header-logo header-logo

25 October 2007 / B Mahendra
Issue: 7294 / Categories: Features , Expert Witness
printer mail-detail

Expert witness update

B Mahendra reports on recent cases

The facts of the extraordinary case of Re W (a child) (non-accidental injury: expert evidence) [2007] EWHC 136(Fam), [2007] All ER (D) 159 (Apr) exposed the failings of both expert evidence and the processes of the family justice system. When the case ended in a resounding mea culpa (proffered) by the law, it was held that the child, now aged three, had never suffered non accidental injury and that its parents could be completely exonerated of any wrongdoing; their care of the child had, been exemplary. To get some sense of the Kafkaesque nightmare suffered by the parents one must read the long and exemplary judgment given by Mr Justice Ryder.

The much simplified facts were that the child, after developing normally for a few weeks after birth, developed symptoms and signs of a localised neurological disorder. The essence of the task of explanation to be given for this disorder was to determine whether or not the brain injury could have been due to natural events occurring at the

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Construction team bolstered by hire of senior consultant duo

Switalskis—four appointments

Switalskis—four appointments

Firm expands residential conveyancing team with quadruple appointment

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

Private client team welcomes senior associatein Worcester

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll