North Yorkshire CCG v E (Covid Vaccination) [2022] EWCOP 15 (30 March 2022)

E is a man in his mid-60’s with a moderate to severe learning disability. The CCG applied for a declaration it was in E’s best interests to be vaccinated against the COVID-19 virus (the virus). The application was supported by E’s GP, the Official Solicitor acting on behalf of E, and two of E’s siblings, but it was strongly opposed by another of E’s siblings, F.

Of particular interest in this case, the Court refused an application by F to rely on expert evidence from Dr Eccles, who originally practiced as a GP and described himself as one of the UK’s leading experts in magnetic therapy. The purpose of Dr Eccles evidence was, as F submitted, to identify the treatments which would be available to E were he to contract the virus and, therefore, to assist the Court in determining E’s wishes and feelings regarding vaccination.

Having considered Part 15 of the Court of Protection Rules 2017, the application was refused for the following reasons:

• F (who was not legally represented at the time), instructed Dr Eccles and obtained his report prior to the application being made, and the other parties opposed the admission of evidence from Dr Eccles.
• Dr Eccles’ CV and report did not demonstrate that he has a field of expertise which would enable him to assist the Court.
• Dr Eccles’ evidence was not objective or balanced, there was no weighing of evidence and no indication he had considered there might be a range of reasonable expert opinion. Nor did he recognise or seek to evaluate the evidence available which countered his opinions, including the national immunisation programme.
• There was a lack of specificity to the case of E in Dr Eccles’ report. There was no mention that Dr Eccles had seen any documentation in this case or considered, for example, E’s specific medical history, current condition, general health or vitamin levels.
• Taking into account the above factors, Dr Eccles’ evidence would not assist the Court in establishing what E would have consented to if he had capacity.

Ultimately, the Court held that it was in E’s best interests to receive the COVID-19 vaccine. The Court was not persuaded by F to depart from the relevant public health guidance even though, as was noted in the Judgment, restrictions have largely been lifted and the Omicron variant has proved to be less harmful. 

Another interesting point in this case is that E’s organic brain damage appeared to follow the administration of the pertussis vaccine as a child, and it was argued by F that this would have informed E’s values and beliefs such that he would have declined the COVID-19 vaccine. However, the Court rejected that argument and found there was too much speculation as to the position E would have adopted in the circumstances, particularly as he had been compliant with other vaccinations in the past.