Court rules child should be vaccinated in landmark case

Thursday 27 May 2021

Jersey’s Royal Court has ruled that a seven-year-old boy should receive his MMR and flu jabs after a father’s landmark battle to have his child vaccinated against the mother’s wishes.

In what’s believed to be the Channel Islands’ first vaccine-related legal case involving a child, the Court concluded that Public Health advice should always be followed unless there is a “credible development in medical science” indicating a “significant” safety risk.

In Jersey, the immunisation of children is not compulsory, and parents are allowed to make final decisions on behalf of their children.

While the father wanted to have his son vaccinated “out of fatherly concern” that measles, mumps and rubella can cause long-term damage, the mother resisted, citing advice from two “vaccine allergy specialists”, whose credibility was questioned in court.

The precedent-setting case was heard in March, but details have only been made public for the first time this week.

Pictured: The case was heard by the Royal Court's Family Division.

Family Division Registrar Elizabeth Daultrey, presiding, heard that the boy at the centre of the case had mild eczema, asthma, and carried an EpiPen as a “precautionary measure.”

The mother said her son had previously been twice to A&E with breathing difficulties. She also said he had become “floppy” after a previous pneumococcal vaccine, which the father denied.

Claiming to have 42 allergies herself, the mother feared that her son may have as yet undiagnosed sensitivities to some substances in the MMR vaccine and could suffer a “potentially fatal” anaphylactic reaction to the jabs as a result. 

She also claimed that the flu vaccine can worsen the condition of children with asthma. 

Despite this, she said she would be willing to let him have a single measles jab - something not available in Jersey, nor through any reputable UK provider.

She also called for the Royal Court to allow extensive allergy tests to be carried out on her son before a final decision is made. However, when questioned by the father’s lawyer, Advocate Matthew Godden, she said that she would still oppose the boy having an MMR vaccine even if he tested negative for all the allergens she was worried about.

Pictured: The Royal Court heard that the child had previously gone to hospital due to breathing difficulties.

The mother was unable to obtain a medical report to back up her position, as requested by the Royal Court, but shared advice from Dr Richard Halvorsen, who she described as a “vaccine expert”.

In a one-line email, the former GP and Clinical Director of private firm ‘BabyJabs’ told her: “…In view of [your son’s] personal and family history I do not recommend any of mumps, rubella or flu.”  This was despite the doctor not having seen the child’s medical records.

She also quoted recommendations received from purported “vaccine allergy specialist” Dr Marta Krawiec, who recommended extensive allergy testing. 

Neither doctor agreed to appear in court for the mother or provide a report on the matter. Instead, she submitted extracts from publications including Dr Halverson’s that the children who react badly to MMR vaccines tend to have asthma and eczema.

Doubt was cast on the credibility of the two medics by Jersey General Hospital’s Consultant Paediatrician, Dr David Lawrenson.

Appearing in court for the father, he explained that “vaccine allergy specialist” was not a recognised accreditation and claimed the field of allergies attracts “fringe practitioners profiting from fear”.

Pictured: Jersey Hospital's Consultant Paediatrician Dr David Lawrenson was praised for his "helpful and impressive" insights during the case. (GoJ)

Dr Lawrenson, who had treated the son previously, agreed that it was “possible” the child had an unknown allergy to a vaccine ingredient. However, he said that this would be “extremely uncommon”. He emphasised that the vaccines were “proven to be safe”.

Registrar Daultrey said in her judgment that she had no doubt that both parents considered the child’s welfare “paramount”, as required under the Children’s Law.

In making her decision, she noted that Dr Lawrenson had been a “helpful and impressive witness” and made it clear that “any potential risks are small and far outweighed by the benefits conferred by vaccination.”

She said she was also “greatly assisted” by two UK judgments made last year.

In May 2020, the English Court of Appeal decided that parents of a child in care should not be able to stop the infant from being vaccinated, with Lady Justice King ruling: “Although vaccinations are not compulsory, the scientific evidence now clearly establishes that it is in the best medical interests of children to be vaccinated in accordance with Public Health England's guidance unless there is a specific contra-indication in an individual case.”

In December, the High Court made clear that the only evidence that could lead them to budge would be a “credible development in medical science” or “new peer-reviewed research “demonstrating to the required standard a significant concern for the efficacy and/or safety of any of the vaccines currently listed on the NHS vaccination schedule.”

“Junk science” - including “partial and partisan material gathered from the internet”, should not be allowed to “distort” the court’s process, it ruled. 

Pictured: Advocate Matthew Godden, from Le Gallais and Luce, who represented the father.

The Registrar said she had “no reason” to dismiss the evidence offered by the mother as “junk science”, but said that it did not amount to a “reliable evidence” that her son should not be vaccinated.

Concluding, she added: “There is a concerning rigidity to the mother’s position, faced with a theoretical scenario in which, if it were known that [her son] did not suffer the allergies that the mother fears that he potentially suffers, she confirmed that she would nevertheless oppose [him] receiving the MMR and flu vaccines. She is insistent that the single measles vaccination is a preferable option despite Dr Lawrenson confirming that this is not available in Jersey nor licensed for use in the UK.

“I accept the advice given by Dr Lawrenson that it is in [the child’s] best interests to receive the vaccines proposed by the father, and accordingly I make the order the father seeks.” 

Reflecting on the “precedent” set by the case, Advocate Godden commented: “…This important case makes clear the position the court will take when there is a dispute between parents in Jersey as to vaccinations.”