with this abnormal chromosomal arrangement. A degree of caution is therefore warranted.

As a result, there was no need to consider the arguments of the lawyer appointed by the Court to represent and speak for Tom as his Accredited Legal Representative (ALR), always with his best interests in mind.  What the ALR had been arguing for – hold your breath and your nose at this point – was this:    

• the specialist medical advice should not be considered
• that recommendations for vulnerable made in government guidance must be followed
• Tom’s mother had shown contempt for the Court
• the Court should make orders warning as to imprisonment and seizure of her assets if she should seek to prevent Tom’s vaccination

The ALR has not been explained how removing Tom from the love and care of his mother and seizing her assets and Tom finding himself in the care of local authority would be in Tom’s best interests.

Regardless, with the public attending the hearing Hayden J did take the opportunity, seemingly in response to this crowdjustice site, to say that this case not about State versus the Individual. Rather, he said, it is about ensuring the incapacitated have the same rights as those with capacity, which is very different conceptually.

As to the Judge's view of the matter being conceptually very different, Tom's mother agrees entirely: those with capacity do not find that on reaching age 18 years the Court takes for the State their family rights and responsibilities; they do not find that they are stripped of the support and protection against interference from the State that they have enjoyed from the caring exercise of their autonomy by their family for the previous 18 years.

To emphasise the gaping chasm between the attitude of the Court of Protection and, some might imagine, the vast majority of the public, the Judge even rhetorically asked Counsel for Tom's mother if he would want his parents to make decisions for him. (His answer, of course, would be yes.)

This case raises a number of important issues:-

• The rights of the family in relation to an incapacitated adult child.  Who decides? The State or the family?
• 
  
• What role are Accredited Legal Representatives (ALRs) appointed by the Court to represent vulnerable individuals actually playing?
• 
  
• What is the ethical and legal basis upon which the Court makes ‘substituted judgment’ to say what Tom would do instead of the family?
• 
  
• Can the Court make such a judgment for Tom based on its imagination that he would want to accept medical treatment in order to protect others and save NHS resources for them?

This is not, has never been, the emergency situation of vulnerable parents acting beyond reason where, some might reasonably argue, that intervention of the State may be justified. This case is about a family doing an exceptional job and, come age 18, the Court acting with the State to usurp the role of parent. This case is about us all.

Thank you for taking the time to read this. Please share as widely as possible. Please donate if you can afford to do so. Tom's mother looks forward to reading your comments.

Tom's mother is being taken back to Court by the agencies of the State. 

It's more than 16 months since September 2022 when a County Court judge, His Honour Judge Burrows, ordered that Tom should be jabbed 'as soon as possible'. The Local Authority has now asked the Court to 'reconsider' the matter and give further orders to ensure the 2022 order is fulfilled. 

The family GP has refused to inject but the authority has found a GP who, like them, is wanting to inject despite that advice and without explaining the reasoning.    

A video update from Toms' mother is here:  https://rumble.com/v3zjevs-forced-vaccinations-on-our-loved-ones-toms-story-update.html

After further applications made by Tom's mother, HHJ Burrows has replied "I have discussed the case with Mr Justice Hayden, who heard the appeal against my earlier decision. It has been decided that the next hearing shall be before him on a date to be fixed." 

The passing of the matter to Mr Justice Hayden, a High Court Judge, is recognition that the case does, in the words of Court practice directions, raise "an ethical dilemma in an untested area." This being untested, it means a precedent will be set at the next hearing. 

DILEMMA

What is the dilemma? At its root, it may be seen as whether the Court should uphold wishes of the State over any rights of the family.  

More detail might be teased out from intentions that a local authority and a registered GP should:

1. prefer governmental generic advice for categories of the population (those with severe learning difficulties) over specialist advice considering the individual patient
2. accept unjustified and unethical consideration of what Tom would say if he had capacity
3. override the family wishes to execute the wishes of government agencies
4. override family rights when children reach 18 years old even though their mind remains that of an infant
5. do all of the above without the excuse of an emergency pandemic (not that such should ever have been an excuse)     

If the jab order is dropped, that will be exactly what Tom's mother has asked for.  

