Tim Hussein, leading Claire Fox, appeared on behalf of the Children’s Guardian in an 11-day fact-finding hearing before HHJ Purkiss, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, in Re E [2025] EWFC 521. They were instructed by Natasha Singh of Slater Bradley & Co.
The child had suffered intracranial injuries, bruising and a fracture within 5 weeks of birth. The Court found the injuries to be non-accidental and found that both parents were in the pool of perpetrators for causing the injuries.
The judgment provided helpful guidance in respect of the use of research and previous authorities referring to the observations of Baker LJ in P and E (Care Proceedings: Whether to Hold Fact- Finding Hearing) [2024] EWCA Civ 403 at § 5:
At para 62 HHJ Purkiss observed that “whilst it is important to consider medical and expert evidence in the context of established scientific research, the court has to keep an open mind to all plausible potential explanations, as indicated by the evidence. The court has to consider the evidence of the expert witnesses in this case in relation to this child, and in the context of the totality of the evidence in this case. Every person is unique and each case must be approached with that firmly in mind. In that context, I agree with Ms Brown KC that reminding an expert of their previous engagement with an advocate yields little useful evidence; asking medical experts to acknowledge findings in reported decisions where judgments have been given on the totality of the evidence does not necessarily result in useful relevant evidence in the present case and asking medical experts (as happened in this case) to comment on a judicial summary of medical evidence given by other experts in another case, without the medical experts in this case having a proper opportunity to consider the medical information and aetiology in that case, does not yield relevant evidence.”
The full judgment is available here.
