Charlie Gard’s mother launches legal battle to lift life-long secrecy NHS gagging order following Supreme Court ruling
13 May 2025 Issued by: Christian Legal CentreAlmost eight years after the tragic death of her son, Charlie Gard, Connie Yates with the backing of the Christian Legal Centre, is returning to the Supreme Court to overturn the injunctions made in 2017 that granted lifelong anonymity to the doctors responsible for his care.
The draconian injunctions threaten imprisonment to anyone who would “publish or reveal” the identities of any clinicians at Great Ormond Street Hospital (GOSH) involved in Charlie’s case.
Ms Yates’ action follows a landmark ruling from the Supreme Court last month which ruled that permanent reporting restrictions over the naming of clinicians involved in end-of-life cases may only be granted in exceptional circumstances to protect a specific individual based on “compelling evidence” of “a real and continuing threat of a serious nature” to that individual.
As a result of the ruling, the Abbasi and Haastrup families who brought their cases all the way to the Supreme Court have finally had their restrictions lifted. The ruling also paves the way for dozens of other families to apply to discharge similar injunctions made in other cases and to tell the full stories of their experiences of the end-of-life care in the NHS.
In 2017, Ms Yates was at the centre of a high-profile legal battle with the NHS over the life of her baby son, Charlie.
The case was arguably the first and biggest case of its kind, with interventions from Pope Francis I and President Donald Trump.
Charlie was born with a very rare genetic condition called mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome (MDDS).
His parents wanted to pursue pioneering treatment called nucleoside bypass therapy (NBT) to help improve and/or stabilise his condition.
A hospital in the US agreed to offer Charlie the treatment, and Charlie’s parents had raised £1.3m in funds to take him there.
Clinicians, with full anonymity to protect their identity, however, refused to allow Charlie’s parents to pursue treatment abroad.
Giving evidence in court, the clinicians from Great Ormond Street, responsible for Charlie’s care said it was in his ‘best interests’ to die.
The parents pursued their case all the way to the European Court of Human Rights, but it was during the Supreme Court hearing that the judicial panel, made up of Lady Hale, Lord Kerr and Lord Wilson, imposed severely draconian and indefinite restrictions on what the family could say publicly about their case.
Pope and Trump intervened
Even the intervention of The Pope and President Donald Trump was not enough to persuade the NHS and the UK courts to support the parents’ wishes.
Following a European Court ruling against the family, the Pope said that he hoped the parents’ desire: “To accompany and care for their own child to the end is not ignored.”
US president at the time, Donald Trump, then offered his support, tweeting: “If we can help little #CharlieGard, as per our friends in the U.K. and the Pope, we would be delighted to do so.”
The case returned to court, but after months of court cases it was too late for Charlie to be treated and the family ended their legal battle.
Charlie was taken off life-support and tragically died one week before his first birthday on 28 July 2017.
Restrictions on the naming of the clinicians involved in Charlie’s care have remained in place ever since and are of ‘unlimited duration.’
The letter
Now, this week Ms Yates’s legal team has written to GOSH referring them to the Abbasi/Haastrup ruling which ‘clarifies the law in relation to injunctions of this nature.’
Lawyers say that: “The terms of the Injunctions are so wide as to be a disproportionate interference with Article 10 rights of our client and others, and most importantly, that there is no jurisdiction and/or no justification under the Convention for the continuation of the Injunctions almost eight years after the death of our client’s son. While the Supreme Court has held that a continuation of an injunction for a ‘cooling off period’ after the death of the child may be permissible, its length must be measured in weeks rather than months or years.”
They say therefore that the injunction must be “discharged immediately.”
Ms Yates’ lawyers will be making an application to the Supreme Court to discharge the injunctions it imposed on the family.
The letter concludes by saying: “This matter is of considerable urgency for our client, whose Convention rights to tell her own story and to contribute to the important public debate about end-of-life care have been continuously curtailed by the need to comply with the over-restrictive terms of the Injunctions during the past eight years.”
‘Lifting restrictions would give me some closure’
Ms Yates, who runs the Charlie Gard Foundation which supports families affected by mitochondrial disease, said: “To have these restrictions lifted would feel like I was being given my voice back. It is difficult to put into words what it is like as a parent, in a highly tragic and vulnerable position, to be silenced and threatened with being criminalised if you speak about the people condemning your child to die.
“I have lived with this injustice for eight years. No parent should have to go through that.
“I wish I knew then what I know now. As a parent you are in many ways helpless when the system comes against you to end the life of your child, instead of giving you the support you desperately need.
“Clinicians were able to hide behind anonymity and say that it was in Charlie’s ‘best interests’ to die rather than to pursue specialist treatment which we as parents wanted.
“There was no accountability. Would they have given the same evidence if faced with full and proper scrutiny?
“I would never condone any abuse of clinicians, I didn’t at the time and I do not now.
“This isn’t about targeting clinicians. It is about accountability in the NHS, transparency, honesty, open justice and the freedom of parents to leave no stone unturned in trying to help their children.
“To have these restrictions lifted would give me some form of closure. I have felt like I have had to be silent and have been unable to speak the truth for 8 years.”
Andrea Williams, chief executive of the Christian Legal Centre, said: “Justice must be done in the light. When courts are making life-and-death decisions, there should be no fear of public scrutiny. Transparency is essential to ensure accountability in a system that holds such profound power.
“Slippery legal concepts, such as the idea that it is in a person’s ‘best interests’ to die have been too readily expanded and too broadly applied. Once such a determination is made by the court, it becomes virtually impossible to challenge, particularly when injunctions are in place that silence families and prevent them from telling their stories
“Especially at the time of the important national debate about legalising assisted suicide, it is vital that families such as Rashid and Aliya Abbasi, Lanre Haastrup and Connie Yates can tell the whole truth of what happened to them when their children were at the receiving end of life care within the NHS.”
