Re: Leo

In the matter of *Re: Leo*, Rees J of the Supreme Court of [State] considered the capacity of a child, Leo, to consent to medical treatment for gender dysphoria. The dispute concerned whether Leo, a minor, possessed the maturity and understanding to consent to Stage 2 treatment for his condition, as well as male chest reconstruction surgery.

The central legal issue before the Court was to determine Leo's competence to consent to these medical interventions. This required an assessment of his capacity to understand the nature, purpose, and consequences of the proposed treatments, and to make a voluntary and informed decision.

Rees J applied the principles of common law concerning the capacity of minors to consent to medical treatment. The Court considered evidence regarding Leo's age, maturity, intelligence, and understanding of his medical condition and the proposed treatments. The reasoning focused on whether Leo had sufficient maturity to understand the nature and implications of the treatment, including its benefits, risks, and alternatives. The Court found that Leo possessed the requisite capacity to consent to both the Stage 2 treatment and the male chest reconstruction surgery.

The Court declared that Leo was competent to consent to Stage 2 treatment for gender dysphoria and to male chest reconstruction surgery. Leave was granted to apply on short notice regarding the implementation of these declarations. The Court also made extensive orders for the anonymisation of the proceedings and restricted access to the court file to protect Leo's privacy.