Mr Justice Hayden has previously questioned, in Court and in front of Tom's mother, whether she might be "an anti-vaxxer", and use of such pejorative language is a matter of concern. If the order is repeated, however, the fact that these applications are being heard in the Court of Protection by a High Court judge instead of a County Court judge opens up the possibility of appeal to the Court of Appeal (and Supreme Court, if necessary). 

As explained in earlier updates on this crowdfund, this case is fundamentally about whether the Court agrees that medical policies of the State can override decisions of the family, whether or not supported by eminently qualified doctors.

Precedent

Because a precedent will be set at the next hearing, public support is more important than ever. This case is not just about the covid-jabs but about the State's ability to dictate medical treatments by its recommendations (which may ultimately be influenced by politics) overriding family decisions. This case may affect us all.

The legal process is expensive and Tom's mother looks after her son 24/7. Please share Tom's story as widely as you can and, if you can afford it, donate what you can to this fund.

Thank you for your support.   

After months of silence, the authorities solicitors have written to say they have a jab ready for Tom and his mother must bring him to get it.

She was hoping the authorities had found better places to spend thousands of pounds from the public health coffers. Unfortunately not!  

It's extraordinary and devastating to Tom's mother. The jab programme has been ended for most of us and, of those still offered it, the majority in the UK and around the world are choosing to say no, thank you. But since Tom doesn't have the capacity to say no, he and his mother are denied that choice.

The authorities are still waving a Court order made 14 months. They think it is irrelevant that the WHO declared the end of any emergency in May 2023 and that that the government policy is to live with Covid long term. The view taken seems that long term also means an order without end, for repeated jabs for as long as the government says so.

If this can be done to Tom, anyone 18 or over without mental capacity can be made to have medical treatment because current government policy says so and despite the wishes of the family.

It cannot be right that the Courts facilitate this, that family rights are trampled on in this way. Tom and his mother trying to fight, not just for their family but for your family rights too.  You could be next.  

Please share this story and donate what you can.        

Great news for Tom and his mother. Doctors and pharmacists are standing up and saying NO to cooperation with the Court's order to give Tom the covid-19 'vaccine'.

8½ months after the Court first ordered that Tom be injected "as soon as possible", thanks to everyone supporting this case, Tom remains covid-jab free, just as happy as seen in this moving video

Lawyers for the authorities had sent the Court order to Tom's new GP. She had to ask twice, but when they finally provided the report from the specialist in Tom's condition, she refused to assist with carrying out the Court order on grounds it was unethical. The GP said NO.

It is not just the ethical principles that should concern health professionals. Steps were taken to ensure that anyone proposing to treat Tom would be aware of the full medical picture, not just the Court order, and also aware they should check with their insurance cover before jabbing someone despite knowing of an individualised assessment of risk of adverse reaction.

The authorities then sent an appointment for Tom to be jabbed at a vaccine centre attached to a pharmacy. We learn today that the superintendent pharmacist and owner has, after speaking to his insurers, the pharmacist said NO. Good on him!

Your financial support is still needed for this case. While it has not been possible to provide more regular updates since to do so may have prompted the authorities to act more quickly, legal work carries on to support Tom's mother.

The Court order is still in place and this will to return Court again. The Court has repeatedly been asked to reverse its decision taking account of the specialist medical evidence, a request it has repeatedly refused. Is the Court going to pushed back by the medics? With your support, that may just happen.

To help everyone say NO, please support this case with what you can afford and for sharing the news far and wide. 

(Do take a moment to read again the first page of this crowd fund case and updates to see how important the issues are. This is not just about Tom. It's about protecting family rights and our freedom.)

At the start of this month, a further application was made on Tom's behalf, asking the Court to consider new medical evidence obtained from a specialist in Tom's chromosomal condition, trisomy 13. That condition is extremely rare. A doctor specialising in treating patients with trisomy-13 is even rarer.

The last update on this case (A Shot in the Dark) summarised the specialist's evidence.  Put even more succinctly: it would be foolhardy to proceed with injection and hope for the best when, from what little is known of the condition, there is good reason to fear the worst. First do no harm. 

The application was flat out rejected by the Court. 

