A judge has underlined the critical importance of reliable expert evidence, after a doctor in a care order case described her own evidence as ‘appalling’.
The court in LB Croydon v D (Critical Scrutiny of the Paediatric Overview) heard that the local authority sought a care order for three children, basing its case on the likelihood that they were hurt in the care of their parents.
Dr Nicola Cleghorn was instructed to conduct the paediatric overview in the case and set out in her report her professional opinion that the medical evidence pointed to the children having suffered ‘inflicted non-accidental injuries’. This was disputed by the parents.
Her Honour Kathryn Major, sitting as a deputy High Court judge, said the report read as ‘subjective, closed minded and disbelieving of the parents’ account’. The ruling, from last September, was published this week.
The judge said that the detailed and forensic cross-examination of Cleghorn by the mother’s counsel Professor Delahunty KC was ‘nothing short of a demolition’ of the written evidence. No other party needed to cross-examine further, and Cleghorn apologised for her preparation for and participation in the experts’ meeting. Cleghorn conceded in cross-examination that, in parts, her evidence was 'appalling'.
Counsel for the child in closing submissions referred to Cleghorn’s evidence as ‘terrifying’ and from a safeguarding perspective for children an utter ‘disaster’.
The judge explained that Cleghorn’s fundamental error was confusing the twin children when reading primary medical disclosure. At the time of giving evidence, she had not tracked back to see how that error affected her opinion: this was of key importance, as the twins had very different birth and post-birth experiences, with one being weaker and more vulnerable.
No primary evidence from the doctors treating the twins suggested that they had any bruises, but Cleghorn referred to ‘bruising’ which must have been inflicted by the parents. This, suggested the judge, was to reverse the burden of proof.
The judge said the expert's evidence went beyond her own individual evidence, and her errors and closed mind would ‘contaminate’ the professionals meeting. Cleghorn closed down the conversation around the parents’ account as being inherently unlikely and failed to consider all the possible options for the children’s condition.
Cleghorn’s evidence in cross-examination was then ‘entirely at odds’ with her written report and opinion, and was supportive of the case advanced by the parents.
‘Dr Cleghorn’s approach in this case is a cause for serious concern,’ added the judge. ‘There are real-world consequences for children where the professional medical evidence is flawed, factually inaccurate and lacking in enquiry and analysis.
‘Children could be removed from perfectly safe home environments or alternatively children at risk could remain placed with abusive carers. This case demonstrates the importance of advocates with a detailed knowledge of the case and the facts being able to robustly and critically cross-examine experts and fully explore their client’s case.’
The judge said the local authority, which continued to rely on Cleghorn’s evidence, had failed to meet the evidential burden, not been willing to critically analyse the accounts of the parents and not properly engaged with the written expert medical evidence. Allegations against the parents were not proved and the care order was not granted.
