A and B (No. 2) (Children: Injury: Proof: Suspicion: Speculation)

[1] On 23 September 2015 I gave judgment in this appeal by the mother from a decision of the Family Care Centre that injuries caused to one of her children were non-accidental. As a result of my decision the children were returned to their mother�'s care. In the course of my judgment I made observations about the nature and extent of the evidence which can properly be given by medical experts in these difficult non-accidental injury cases. I also expressed at paragraph 25 a concern about the way in which the term �"non-accidental injury�" can be used too loosely.

[2] The Trust which was the applicant in the original proceedings subsequently applied to me to state a case for the opinion of the Court of Appeal. The question which the Trust wants the Court of Appeal to rule upon is as follows:

[3] At a hearing convened on 13 November 2015 to discuss this issue, counsel for the Trust confirmed that the Trust was not applying to reverse or challenge the substance of the decision which I made, ie that the children should be returned to their mother. Nor was it challenging my decision that it had not been proved that the injuries were non-accidental. Rather the Trust is concerned with the first of the following points which I set out at paragraph 24 of the decision:

[4] Counsel for the Trust submitted that I should state a case as requested or at least clarify what I stated at the start of paragraph [24]. Counsel for the mother agreed that clarification of this point would be of assistance.

[5] I do not accept that it is necessary to state a case. What I said at the start of paragraph [24] can be expressed in a number of ways. I will take this opportunity to expand on what I have already said but not without expressing some surprise that in the context of the full judgment there is any need to do so � see in particular the passage cited at paragraph 19 from Baker J.