A 12-year-old boy at the centre of a life-support treatment dispute after suffering brain damage three months ago is “unresponsive” and will not recover, a barrister representing hospital bosses has told a High Court judge.

Martin Westgate QC on Monday told Mr Justice Hayden that Archie Battersbee had suffered a “devastating” brain injury during at incident at home in April and specialists did not think it was in his best interests for treatment to continue.

The judge is overseeing the latest in a series of hearings in the Family Division of the High Court in London.

He is reviewing evidence after another High Court judge had earlier ruled that Archie was dead.

Archie’s parents, Hollie Dance and Paul Battersbee, from Southend, are hoping he will rule that doctors should keep providing treatment.

Doctors treating Archie at the Royal London Hospital in Whitechapel, east London, have told judges that they think Archie is “brain-stem dead”.

Read more >> Archie's parents win right to appeal court ruling

They say treatment should end and say Archie should be disconnected from a ventilator.

Archie’s parents hope he will recover.

Lawyers representing the Royal London Hospital’s governing trust, Barts Health NHS Trust, have asked Mr Justice Hayden to decide what moves are in Archie’s best interests.

“He is not responsive and has no prospect of recovery,” Mr Westgate, who is leading the trust’s legal team, told Mr Justice Hayden on Monday.

“The trust have come to the conclusion that continuing treatment is no longer in his best interests.”

Trust bosses had originally asked Mrs Justice Arbuthnot to decide what moves were in Archie’s best interests.

She had concluded that Archie was dead and ruled that doctors could lawfully stop providing treatment.

Archie’s parents had challenged Mrs Justice Arbuthnot’s decisions in the Court of Appeal.

Three appeal judges upheld their challenge and ruled that evidence relating to what was in Archie’s best interests should be reconsidered by a different High Court judge.

A barrister representing Ms Dance and Mr Battersbee had argued, in the appeal court, that Mrs Justice Arbuthnot had made errors.

Edward Devereux QC argued that Mrs Justice Arbuthnot had not carried out a “comprehensive” analysis of evidence relating to whether life-support treatment should continue.

Mr Devereux also argued that evidence had not shown “beyond reasonable doubt” that Archie was dead.

Archie suffered brain damage in an incident at home in early April, judges have heard.

Ms Dance said she found her son unconscious on April 7 and thinks he might have been taking part in an online challenge.

He has not regained consciousness.

A barrister leading Archie’s parents’ legal team told Mr Justice Hayden it is hoped the youngster will make “some sort of recovery” and argued that continued treatment is not “futile”.

Ian Wise QC said Archie would want a “natural” not “choreographed” death.

He said Archie’s parents accept that it would be appropriate for the youngster “not to be resuscitated” if he suffers a cardiac arrest.

“The parents hope and pray that Archie will make some sort of recovery,” Mr Wise told Mr Justice Hayden in a written case outline.

“In the present case the treatment is not futile in that it is effective (it is keeping Archie alive) and is giving effect to Archie’s wishes to have a ‘natural’ as opposed to choreographed death.”

Mr Wise said Archie’s parents want the judge to rule that “it is lawful and in Archie’s best interests to continue to receive life-sustaining treatment, including mechanical ventilation; however it is not in his best interests to be administered CPR in the event that he suffers cardiac arrest, nor is it in his best interests to be administered life-sustaining intensive care which both his parents and the trust do not believe to be appropriate."