When experts get it wrong

LB Croydon v D (Critical Scrutiny of the Paediatric Overview) [2024] EWFC 438 is a lesson that experts can get it wrong, and dramatically so, and it is a case with much wider relevance than just Children Act proceedings.

This is a case about public law proceedings; in issue, whether parents inflicted non accidental injuries on their twins. Had findings been made, the children would have been removed from their parents’ care and placed for adoption, the stakes could not have been higher.

The expert in question was Dr Cleghorn, whose job it was to consider all the medical evidence, put it into context and provide an overview to the court. She decided that the children had been injured by their parents and she did not move from this stance despite the evidence.

The failings in her report were only exposed in full when she was cross examined, many mistakes emerged; incredibly she had mixed the twins up and failed to correct a multitude of mistakes that flowed from such a critical error.

Her cross examination by the mother’s counsel Professor Delahunty KC has been described by the judge as a “demolition”, at the end of which Dr Cleghorn herself accepted her evidence was “appalling”. Counsel for the Guardian, representing the children called it “terrifying” and the judge called her report “subjective” and “close minded”.

These are strong words, and as solicitors we have to remember that experts can fail, and when they do so it can be disastrous. We rely on them, and it can be hard for us to identify when they are going wrong.

We have to remind experts that they owe a duty to the Court. They must not take sides, they must be open minded, check their facts. We have to check that the key facts underpinning reports are accurate. We should not be afraid to challenge them with appropriate questions and we have to remember, based on this case, that experts can get it wrong.