Harris da Silva Solicitors

05/08/2022

Charlie Gard, Alphie Evans, Isaiah Haastrup, Alta Fixsler, Archie Battersbee and sadly many others that remain anonymous. When will the Court realise that responsible parents are best placed to decide on their child’s best interests.

05/05/2022

We are pleased to announce that our new website is now live. Visit and enjoy

We are delighted to offer you information about the ways in which Harris da Silva can help you with our range of legal services each of which you can review by clicking the appropriate links throughout the site.

05/10/2020

Amongst this government’s mishandling of Covid it has now transpired that some doctors of the NHS took it upon themselves to decide that patients should be placed on “Do not resuscitate” (“DNR”) as part of their care plan without consulting the patient or families. This effectively means that if resuscitation of a patient is required attempts to do so will not be made. This is unlawful. The Department of Health is so concerned with this unlawful practice that it has requested the Care Quality Commission to investigate. If a member of your family is hospitalised we advise that you ensure regular communication with the team looking after your family member and confirm that you do not agree to DNR. This should be made perfectly clear and recorded in writing if necessary.

27/04/2020

The government has grossly mismanaged the covid-19 pandemic. All health workers who have been requested to work without adequate PPE and have suffered loss and/or damage as a consequence have a perfectly good claim for damages. The government's offer of £60k is only adding insult to injury. We are happy to advise free of charge.

16/04/2020

ALARMING

The corona virus pandemic has exceeded 2,119,000 infected cases worldwide. In the UK there are 103,093 cases with 13,729 deaths at the time of writing. It is alarming that the United kingdom has the highest level of deaths compared to any other country pro rata to the number of infected cases. The total deaths in the UK is 13.32% of all infected cases. That is 13 people in every 100 infected in the UK die. That is the highest of any country in the world and even higher than the most infected countries such as Spain, Italy and USA.

It has been confirmed by the government that hospitals need more ventilators to tackle the peak of the corona virus pandemic. However it has been made clear that currently the NHS has sufficient ventilators available to deal with the current level of infections and ICU’s throughout the UK have sufficient capacity. It has also been confirmed by the government that doctors are making decisions whether an infected person should or should not be ventilated before ventilation is even tried. This approach has been highlighted by a tweet of Boy George today. He tweeted that his mother has been admitted to hospital and that “She’s stable but they [doctors] have said they won’t resuscitate her if things go wrong? Apparently, it won’t work? How can they know. Please pray!”.

Like the rest of the country we are grateful for the valuable work being carried out by the NHS at this very difficult time. However the decision of whether a person should be ventilated and potentially lives or dies should NOT be made by doctors (and is unlawful) particularly when the government has made it clear that there are adequate ventilators available. That gravest of decisions should only be made by the patient and/or his/her family. Such life or death decisions are a reality. Take control of your own life by completing a LASTING POWER OF ATTORNEY (Health and Care) with your specific wishes should you become ill and require ventilation. You can appoint one or more of your loved ones to act as your attorney/s to make those decisions for you if you are unable to make them yourself. Act now to protect yourself and your family. A Lasting Power of Attorney will only take a few minutes of your time to complete and can be found with explanatory notes at:-

Download the forms and guidance to make and register a lasting power of attorney (LPA).

13/04/2020

COVID-19 UPDATE

WE ARE HERE FOR YOU

In view of the unprecedented circumstances caused by COVID-19 we are changing our working practices to safeguard the wellbeing of all our staff.

Whilst there will almost certainly be disruption in the weeks and possibly months ahead, we are committed to maintaining a high standard of service throughout the pandemic. We are expecting the current circumstances to continue and the measures we implement will be regularly reviewed alongside the latest Government guidelines.

· We have put a continuity plan in place to include remote working for all our staff to ensure that our services continue to run as smoothly as possible.

· Our working hours remain 9:00am-5.30pm Monday to Friday.

· Our telephones and email remain as normal.

· We recommend that in future if you need to contact Harris da Silva that you do so in the first instance by email. The fee earner dealing with your matter will then contact you by email and/or telephone.

· We have suspended all face to face meetings, but we are more than happy to arrange conference/video calls and other effective means of communication, if necessary.

MOST IMPORTANTLY LOOK AFTER EACH OTHER AND YOUR LOVED ONES
STAY SAFE
STAY HOME

25/02/2019

Our website is currently being redeveloped and will be live very soon. Please accept our apologies for this inconvenience. However our new website will be considerably more informative and user friendly. Updates will be provided here. Thank you for your continued business.

25/12/2018

A Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to everyone from Harris da Silva

11/05/2017

It was stated in the Good Morning Britain program this morning (when John Partridge was present discussing his mother's health care costs who suffered from Alzheimer's) that all elderly people with more than £23,500 savings/assets must pay for their care home costs. This is simply not the case. In the landmark case of Coughlan (1999) (also see Grogan case) the Court of Appeal highlighted that:-

“…where the primary need is a health need, then the responsibility is that of the NHS, even when the individual has been placed in a home by a local authority.”

I therefore suggest that people in a similar situation immediately consult a solicitor to establish whether they fall within the "Coughlan test" and if so they will be entitled to free care.

05/05/2017

On 22 May 2017 Harris da Silva will be participating in London's Legal Walk which raises funds for charities that provide free legal advice services and representation to those in need. Please follow the link below to our fundraising page if you wish to kindly donate. From tiny Acorn's great Oaks grow.

Harris da Silva is raising money for London Legal Support Trust by taking part in the 2017 London Legal Walk. Sponsor them with Virgin Money Giving.

21/04/2017

Dianne Pretty suffered from motor neurone disease which is a progressive degenerative illness. She had only a short time to live with no hope of recovery and faced the prospect of a humiliating and distressing death. Faced with that prospect she applied to the Court for the right to die and to terminate her life with the assistance of her husband. Even though death was a certainty and likely to be extremely distressing and agonising the Court refused her right to self-determination and her right to die. The Supreme Court effectively determined that Dianne Pretty should live irrespective of her wishes notwithstanding that she was faced with a certain and distressing death. On the other hand Charlie Gard who is an 8 months old baby suffering from a rare disease has expressed the right to live through his parents. However the Court at first instance has recently refused Charlie’s right to life, which is a fundamental right under Article 2 of the Human Rights Act, on the grounds that it is not in his best interests. The Court has effectively determined that Charlie Gard does not have the right to try an experimental treatment and that he should die irrespective of the unequivocal wishes expressed by his parents on his behalf. Where is the logic of these contradicting decisions? Has the world gone mad?

13/04/2017

This week’s High Court baby ruling (Charlie Gard) which has been widely publicised highlights that not only doctors but Judges can get it wrong too. The real issue is, who is the decision maker on behalf of this baby? Whether this baby should receive treatment abroad or not should rest with the parents who, in law, have parental responsibility to act in his bests interests. Unless it can be shown that the parents are not acting within the reasonable bounds of decision making it should not be for the doctors or for the Court to interfere. For the parents to exhaust every possible avenue (however small) to save their child is not unreasonable. However the doctor’s interference in preventing the parents from obtaining treatment (however remote its likely success) and labeling the parents as a “spanner in the works” speaks for itself. Would Aysha King be alive today if his parents had not refused to allow the doctors or indeed the Court to be the decision maker?