Charlie Gard: Dispute over size of baby's head heard as parents storm out of court

The hearing that will decide the fate of Charlie Gard has descended into further acrimony as his parents stormed out of the High Court and the judge described a disagreement over the size of the baby’s head as ‘absurd’.

Chris Gard and Connie Yates left a High Court hearing where a judge has been asked to review treatment decisions.

They want Mr Justice Francis to rule that 11-month-old Charlie, who suffers from a rare genetic condition and has brain damage, should be allowed to undergo a therapy trial in the United States.

But two hours into the hearing, Mr Gard stood up and said: “I thought this was supposed to be independent.”

Ms Yates also shouted “I didn’t say he’s suffering,” before leaving the room with Mr Gard.

MORE: ‘You’re lying’: Charlie’s parents slam lawyers in dramatic hearing
MORE: Politicians’ support of Charlie Gard is ‘borderline evil’, says BBC presenter

The judge hearing the case of terminally-ill baby Charlie Gard has said it is ‘absurd’ that a disagreement over the size of the baby’s head was ‘undermining’ the case.

His parents told the High Court that they disagreed with Great Ormond Street’s measurements of Charlie’s head.

Doctors say that his skull has not grown in three months, indicating a lack of brain function.

The couple, who are in their 30s and come from Bedfont, west London, are mounting the latest stage of their fight at a hearing in the Family Division of the High Court.

An American doctor offering to treat Charlie Gard says new data has emerged in the three months since a judge decided that the terminally ill baby should be allowed to die with dignity.

The doctor on Thursday told a High Court hearing in London that he thought treatment would be worth trying.

Mr Justice Francis heard today that the couple feel ‘stripped of their rights’.

Katie Gollop QC, representing Great Ormond Street Hospital, said in a written statement: “Charlie’s parents fundamentally believe that they alone have the right to decide what treatment Charlie has and does not have,.

“They do not believe that there is any role for a judge or a court.

“They feel they have been stripped of their rights as parents.”

But Ms Gollop said Great Ormond Street is bound by “different principles”.

She said children also have rights and the hospital mission statement is: “The child first and always.”

Ms Gollop said doctors treat children as individuals and act in a child’s best interests.

Charlie’s parents have already lost battles in the High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court in London.

They have also failed to persuade European Court of Human Rights judges to intervene.

The couple now want Mr Justice Francis to carry out a fresh analysis of their case.

Specialists at Great Ormond Street Hospital in London, where Charlie is being cared for, say the therapy is experimental and will not help. They say life-support treatment should stop.

Mr Justice Francis had earlier told the hearing: “If there is important evidence which suggests that I should change my decision then I will change it.”

Barrister Grant Armstrong, who is leading Charlie’s parents’ legal team, indicated the couple thought they had evidence which was new.

He said the plan was for a specialist in the US who was offering therapy to give evidence at the hearing via a link from America.

Mr Armstrong said a hospital in Rome had also made an offer.

And he said there was evidence to suggest the proposed therapy would not be futile.

Mr Armstrong said the American doctor offering treatment was a “world authority”.

He said the therapy on offer was not “fringe science”.

“There is a respectable body of authoritative opinion,” he said.

“There are treatments available.”

Mr Armstrong said: “The parents seek to re-open the case in relation to the chances of success of treatment.”

Mr Justice Francis said he was unlikely to make a “final determination” on Thursday.