Government-funded Suspected Inflicted Head Injury Pilot described as “deeply concerning” by child protection lawyers
A new pilot funded by the Department for Education (DfE) establishing a multi-disciplinary clinical hub to examine and report on cases of suspected inflicted head injuries has been described by senior family lawyers as concerning.
The Suspected Inflicted Head Injury Service (SIHIS) Pilot, which is up and running at NHS trusts in Manchester, Sheffield and Birmingham was launched with “little to no consultation” with legal professionals and legal professional bodies, experts have claimed.
Under the pilot, a multi-disciplinary ‘clinical hub’ at each location will examine and report on cases of suspected inflicted head injuries.
The hub will include access to paediatricians, neuro-radiologists, haematologists and other disciplines.
Professor Jo Delahunty KC, a barrister who specialises in cases involving allegations of severe child abuse, warned that the pilot is a “direct threat” to the use of transparently instructed part 25 experts in non-accidental injury (NAI) cases.
She wrote on LinkedIn: “I fully anticipate that such use of a ‘clinical hub’, pre proceedings, will be used to raise the bar on proving ‘necessity’ for a part 25 instruction when a case comes to court as a nai allegation based on this review. This multi disciplinary report will form the opening LA [local authority] case and is likely to be taken as obviating the need for all / some part 25 experts becoming involved even though that is the only mechanism by which there can be transparent, joint, expert instruction with parental input and sight of case acquired evidence.”
Max Konarek, child protection and family law specialist at GT Stewart, described the implementation of the pilot as “deeply concerning”.
He wrote on LinkedIn: “I can confidently say the majority of my cases involving a client that has been absolved of allegations of serious harm, has been the direct result of the need to cross examine both independently instructed experts, or the cross examination of treating medical professionals.
“With the latter becoming increasingly frowned upon by many courts already, and now an attack on the former, there are deeply concerning outcomes for the children and families involved in these cases, often where adoption is being explored as the only alternative option to a parent caring for the child involved.”
In a letter to its members, the vice chair of the Family Law Bar Association (FLBA) Leslie Samuels revealed that the pilot is running at Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield Children’s NHS Foundation Trust and Birmingham Women and Children’s NHS Foundation Trust.
Speaking to Local Government Lawyer, Jo Delahunty said: “The science of nahi [non accidental head injuries] is not settled. It evolves. There are reasonable difference of opinion between equally respected experts on key areas of interpretation of the causation and evolution of chronic and acute SDH [Subdural haematomas] for example. Nahi is not a safe area to trail this pilot in. It is a dynamic field.
“Moreover we have had a distinction between the proper role of clinicians (witnesses of fact) transparently instructed and agreed part 25 experts (witnesses of opinion) for good reason as reflected in a long history of case law.”
The Department for Education has been approached for comment.
Lottie Winson
