he could but that he was not able to express feelings of pain. The court appointed guardian testified that because of the risk that Charlie was in pain, and the low chance that the treatment would work, it was in his best interests to withdraw mechanical ventilation. On 11 April, Mr Justice Francis ruled by Declaration that he acceded to GOSH's application. It was in Charlie's best interests to withdraw mechanical ventilation and provide palliative care only and he refused the parents permission to appeal. The next day solicitors for the parents announced that they were considering the terms of the judgement; the parents had less than three weeks to lodge an appeal. Notice of Appeal was issued on 2 May and the case came before the Court of Appeal on 22 and 23 May. Appeals Court of Appeal By Notice, the parents, represented by a completely different legal team also acting pro bono, sought leave to appeal the High Court ruling on five grounds: The judge erred in making an order that prevented Charlie from receiving medical treatment by expert physicians in a reputable hospital overseas in circumstances where there was no risk of that treatment causing significant harm to Charlie. Per Re King, the court may not interfere with a decision by parents in the exercise of their parental rights and responsibilities with regard to their child's medical treatment, save where there is a risk the parents' proposed course of action may cause significant harm. Re King is good law. It is consistent with prior authorities and correct as a matter of principle. It was cited in argument but not addressed at all in the judgment. The judge had no jurisdiction to grant an order on the application of one clinical team preventing a second clinical team from carrying out a treatment that the latter had offered in the reasonable exercise of its professional judgment. The declaration made by the judge has de facto injunctive effect in that it prevents Charlie's parents from removing from GOSH to undergo treatment in the USA. The judge would have had no power to grant such an injunction, had one been sought. It is no part of GOSH's statutory function to prevent other clinical teams from carrying out reasonable treatments. GOSH has nevertheless obtained an order with substantially the same effect The judge fell into error in conducting the ordinary "best interests"