AC-2024-LON-001142 - [2025] EWHC 2015 (Admin)

One of the matters relied on in support of this claim relates to statements made by/attributed to Dr Kelly, Mr Carruthers, and others who work for IP1 and/or Kelly Psychology.

Thus, reference is made to comments attributed to Dr Kelly, in articles in The Guardian and Attitude magazine in April 2024 (shortly after publication of the Cass Review final report), in which it was stated that he “disputed many of Cass’s findings”, pointing to evidence from Germany to claim that “puberty blockers were safe and effective”, that he was “very, very worried” about the NHS’s ability to deliver a suitable gender service based on the findings of the Cass Review and that the service was “going backwards instead of forwards, arguing that the NHS was “out of step with the rest of the world”, and he felt “we need to be very careful that [the NHS approach] doesn’t become conversion therapy in disguise”. On 19 July 2024, Dr Kelly wrote an opinion piece for The Guardian, criticising the Government’s ban on PBs, claiming that the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care was “clearly misinformed about the treatment”, and calling the ban “misguided, cruel”. On 12 April 2025, Dr Kelly wrote a letter to the Times in which he criticised the NHS for “prioritizing a non-medical pathway at all costs”, for conducting “an effective lobotomy on trans healthcare services”, and for pursuing a psycho-social approach that “have zero evidence to support their effectiveness”, again arguing that the NHS approach was akin to “conversion therapy”.

Otherwise, reliance has been placed on a report of 27 October 2024, when an organisation called ReportOUT welcomed Mr Carruthers as a new patron, citing (amongst other qualities) his “activism in transgender healthcare”. And reference has been made to a social media post in 2019, by Dr Sophie Quinney, an endocrinologist and IP1’s medical lead and resource, responding to an academic article in the British Journal of General Practice, in which she said: “Deeply concerning to find utter tripe with clear poisonous undertones published ... on gender incongruence. ...”.

For his part, Dr Kelly has not denied the various citations attributed to him but has also referred to the substantial body of peer reviewed academic articles he (and Mr Carruthers) has authored over the years relevant to these issues, and his participation in various academic conferences, which he relies on as evidence of a thoughtful and nuanced approach, consistent with his professional obligations and the requirements of academic research.

For the CQC, Ms Rawlings, director for network operations South, has observed that it would be unusual for the CQC to trawl through the media for articles written by or about individuals concerned with a registration or assessment. She notes, however, that, as the Cass Review recognised, there are a wide range of views around clinical practice in this area and those involved in IP1 would be entitled to hold, and express, particular views, provided they were complying with the law and regulatory framework.

Both Dr Kelly and Mr Carruthers had formerly worked at Tavistock GIDS and, as Amy Robson has confirmed, at the time of the assessment for registration purposes, regard was had to the CQC’s records relating to inspections at that service, and there were no adverse reports relating to either Dr Kelly or Mr Carruthers (although that was not particularly remarkable, as neither of them had held a post at Tavistock GIDS that would have been the subject of CQC regulation). As for the inspection assessment, Ms Huntley responded to the suggestion that Mr Carruthers is an “activist”, stating:

“My notes of my interview with Paul Carruthers show that he was aware of the [21 March 2024 policy] and the criteria within that policy and that the service was working in a way that was aligned to these criteria. ... I considered his answers to be detailed, transparent and informative. He was aware of and responsive to the contents of the CASS report. ... whilst I found [Mr Carruthers] to be passionate about the work of [IP1], I did not form the impression that this undermined his commitment to patient safety or compromised his professional judgment.” (Ms Huntley’s witness statement at paragraph [48])