header-logo header-logo

02 August 2024 / Max Konarek
Issue: 8082 / Categories: Opinion , Child law , Health , Personal injury , Criminal
printer mail-detail

Keeping care proceedings fair

184290
The Suspected Inflicted Head Injury Service could be in breach of Art 6 & 8 rights, argues Max Konarek
  • Family lawyers have raised serious concerns about the Suspected Inflicted Head Injury Service (SIHIS), which is already being piloted.
  • This article argues the service may be in breach of parties’ Art 6 and 8 rights in care proceedings, and that it needs more consultation and transparency.

Picture the scenario: pre fact-finding hearing in care proceedings, your client is alleged to have caused serious harm to a child. That harm includes what is said to be a non-accidental head injury—all medical experts instructed in your case are against your client in the reports they have written. No wiggle room arises from the experts’ meeting that has taken place. If anything, the experts’ views have solidified further against your client. Many would say: ‘Game over. The outcome is inevitable.’ I would say everything is to play for. But why?

The cross examination of medical experts in these cases by specialist and

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

Walkers—Muriel Marseille

Walkers—Muriel Marseille

Ashurst's Chief Risk Officer joins Walkers

Excello Law—John Osborne

Excello Law—John Osborne

Northern family lawyer John Osborne joins Excello

mfg Solicitors—Rebecca Rogers, Kennedy Langley & Victoria Griffiths

mfg Solicitors—Rebecca Rogers, Kennedy Langley & Victoria Griffiths

Trio of promotions announced at Kidderminster law firm mfg Solicitors

NEWS
Rejecting a generous settlement can prove an expensive mistake, as two recent high-profile cases demonstrate
The Senior Courts Costs Office has clarified that judges conducting detailed assessment proceedings cannot order security for costs—a ruling that may leave successful parties exposed to further litigation expense
A sole director can conspire with their own company for the purposes of the tort of unlawful means conspiracy, the High Court has ruled in a judgment with potentially wide implications for business disputes
The Court of Appeal has reinforced that domicile depends on intention rather than residence alone, in a significant post-Brexit ruling on cross-border financial remedy claims
The Chancery Division's long history comes to an end this autumn as it is reborn as the Business and Property Division, prompting questions over whether the shake-up is really necessary
back-to-top-scroll