Campaigners face an anxious wait before learning if they have finally triumphed in a lengthy legal battle against health service changes.
The Save South Tyneside Hospital group took its challenge against the overhaul of South Shields maternity and paediatric services to London’s Court of Appeal. Specialist lawyers on behalf of the group argued that the decision-making process over the transfer of some or all of these services to Sunderland Royal Hospital from 2018 onwards was essentially pre-determined before a public consultation process the previous year. South Tyneside and Sunderland Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) contested the appeal and insists the changes were about “doing what is right for our patients”. Judges will now consider their verdict before announcing it at a future date. The hospital group forced the appeal after losing its initial High Court challenge earlier this year.
Speaking after attending Tuesday’s hearing, chairman Roger Nettleship said:
“We would like to voice our appreciation to all the 18 people who took time out to attend our appeal at the Royal Courts of Justice in London. We also thank those hundreds of messages from well-wishers reflecting the concern we all have for the loss accesses to these services affecting women and children at South Tynside DistrictHospital. We would also like to thank the legal team for their hard work in presenting our appeal case. The judgement of the three appeal court judges has been deferred and we await the outcome.”Helen Smith, the specialist public lawyer at Irwin Mitchell’s Newcastle office, which is acting for the group, said: “A significant proportion of the local population of South Tyneside is very concerned about the implications of the changes to vital hospital services. They felt strongly that the plans should be reconsidered again. Our clients have fought tirelessly to ensure their voices could be heard on the matter and were pleased to be given the opportunity to do so at the Court of Appeal.“We feel that strong legal arguments have been made as to why the decision made at the judicial review in December 2018 was incorrect. We now await the judgement.”
The CCGs have decided against commenting until a verdict is known.
Article originally appeared on The Shields Gazette
The Institute cannot confirm the accuracy of this story or confirm that it presents a balanced view. If you feel this is inaccurate, we would welcome your perspective and evidence that this is the case.
