A Hospital and Health Service v C

The case involved an 11-year-old girl, referred to as C, who was eight weeks pregnant and sought treatment from a hospital and health service, the applicant. C lacked the capacity to consent to or refuse the termination of her pregnancy. The hospital sought court orders to permit the termination of her pregnancy under the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000. The court had to determine whether C was Gillick competent, and if not, whether the termination of her pregnancy was in her best interests.

The court had to decide if C was Gillick competent, meaning she had sufficient understanding and intelligence to enable her to fully understand what was proposed in relation to the termination of her pregnancy. If she was not Gillick competent, the court then had to determine whether the termination of her pregnancy was in her best interests. The court heard evidence from medical experts and considered the welfare of C, her family, and the implications of carrying the pregnancy to term.

The court found that C was not Gillick competent. It considered the welfare of C, including her age, her understanding of the pregnancy, and the potential impact of carrying the pregnancy to term. The court concluded that terminating the pregnancy was in C's best interests, taking into account her physical, psychological, and social circumstances. The court found that carrying the pregnancy to term would have a significant adverse impact on C's physical, psychological, and social well-being, and that the termination was necessary to protect her welfare.

The court made orders permitting the hospital and health service to terminate C's pregnancy using Mifepristone and Misoprostol or by surgical operation before 18 April 2025. The court also adjourned the application for the authorisation to implant Implanon NXT to a later date. The court's decision focused on protecting C's welfare and ensuring that any medical procedures were in her best interests.