General Cases >> Consent >> Case 1 / Case 2 / Case 3 / Case 4 / Case 5 / Case 6 / Case 7 / Case 8

Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech AHA [1986] AC112, [1985] 3 All ER 402

Court decision

Mrs Gillick initially lost her first action, because Woolf J decided that, provided the girl had sufficient maturity and understanding to appreciate the nature of the consent, then the doctor could safely go ahead. So she went to the Court of Appeal (CA) and won her case, because this court rejected Woolf J's reason for his decision (the ratio decidendi). The CA argued that the emphasis should be on parental rights to control what happened to their children. Therefore, it was unlawful to treat without parental consent. After this decision, a precedent was set whereby it was no longer legally safe for a doctor to see children under 16 years without their parents present.

The DHSS appealed to the House of Lords (HL), i.e. the final Court of Appeal, and won by a majority of 3 to 2. Parental rights were not absolute and the consent of the child should not be seen as complete nullity. In relation to general problems of medical treatment, the Gillick case allows children of sufficient maturity and understanding to receive medical care without parental consent, i.e. if they are deemed to be Gillick competent. There was also worry that the child may go ahead and have sexual intercourse anyway and may suffer physical or mental harm from the doctor's refusal to meet her needs.

Lord Fraser stated in this case that:

"The only practicable course is, in my opinion, to entrust the doctor with a discretion to act in accordance with his view of what is best in the interests of the girl who is his patient. He should, of course, always seek to persuade her to tell her parents that she is seeking contraceptive advice, and the nature of the advice that she receives. At least he should seek to persuade her to agree to the doctor's informing the parents. But there may well be cases, and I think there will be some cases, where the girl refuses either to tell the parents herself or to permit the doctor to do so and in such cases the doctor will, in my opinion, be justified in proceeding without the parent's consent or even knowledge provided he is satisfied on the following matters: (1) that the girl(although under 16 years of age) will understand his advice; (2) that he cannot persuade her to inform her parents or allow him to inform the parents that she is seeking contraceptive advice; (3) that she is very likely to begin or to continue having sexual intercourse with or without contraceptive treatment; (4) that unless she receives contraceptive advice or treatment her physical or mental health or both are likely to suffer; (5) that her best interests require him to give her contraceptive advice, treatment or both without the parental consent."

back