IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
APPLICATIONS FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL WITH
WITH APPEAL TO FOLLOW IF GRANTED
B e f o r e :
LORD JUSTICE BUXTON
MR JUSTICE JACKSON
|B (a child)|
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street,
London EC4A 2HD
Tel: 0171 421 4040
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
Crown Copyright ©
"My reason for reporting this case to you is that we do not have an explanation for [L's] sub-dural haemorrhages which appear to be of recent onset. It is known that trauma, including shaking, can often cause these. However, there is no history of injury, and investigations have not shown any other features of non-accidental injury."
"[L's] parents have filed statements in the matter but elected not to give evidence before me, which is, of course, entirely their right and I do not draw any adverse inference against either of them for not so doing."
"1. Having accepted the medical evidence that a confident diagnosis of non-accidental injury could not be made, the ..... judge was plainly wrong in concluding that the injuries were non-accidental.
2. The ..... judge erred in law in that he made a finding of non-accidental injury in the absence of sufficiently cogent evidence to support such a finding and/or plainly wrong in making such a finding.
3. The ..... judge failed to identify any cause for the injury. Although he found that one of the parents caused the injury he did not say how. The only suggestion made in the evidence as to how they may have caused it in a non-accidental fashion were by shaking or shaking and impact. The agreed medical evidence of all three experts was that these were no more than possible causes.
4. Although the ..... judge set out the relevant law he failed to apply it properly to the evidence and found the parents responsible for the injuries in the absence of any direct evidence as to causation."
"That evidence is weak, unsubstantiated and hearsay. I place no weight on it and I make no findings on it, other than to say that it has, in my view, no probative value for the purposes of this hearing."
"Q. In relation then to your opinion as to shaking or shaking and impact injury, a possible cause, perhaps you can just help me with other possible causes and where they would fall in terms of likelihood or possibility? You obviously have in your report considered other matters that might be relevant in this context. Of the possible causes which is the front runner possible cause, if I can put it that way?
A. The front runner possible cause of subdural haemorrhage is non accidental injury."
"look for evidence not only of subdural haemorrhage but of some other form of injury as well - [such as] retinal haemorrhage, brain swelling or injuries elsewhere,"
none of which were present in L's case.
"Q. So am I right, you have shaking or shaking and an impact as a possible cause here, but there is no other identified possible cause?
A. That is right."
"I principally was giving an opinion on the medical information, so I did not include in my opinion anything derived from family information. It was based really on the medical information alone."
"I would certainly look at the accounts that were given of a child's medical condition before they came to hospital and their general medical condition over the days and weeks before. So those aspects of the history are certainly important and may give additional information. Details of the social background and so on were not part of my medical report."
"The files that are concerned here are those entirely relating to [C] and have no relevance to the child whose welfare is in issue."