WD 7 Anor v Authority Reporter

(2) Following proof the sheriff held that facts were established or admitted which constituted grounds of referral under sub-paragraphs (c) and (f) of sub-section 52(2). These findings are not challenged in this appeal.

"25. The consultants at RHSC considered all the potential causes of the subdural haemorrhaging and eliminated natural cause, illness or disease. Their professional opinion was that trauma was most likely to be the cause and shaking was most likely to be the mechanism which brought about the trauma.

The retinal haemorrhaging could not be related to any natural cause and was considered by consultants at RHSC to be either on its own or along with other symptoms a classic feature of a shaking injury.

The injuries observed and discovered by the doctors at RHSC occurred within a timescale of 12 to 48 hours prior to her arrival at hospital at around noon on 31 October. During that time period no person other than the appellants had care of E and no person other than one of them could have been responsible for any injury suffered by the child during that period.

The extent of the injuries observed by the RHSC doctors was such that these injuries could not have occurred accidentally. These were non-accidental injuries entirely consistent with the severe shaking of the child by an adult within the timescale mentioned above. They were not consistent with a fall from a couch of normal height to a carpeted floor some six weeks earlier".