Hilary Cass Hit with Lawsuit for Concealing Review Papers
Tell us where the papers are, or we will ask the court to intervene.
4 June, London — A legal proceeding has been issued against the Information Commissioner, NHS England, and Hilary Cass for failing to acknowledge that the materials used in the Cass Review are subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the Public Records Act 1958.
Yes, we’re suing Hilary Cass personally.
It has now been over a year since the Cass Report was published, yet there is still a lack of transparency. We suspect public records were illegally destroyed.
Despite widespread condemnation from the global medical community for its pseudoscientific foundations, and from the LGBT+ community for promoting state-sanctioned harm against trans children, the Cass Review continues to enjoy an absurdly untouchable status within British institutions. The most our institutions have done so far is the Court of Appeal, in the case of O v P & Anor, describing the Review as controversial.
The Cass Review contains outlandish claims, for example:
Maturation of the adolescent brain reference — regarding the myth of the 25-year-old brain being cited in the final report. Lawyers linked to hate groups attempted to use this in the recent court of appeal case of O v P & Anor [2024] EWCA Civ 1577 to prevent a young person from accessing hormone replacement therapy.
DSD reference — regarding Cass’s suggestion of a parallel between gender-affirming care and the troubling history of non-consensual treatments imposed on intersex people.
Pornography references — regarding Cass’s suggestion of a link between trans men and exposure to pornography.
The public has the right to know why Hilary Cass included those references, especially since her recommendations were expected to become official policy — and ultimately did. We therefore submitted freedom of information requests a year ago and planned to submit additional ones.
NHS England offered several excuses, including the deeply troubling claim that our requests were vexatious. They used this as a justification to avoid responding altogether. Since then, they have gone completely silent.
Last month, the Information Commissioner confirmed that NHS England actions were unlawful. He found that our requests were not vexatious and ordered NHS England to stop ignoring freedom of information requests.
However, the Information Commissioner seems naive in expecting NHS England to comply with the law. They did not. Instead, NHS England chose to deny holding the Cass Review’s papers.
Who holds the information, and on whose behalf, is a question of both law and fact. A judge in the First-tier Tribunal will decide whether NHS England holds the information.
Before that, however, we need to establish where the information is located.
Therefore, as part of the legal action, we have requested NHS England and Hilary Cass to confirm the whereabouts of the information within 7 days. If they are unable to do so, we will ask the tribunal to intervene and compel them to produce the Cass Review’s papers.
Whether or not this action is successful, the way Hilary Cass and NHS England have conducted themselves suggests they have something to hide. The question before us is not only what is being concealed, but also how far they went. Did they simply keep the papers and pretend they did not exist, or did they actually destroy them? Their conduct undermines public confidence in our healthcare system. There is no going back.
Court documents are available here.
The author is a former lawyer and specialises in intellectual property, international trade, and public law. She is an entrepreneur helping to make the world more sustainable.