At the last hearing in November, the ICB advised the Court that they were suddenly having difficulty obtaining a prescription from Adam's GP for the sedative. Accordingly, they were not in a position to proceed with sedation and vaccination, and the Court permitted them time to refer the matter to the ICB's ethics committee. The only reason hinted at is that the GP was constrained by medico-legal advice.

Adam's mother, Catherine, awaits the written recommendation from that ethics committee and to learn whether the ICB will be continuing their application to inject her son. That decision is expected before Christmas.

How convenient might an ethics decision be if related to the availability of sedation and the advice to the GP from third parties?! The ICB and the Court would not have to examine what has changed since the Court's order in November 2023 (which is nothing) or explain why they have continued to press for this abominable treatment in late 2024.

The Court has also agreed to the authorities' request that there should be a hearing to consider whether the Court can make its own declaration that Adam's sedation and injection outside the terms of its order were unlawful. With that declaration in hand, Adam would be entitled to compensation, the authorities would be exposed and held to account for their wrongdoing and the Court and lawyers would have had to consider what part they played in the whole process. All of that would be important reflection and lesson for all health authorities. 

Instead, all but Catherine argue that she must be forced to take her complaints to the County Court as a personal injury claim or to the Administrative Court for Judicial Review.. They know full well, of course, that this will massively increase complexity but also costs, with Adam's mother risking having to pay the authorities' costs if she loses. In practical terms, a declaration of wrongdoing becomes impossible and whether the authorities, their senior lawyers and the Court of Protection all failed to read and understand the Guidance which they enforced will never be examined in Court. Any failures will conveniently be swept under the carpet with nothing to see.

Standing Up for Adam, Standing Up for Families

This case is about more than just Adam—it is about the rights of all families to protect their vulnerable members from unnecessary and harmful interventions. It’s about government overreach. Catherine’s fight is a fight for every parent, sibling, or guardian who could one day find themselves battling a faceless system that values policy over people. The legal precedent set here may affect not only Adam but countless others in the years to come.

By supporting this legal challenge, you are helping to defend the fundamental principles of bodily autonomy and the right of families to make decisions about their loved ones' care.

Please share Adam’s story widely and consider donating to the legal fund to ensure this case can proceed. Your support is vital in protecting Adam from further harm and ensuring that no one else is forced to endure such treatment.

Thank you

A court hearing has been set for 14 November 2024.

The authorities have three sets of lawyers set to undermine fundamental principles of informed consent, bodily autonomy, and the family’s right to act in their loved one’s best interests. At the heart of this matter is a dangerous precedent: allowing government guidance to supersede the judgement of those who know and care for Adam most—his family.

Shockingly, despite his well-documented distress and mother Catherine's objections, Adam has already twice been covertly sedated sedated and then injected with the Covid-19 'vaccine' in Catherine's absence.

The Attack on Family Rights

Catherine has tirelessly fought to protect Adam’s bodily integrity and right to avoid distressing medical interventions. The Integrated Care Board (ICB)'s actions, supported by court orders, represent an alarming encroachment on the family’s role in deciding what is best for Adam. This case highlights a broader and worrying trend: government guidance is being treated as absolute, even in situations where it contradicts an individual’s rights, dignity, and well-being and strong indicators that that an individuals would, if they had capacity, reject the intervention.

Adam’s case is not an isolated one—today it is about COVID-19 injections, but tomorrow it could involve any medical treatment mandated by government authorities. The court’s role must not be to impose blanket governmental policies over families, especially when they involve invasive procedures with significant risk, like sedating a vulnerable adult.

This is not just a violation of Adam's bodily autonomy—it is an attack on informed consent itself. The authorities will not admit it, but Catherine is complaining they have been caught out by sedating and injecting even when this was outside the government guidance and permission of the court order. If the authorities can act get away with acting outside court orders or can be allowed to interpret guidance in whatever way suits them, what protections remain for individuals like Adam, or for families trying to act in their loved one's best interests?

Informed Consent: A Fundamental Right

Informed consent is a cornerstone of ethical medical practice, and it is especially important for those like Adam who lack the capacity to make decisions for themselves. If the court is to make decisions on Adam's behalf, it must do so with the highest regard for his rights and dignity. 

Catherine’s legal team has presented expert medical evidence about the particular risks of the mRNA vaccines to individuals with Down's Syndrome like Adam. This was evidence considered by the court in another case in 2024 (re RN, 'Tom') where after 5 months the authorities remained unable to counter the report of Professor Martin McCaffrey, the renowned North Carolina based expert in trisomy conditions, such as Down's Syndrome.  Just because Adam has seemingly not shown any obvious signs of lasting harm from the two injections to date, it cannot be concluded that he has not suffered undetected harm or will not do so from further unnecessary injections.

Standing Up for Adam, Standing Up for Families

This case is about more than just Adam—it is about the rights of all families to protect their vulnerable members from unnecessary and harmful interventions. Catherine’s fight is a fight for every parent, sibling, or guardian who could one day find themselves battling a faceless system that values policy over people. The legal precedent set here may affect not only Adam but countless others in the years to come.

By supporting this legal challenge, you are helping to defend the fundamental principles of bodily autonomy and the right of families to make decisions about their loved ones' care.

Please share Adam’s story widely and consider donating to the legal fund to ensure this case can proceed. Your support is vital in protecting Adam from further harm and ensuring that no one else is forced to endure such treatment.

Thank you.

If the Court is going to exercise informed consent on Adam's behalf, or interfere with his rights to bodily autonomy, it is important that the authorities and court actually read and understand the government Guidance being relied on to do so.

