An interesting case was heard before the courts earlier this year, which highlights how Gillick Competence should only be applied when appropriate to do so.
Within the case of Re S (Wardship: Removal to Ghana) [2025] EWCA Civ, the concept of Gillick Competence was applied to a 14 year old, in areas not relating to medical treatment (the area to which Gillick Competence applies in law).
In the Court of Appeal, the judge observed how in the original case, the phrase ‘Gillick competent’ had been used as a kind of shorthand ‘to describe the age and maturity of young people who are seen as being capable of making informed decisions as to their future in a range of situations wholly unconnected with medical treatment’ (46).
While the Appeal judge acknowledged the way the term was used in the original case, they make very clear that:
47. ‘…the characterisation of S as being Gillick competent has no direct legal impact in a case which does not concern the evaluation of his ability to give or to withhold valid consent to medical treatment. In the context of this case, ‘Gillick competent’ is no more, nor no less, than a convenient label to indicate that S has sufficient maturity and understanding to form his own view [on the matter being assessed]’
Re S (Wardship: Removal to Ghana) [2025] EWCA Civ
We would encourage those working with children and young persons to read this case, as it provides a useful insight and guidance around the application of Gillick Competence in practice.
Gillick Competence only applies to medical treatment
The case of Re S (Wardship: Removal to Ghana) [2025] EWCA Civ is an important reminder that Gillick Competence should only be applied purely for the purpose of medical treatment. At which time the professional providing treatment and assessing should apply the following:
‘…the child should be of sufficient intelligence and maturity to:
(i) Understand the nature and implications of the decision and the process of implementing that decision.
(ii) Understand the implications of not pursuing the decision.
(iii) Retain the information long enough for the decision-making process to take place.
(iv) Weigh up the information and arrive at a decision.
(v) Communicate that decision.’
Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech AHA [1986] AC 115 (HL)
The case also provides a clear reminder that whether applying Gillick Competency or not, the child or young person’s thoughts, wishes, feelings and values should always be taken into consideration.