Following a lengthy hearing to establish findings of fact and subsequent legal argument, Nicola Davis, J, sitting in the Administrative court on 21 December 2012 rejected submissions from counsel for David Tracey that their high profile challenge to decisions by clinicians at Addenbrookes hospital in Cambridge to place ‘Do Not Resusitate’ orders on the medical records of his late wife should continue following the court’s findings of fact. The Judge held that the breadth of the JR sought by the Claimant went far beyond the findings on the causative facts (neutral citation [2012] EWHC 3670 (Admin)) . As stated in R. (on the application of Burke) v General Medical Council [2005] EWCA Civ 1003, [2006] Q.B. 273, it was not the task of a judge when sitting judicially, even in the Administrative Court, to set out to write a text book or practice manual or to act as an advice centre.If the court had proceeded to hear the full legal argument as submitted by the Claimant the court would have to decide on policy matters. Although there was a wider public interest in such a hearing, the public interest would not be served by a wide-ranging enquiry based on such limited findings of fact. She therefore held that a substantive JR hearing would not be appropriate or proportionate and the court would not order such a hearing.Case Name: R(Tracey) v Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Trust & Secretary of State for Health, Equality and Human Rights Commission intervening [neutral citation not yet available]. Lord Faulks QC and Simon Murray acted for the First Defendant – Cambridge Universities NHS Trust (Addenbrookes)

Citation: [2012] EWHC 3860 (Admin)