No comment was been made on the evidence. The only reason the Court will give is that the application was an attempt to relitigate what has already been determined (i.e. the order for injection made made 6 months previously with yet another Autumn and Winter season survived by Tom without incident).  

It might be argued that such a response – seemingly a point blank refusal to consider significant new information that identifies specific risks of which the Court had been unware  - puts Court process above the best interests of the individual.  

Tom's mother is, naturally, finding the whole process very stressful indeed and her health is being affected.  She must now consider whether to appeal again against this decision.  Stay tuned for updates.  

Meanwhile, thank you for your continued support.         

The Court of Appeal has declared that it does not have the jurisdiction to consider any appeal in respect of the orders made to date.  This need not necessarily be the case with further applications but, in any event, a fresh application was made to the Court of Protection on 2nd March 2023 to seek removal of the order for Tom's injection. 

The application pursues matters of wide public interest: 

• unjustified state interference with the family responsibilities
• using unevidenced altruistic motive to dismiss the views of the family
• breach of medical ethics in putting society before the individual

The application has been presented with fresh evidence from a medical specialist in dealing with patients with Trisomy 13, the rare chromosomal condition that affects Tom.  The doctor's statement includes the following observations:

• Understanding of cell processes in trisomy 13 individuals is extremely limited, but we do know that processing of DNA and RNA is different than for humans with 46 chromosomes
• Effectiveness of the Covid vaccines relies on the presumption that individuals have the ability to normally process spike protein mRNA as well as the ability to respond to the 'oxidative stress' that production of spike protein generates.  There is no reason to presume that trisomy 13 individuals could mount any adequate response.
• There is no data related to covid-19 injection of trisomy 13 individuals.

What is highlighted is a pure experiment on trisomy 13 individuals that is not even within a clinical trial.  This is nothing more than a shot in the dark.

While the Local Authority and the Court lawyers appointed to represent Tom directly might be forgiven for not being aware of, or or having thought to engage, such a specialist in the first place, it is concerning that they should wish to proceed with injection without investigating this specialist evidence.

Next update will follow when directions are received from the Court.

Meanwhile, thank you for your support.  Please donate what you can afford to support Tom and his mother and please share widely to help bring this matter to wider public attention.

Having filed at the Court of Appeal the initial application for permission for the appeal to be heard, a reply was received.  This was that no further action would be taken because a Master of the Court had determined that, on the basis of a 2013 case, the Court did not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal.  

No further explanation was given and a request has been made for the decision to be reviewed by a Judge of the Court of Appeal, pointing out that (1) the 2013 judgment acknowledged there was a route of appeal, but the application in that particular case was too narrow, (2) the current application was drafted widely so as to cover the route envisaged and (3) the Judge at the last hearing in Tom's case had expressly contemplated appeal was possible.    

It is unusual that this law should be so complex and more restrictive than from other Courts.  It is very unusual that a senior judge with specialist responsibility in the Court of Protection should, seemingly, be suggested to misunderstand the law regarding appeals.  

It is even more unusual that a Judge should of his own initiative contact the Court of Appeal, write to the local authority lawyers to ask why an order for treatment (injection) had not been fulfilled yet and, on being informed that no timescale could be given for a further response from Court of Appeal, contact the Court of Appeal again and be able then to report that the Court of Appeal would be in touch with the lawyers very shortly.

For the moment, Tom's mother waits and worries, but sends thanks all who have supported her and Tom in their plight and in the defence of the family against government intrusion.  It is about Tom, but also your family and much more than covid-19 injectables. 

Please share and encourage donations.  Every penny counts.  This fight is important and funds are urgently needed to ensure it can be continued as far as necessary.

For those interested, the 2013 case mentioned is this: TA and AA v Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council [2013] EWCA Civ 1661)

While the issue in Tom's case may appear straight forward, and many are dumbfounded at the orders being made, the arguments are not and the Court has, so far, been resolute in its views.

Provided by these links are:

• Grounds of Appeal
• Skeleton Argument for the Appellant (Tom's mother)    

For those who have donated already, thank you!  

The modest initial target set is to help get this campaign going and as some contribution to the legal costs, but this case, and this battle, could be a long one with many obstacles.  Please keep sharing and donating.