Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority [1986]

Court: House of Lords

Facts: Doctors provided contraceptive advice and services to girls under 16, which led to allegations of violating section 28 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956. The section makes it an offense to cause or encourage unlawful sexual activity with a minor. Mrs. Gillick, a mother, sought a declaration that this guidance was unlawful, arguing it interfered with parental rights.

Issue: The case centered on whether doctors providing contraceptive advice to minors could do so without parental consent and if doing so contravened criminal law. It also addressed whether parental rights allow for control over a minor's healthcare decisions.

Held: The House of Lords ruled in favor of the doctors, holding that they were not guilty under section 28, as their primary intent was to safeguard the minor’s health. The court found that a minor could consent to medical treatment if they demonstrated sufficient understanding, a concept now known as Gillick competence.

Key Judicial Statements: Lord Fraser emphasized that doctors are justified in treating minors without parental consent if their intent is to protect the minor’s health. He outlined specific conditions under which treatment can proceed without involving parents, including that the minor is likely to engage in sexual activity and that their health could suffer without contraception.

💡 Leveluplaw: The decision in Gillick set a precedent on the extent of parental rights in medical decisions for minors, establishing that these rights exist primarily to protect a child’s best interests. The Gillick competence test emphasizes a minor’s autonomy by allowing them to consent to treatment if they fully understand the implications, provided it aligns with their best interests and safeguards their welfare.