Catherine's lawyers have done the reading, but it seems no one else has. Reliance has been placed on discarded terms, outdated 'Science', and Adam has been discriminated against not only because of his Down's Syndrome but also due to his ethnicity.

Below is a very short summary of some of the arguments (excluding the big-picture ones around consent) that also reveal a recurring theme in the ICB's response: they are unwilling or unable to engage. (For the public record and if you have a little more time, linked here are the initial written submissions for Catherine and the ICB, together with the court's Transparency Order (anonymity) and the https://jacksonosborne.co.uk/adams-case-anonymised-statements/ to sedate and vaccinate.)

Unlawful Sedation and Vaccination
Sedation and vaccination administered to Adam in June 2024 were unlawful, as the Guidance at the time (referred to in the court order) did not recommend a booster for Adam. Furthermore, the court orders that permitted these actions were based on outdated information, classifying Adam as "clinically extremely vulnerable" (CEV). The ICB misunderstood the Guidance, leading to court errors.

ICB Response:
The ICB contends that the decision to offer the vaccine in June was a matter of clinical judgment and not for the court to decide. They argue that the court’s order only authorized consent on Adam’s behalf, and healthcare professionals made the decision to offer the vaccine, having considered the Guidance.

Failure to Update Risk Assessments
Adam’s risk assessments relied on have been outdated and inaccurate, particularly concerning his weight and physical activity. Additionally, new evidence, such as risks specific to individuals with Down syndrome, has been ignored.

ICB Response:
The ICB maintains that the professionals involved conducted a thorough, individualized assessment of Adam's health risks and vaccination needs and that they continuously review the Guidance and Adam’s condition.

Misclassification as "Clinically Extremely Vulnerable" (CEV)
Adam has been repeatedly and incorrectly categorized as "clinically extremely vulnerable" (CEV), leading to unnecessary interventions like sedation and vaccination. This misclassification persisted even after the Guidance was updated to remove it.

ICB Response:
The ICB does not engage on this point. The ICB asserts that Adam’s vaccination was justified based on his status as a person with a chronic neurological disease, which warranted offering the vaccine.

Ethnicity-Based Discrimination
Adam’s ethnicity was used as a factor in his classification as CEV and justification for the court orders, despite the Guidance dropping ethnicity as a relevant factor due to the lack of evidence linking ethnicity to increased Covid-19 risks. This was unlawful and discriminatory treatment.

ICB Response:
The ICB does not engage with this argument.

New Evidence on Vaccine Risks for Trisomy Patients
Catherine presents new evidence from Professor Martin McCaffrey, a specialist in Trisomy conditions like Down Syndrome, warning that individuals with Trisomy 21, such as Adam, may have a different response to oxidative stress, affecting the safety and effectiveness of mRNA vaccines. In another case, authorities were given five months to counter Professor McCaffrey’s evidence but failed to do so.

ICB Response:
The ICB does not engage with this evidence. The ICB argues that the court’s role is to evaluate Adam’s situation within the context of peer-reviewed research and public health Guidelines.

There is, of course, much more. The initial written submissions for Catherine, linked here with the ICB's submissions, the court's Transparency Order (anonymity), and the November 2023 order to sedate and vaccinate, may give you an idea of the detailed work required to defend Adam. It is estimated that the authorities, now with three teams of lawyers, have likely spent six figures pursuing this case in court to overcome Catherine and Adam's objections.

This is a slippery slope—any of us could be next in line, being forced to follow government guidance.

Please keep sharing this important story. Please pledge what you can afford.

Thank you.

Adam's case was reported by The Telegraph in a detailed article, well worth reading, which was later picked up by the Daily Mail. 

Since then, further work on the case has uncovered a shocking revelation: in June 2024, Adam was sedated and injected with the COVID vaccine, despite, by spring 2024, no longer being in a risk group for which the NHS Green Book (Chapter 14a) recommended vaccination.

Adam's unlawfully sedated and vaccinated in June 2024

A Court order from November 2023 had authorised sedation and vaccination (including a ‘booster’) only in line with the guidance in place at that time. The ICB is now facing accusations of having acted outside the scope of the Court's authorisation and, therefore, unlawfully. In response, the ICB has changed legal representation and engaged King's Counsel, who appears to argue that the Court's carefully worded order—specifying vaccination in accordance with the Guidance pertaining at the time—should be interpreted more loosely to mean vaccination based on the health professional's judgment, but only with regard to the Guidance. This argument may prove problematic, as there seems to be no record or evidence suggesting that a health professional assessed the Guidance and then decided to act outside of it.

Catherine is extremely distressed by what has transpired and will be asking the Court at the next hearing for a Declaration that the sedation and vaccination in June were unlawful. Adam is entitled to this Declaration, and the Court must surely consider how this impacts not only this case but also other similar ones. Is government guidance so complex that authorities cannot interpret it correctly? Does the Court fully understand the guidance?

Despite the apparent confusion, it seems as if the ICB's is determined to obtain a legal ruling to the effect that, subject only to contraindications specific to a patient, government guidance must be followed and assumed to have taken all relevant considerations into account.

Today they are talking about COVID-19 injections. Tomorrow, this could be any vaccine and any treatment recommended by the government.

Catherine desperately needs your help. Adam’s voice and hers are being shouted down. The amount of work and analysis involved is overwhelming, with the latest court bundle exceeding 1,400 pages—and growing, as additional issues have had to be raised that Catherine, understandably, was previously unaware of when she was unrepresented.

The legal process is costly. Please help by sharing Adam and Catherine’s story as widely as possible and donating to this fund, if you are able.

Thank you.