Barnet wins best interests vaccine battle in High Court

A High Court judge has backed the decision of the London Borough of Barnet to vaccinate a looked after baby against the wishes of his mother.

In London Borough of Barnet v AL and NT and TL and AN and HV and AG and DL, KL, SL and ML ([2017] EWHC 125 (Fam)), heard on 24th January 2017, Mr Justice MacDonald decided that the balance of risk “plainly favours immunisation” for the child, SL, who was the subject of an interim care order.

The judge received specialist paediatric testimony which said that one of the diseases being protected against was “a rapidly progressive infection, hard to diagnose and treat in time to prevent permanent damage or, in some cases, death”. The other disease, it was said, “can cause a particularly severe, brain damaging form of meningitis, with about half of the survivors left with some form of disability”.

In applying under the inherent jurisdiction for a declaration that it is in SL's best interests for the local authority to be given permission to arrange for him to receive the Hib vaccine and the PCV vaccine, the London Borough of Barnet accepted that carrying out the vaccination despite the mother’s concerns would be an act that “trespasses on the mother’s … right to respect for her private and family life” under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. But the council went on to argue that the “risk[s] attendant on giving the vaccines” to the baby would be “outweighed by the risks of not giving them”.

The mother argued that her older children had had negative reactions when they were vaccinated but Mr Justice MacDonald held that she had not provided enough evidence to prove that the responses of her other children were as severe as she claimed.

The full judgment can be viewed at the following link: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2017/125.html