Charlie Gard's parents back in court after 'backlash' over hospital death threats

Charlie Gard's parents are heading back to the High Court after experiencing a "backlash" over death threats sent to Great Ormond Street Hospital staff.

A two-day hearing is scheduled to begin at 2pm, with Mr Justice Francis set to decide whether the terminally ill child should be treated by a specialist in the US.

GOSH, which says Charlie's life support treatment should stop, revealed on Saturday that it had contacted police following death threats and a "shocking and disgraceful tide" of hostility and disturbance at the London medical facility.

Charlie's parents, Connie Yates and Chris Gard, said they faced a "backlash" after the revelation, adding that they "do not and have not ever condoned any threatening or abusive remarks" towards GOSH staff.

Ms Yates said: "Despite conflicting issues, we have always had the utmost respect for all the staff who work tirelessly at Great Ormond Street Hospital and the very difficult jobs they do every day.

"Like them we have been shocked by some of the public response to this case and agree with them that it is disgraceful that doctors have received death threats."

Charlie, who is 11 months old, suffers from a rare genetic condition which causes progressive muscle weakness. He also has brain damage.

On Friday, GOSH lawyer Katie Gollop QC told the High Court that a report on the child's latest MRI scan made for "sad reading".

Ms Yates burst into tears and said: "We haven't even read it."

Mr Gard then looked directly at Ms Gollop and shouted "evil" before the couple stormed out.

Mr Justice Francis asked Ms Gollop not to reveal full details of the report and indicated that Charlie's parents should be given time to consider it privately.

Ms Yates and Mr Gard have already lost battles in the High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court in London.

However, they were able to take their fight back to the High Court after securing what they say is new evidence.

Mr Justice Francis said he would not re-run the case but would consider any "new material".