Tribunal ‘could have spared Charlie’s parents false hope’

CHARLIE Gard’s parents may have been spared months of “false hope” and legal wrangling if tribunals were used instead of courts, specialists have suggested.

Expert panels deciding similar cases could help “avoid the worst features of enormous public discussion and the enormous length and expense”, Oxford University physician Dominic Wilkinson said.

Professor Wilkinson, who focuses on newborn intensive care, added: “They could make decisions that wouldn’t be subject to multiple levels of appeal. Time was clearly a very important factor here.

“Professionals fear other cases of disagreement will mean widespread social media interest, attracting illinformed offers of treatment and comments that may actually be giving patients and families false hope.

“That would be very regrettable; it may even be inevitable in this era.”

He added existing NHS ethics committees lack legal decision-making powers and are poorly funded and under-used.

Details of family court hearings are largely private, in stark opposition to the Gard saga, which grabbed attention across the world - from the Vatican to the White House.

Family Division president Sir James Munby published guidance on making family hearings more transparent in 2014, responding to charges they were a “system of secret and unaccountable justice”.

Courts in England have considered 10 cases involving contested medical treatment of children so far this year.