A Local Authority v X (Attendance of Experts) (Rev1)

Ms Joanne Brown KC and Ms Fay Baker (instructed by the Local Authority) for the Applicant Mr Sam Momtaz KC and Mr Harry Simons (instructed by Ewings Solicitors) for the First Respondent Mr Paul Storey KC and Ms Lydia Slee (instructed by GT Stewart Solicitors and Advocates) for the Second Respondent Ms Taryn Lee KC and Mr Tim Hussein (instructed by Slater Bradley Solicitors) for the Third Respondent Hearing dates: 7 May 2025 ____________________

i) In his initial report dated 14 May 2024, Dr Keenan (Consultant Haematologist) concluded that the bruising and bleeding observed in L occurred in a child with normal blood clotting. In his addendum report dated 29 November 2024, Dr Keenan further opined that testing for deficiencies in blood clotting factor V, Von Willebrand disease type 2M, and platelet storage pool disorders confirmed that there is no evidence of a clotting disorder in L and reiterated his opinion that the bruising and bleeding observed in L occurred in a child with normal blood clotting.

iii) In his report dated 5 July 2024, Dr. Jayamohan (Consultant Paediatric Neurosurgeon) identified evidence of encephalopathy in L on admission, with ongoing worsening from that point on. He concluded that the cause of L's collapse is likely to have involved the shaking mechanism. Further with respect to causation, Dr Jayamohan considered that the proposition that a baby with a non-instrumented caesarean section at term, as L had been, developed both subdural collections that remained and became chronic, and bilateral frontal brain injury, is so unlikely as to be hypothetical.

i) The matter to which the challenge is directed is collateral or insignificant and fairness to the witness does not require there to be an opportunity to answer or explain. A challenge to a collateral issue will not result in unfairness to a party or interfere with the judge's role in the just resolution of a case; and a witness in such a circumstance needs no opportunity to respond if the challenge is not an attack on the witness's character or competence.

ii) The evidence of fact may be manifestly incredible, and an opportunity to explain on cross-examination would make no difference.