Retired judge Steven Strickland says key puberty blocker case ‘may have been different’ in light of new evidence | The Australian

A judge who helped decide a landmark case giving parents – not courts – the authority to approve puberty blockers for their children says the outcome might have been different if today’s medical evidence had been available.

Former Family Court judge Steven Strickland, who sat on the Full Court in Re Jamie, which authorised parents to prescribe children puberty blockers without the court’s consent, told The Australian that advanced medical evidence had shown it was “pretty clear” the treatment was risky.

“The medical evidence was the other way in Re Jamie, namely that the court could at least authorise that first step, because the medical evidence was that there was no risk involved,” he said. “But now that’s quite different and there’s no dispute about that, that there are risks involved.”

In the Jamie decision, then-judge Strickland, then-judge Mary Finn and then-chief justice Diana Bryant agreed that puberty blockers could be undone, and, as such, did not pose a serious danger to the child.

Justice Strum, after quoting the Jamie decision, said the evidence adduced in the Devin case “gives rise to the need to consider whether those findings, based on medical evidence a decade ago, remain factually correct for the determination of this case”.

“However, it is not for a court at first instance to consider, or even opine, in relation to the correctness of the legal principles established by the Full Court, which are binding upon it pending any further appellate reconsideration,” he wrote.

Mr Strickland told The Australian he had “no concern” about the outcome reached in Jamie, because “a judge can only reach a decision on the basis of the evidence before him or her, because a judge is not a medical expert”.

Mr Strickland also sat on the Full Court for Re Kelvin in 2017, which removed the requirement for court authorisation of the provision of stage two treatment – cross-sex hormones. He said if Jamie were heard again, “there could be a different” decision in light of new medical evidence that there were risks involved with puberty blockers.

“With Re Kelvin, I don’t think there would be a different decision, frankly, because Re Kelvin is not inconsistent with what’s happening before the court,” he said. “It’s not a case of revisiting, certainly Re Kelvin. Re Jamie, a different kettle of fish perhaps.”

[Ed: I would suggest that the Full Court urgently needs to reconsider both Re Jamie and Re Kelvin before more harm is done to vulnerable young people.]

Source: Subscribe to The Australian | Newspaper home delivery, website, iPad, iPhone & Android apps