Charlie’s mum flees court in tears over test results ‘snub’
BABY Charlie Gard’s mother fled the High Court in tears yesterday after being told the latest report on her son’s health “makes sad reading”.
The gravely-ill boy’s father Chris Gard spat the word “evil” at a barrister who told the hearing of the MRI scan.
The outbursts were prompted when Katie Gollop, QC, for London’s Great Ormond Street hospital, described results of new tests on Charlie.
Connie Yates began to cry and said: “We haven’t even read it.”
Yesterday’s drama came as Mr Justice Francis called both sides into court to discuss next week’s proceedings to decide 11-month-old Charlie’s future.
The couple want to take their son to America for experimental treatment on a rare but destructive genetic condition.
His doctors at Great Ormond Street say he is deaf, blind, can only breathe through a ventilator and has irreversible brain damage.
They have argued that his lifesupport treatment should be withdrawn so he can be allowed to “die with dignity”. Earlier yesterday, it emerged that both parents, of Bedfont, west London, could make pleas during next week’s final hearings. Mr Justice Francis told the court he would be willing to hear from either or both parents if they can help him to understand the evidence. He said: “I certainly wouldn’t want any sense of procedure to get in the way of Miss Yates or Mr Gard giving evidence if they feel there is something to be said.” The judge’s decision hinges on medical evidence from Michio Hirano, professor of neurology at New York’s Columbia University, who could give Charlie the experimental treatment. Prof Hirano examined Charlie at Great Ormond Street this week before discussing his condition with doctors there.
Mr Gard, 32, and Ms Yates, 31, have disputed the British doctors’ account of Charlie’s symptoms.
In April, Mr Justice Francis ruled for the hospital and his decision was backed by the Court of Appeal, Supreme Court and European Court of Human Rights.
The case went back to the High Court after the family claimed Professor Hirano had new evidence which could affect the ruling.