“Evidence cannot be evaluated and assessed in separate compartments. A judge in these difficult cases must have regard to the relevance of each piece of evidence to other evidence and exercise an overview of the totality of the evidence in order to come to the conclusion of whether the case put forward by the local authority has been made out to the appropriate standard of proof.” i) that the roles of the court and the expert are distinct, and ii)it is the court that is in the position to weigh up the expert evidence and gives its findings on the other evidence. The judge must always remember that he or she is the person who makes the final decision.”
“In a case where the medical evidence is to the effect that the likely cause is non-accidental and thus human agency, a court can reach a finding on the totality of the evidence either (a) that on the balance of probability an injury has a natural cause, or is not a non-accidental injury, or (b) that a local authority has not established the existence of the threshold to the civil standard of proof”
“The judge in care proceedings must never forget that today's medical certainty may be discarded by the next generation of experts or that scientific research will throw light into corners that are at present dark.”
"To be capable of amounting to corroboration the lie told out of court must first of all be deliberate. Secondly it must relate to a material issue. Thirdly the motive for the lie must be a realisation of guilt and a fear of the truth. The jury should in appropriate cases be reminded that people sometimes lie, for example, in an attempt to bolster up a just cause, or out of shame or out of a wish to conceal disgraceful behaviour from their family. Fourthly the statement must be clearly shown to be a lie by evidence other than that of the accomplice who is to be corroborated, that is to say by admission or by evidence from an independent witness."
“To these matters, I would only add that in a case where repeated accounts are given of events surrounding injury and death, the court must think carefully about the significant or otherwise of any reported discrepancies. They may arise for a number of reasons. One possibility is of course that they are lies designed to hide culpability. Another is that they are lies told for other reasons. Further possibilities include faulty recollection or confusion at times of stress or when the importance of accuracy is not fully appreciated, or there may be inaccuracy or mistake in the record-keeping or recollection of the person hearing and relaying the account. The possible effects of delay and repeated questioning upon memory should be considered, as should the effect on one person of hearing accounts by others. As memory fades a desire to iron out wrinkles may not be unnatural – a process that might inelegantly be described as “story creep” may occur without any necessary inference of bad faith.”
"Is there a likelihood or real possibility that A or B or C was the perpetrator or a perpetrator of the inflicted injuries?"
‘I did not mention that Z was in pain as she never expressed any pain’ and later ‘Z did not cry or seem distress and therefore it was difficult to know when she had broken her leg … I was not aware when Z may have sustained her injuries as she did not cry or react.’