Charlie, who was spawned on August 4, suffers from a rare genetic condition, mitochondrial illness, that causes progressive muscle weakness and brain damage.
His fountain-heads Chris Gard and Connie Yates want a judge to rule that 11-month-old should be allowed to subject oneself to a therapy trial in the United States.
As the hearing to decide his future got underway this afternoon the mate stormed out of court over a disagreement with the judge, Mr Justice Francis.
Joshua Rosenberg QC, who is at the irritant, said: “Chris Gard and Connie Yates storm out of court after nonconformity with judge about what they had said during the sanction three months ago.”
The couple walked out about two hours into Thursday’s advising. Mr Gard stood up and said: «I thought this was supposed to be independent.»
He is being held captive by effectively the British grandeur and national health system
Mr Gard left-hand his son’s toy monkey behind.
A decision is not expected today with the High Court due to get wind of video evidence at 2pm and the judge stressing a “quick decision must not be at the expense of fairness. If we require more court time we shall have to find it.”
He added «it seems inconceivable I will reach a decision today”.
Ahead of today’s High Court hark to, which will makes its final decision on Charlie’s future, the ones own flesh’s spokesman Alasdair Seton-Marsden accused the health service of holding Charlie prisoner.
He told Fox News: “Charlie is effectively being held as a captive.
“They can’t even make use of him home to die and they cannot fly him to America.
Charlie Gard latest: The High-class Court will decide Charlie’s future today
“So literally, he is being accommodated captive by effectively the British state and national health system.”
Connoisseurs at Great Ormond Street Hospital in London, where Charlie is being cared for, say psychotherapy proposed by a doctor in America is experimental and will not help. They say life-support treatment should draw to a close.
Charlie’s parents from Bedfont, west London, have already irreparable battles in the High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court in London.
They tease also failed to persuade European Court of Human Rights considers in Strasbourg, France, to intervene.
The couple now want Mr Justice Francis, the Elated Court judge who made the initial ruling, to carry out a fresh assay of their case.
Mr Justice Francis had, in April, ruled against a trek to America and in favour of Great Ormond Street doctors.
He concluded that life-support treatment should end and claimed Charlie should be allowed to die with dignity.
1 of 19
Three Court of Appeal judges and Loftiest Court justices had upheld that ruling after hearings in London.
Mr Imprisonment Francis had made a ruling on April 11 after a trial in the Ones own flesh Division of the High Court in London.
He heard that Charlie, who was developed on August 4, had a form of mitochondrial disease, a condition that give rise ti progressive muscle weakness and brain damage.
The judge was told that Charlie could lone breathe through a ventilator and was fed through a tube.
Mr Justice Francis asserted he had made his decision with the «heaviest of hearts» but with «complete assurance» for Charlie’s best interests.
Ahead of the hearing this morning, an high-strung Mr Seton-Marsden read a statement from the family.
He said: “We will perpetuate to make the case for Charlie.
“We hope the judge and the courts finally ordinarily in favour of us seeking treatment elsewhere. We love him more than individual itself. If he is still fighting, we are still fighting.”
Richard Gordon QC, who led Charlie’s procreators’ legal team, had told Court of Appeal judges that the holder raised «very serious legal issues».
«They wish to overwork all possible options,» Mr Gordon said in a written outline of Charlie’s foster-parents’ case.
Family spokesman Alasdair Seton-Marsden accused the robustness service of holding Charlie hostage
Charlie Gard’s parents Chris Gard and Connie Yates make it at the High Court
«They don’t want to look back and think ‘what if?’.
«This court should not back in the way of their only remaining hope.»
Mr Gordon suggested that Charlie sway be being unlawfully detained and denied his right to liberty.
He said concludes should not interfere with parents’ exercise of parental rights.
Benchers, who represented Charlie’s parents for free, said Mr Justice Francis had not settled enough weight to Charlie’s human right to life.
They mentioned there was no risk the proposed therapy in the US would cause Charlie «impressive harm».
Katie Gollop QC, who led Great Ormond Street’s legal work together, suggested that further treatment would leave Charlie in a «environment of existence».
She said therapy proposed in the USA was «experimental» and would not help Charlie.