Rickets case spurs calls for review of family court expert witnesses

Rohan Wray and Chana Al-Alas were accused of causing fatal injuries to their baby Jayden, leading to his death in 2009. Criminal charges against the couple were dropped last year, after it was found that rickets had been the cause of Jayden’s death.

But it was not until last month that the pair won the right to be reunited with their daughter, who had been separated from them at birth in October 2010 as a result of the accusations.

The role of expert witnesses in the family courts has been the topic of much debate over recent months, most notably in the Family Justice Review published in November. It said the use of such experts must be restricted to reduce delays – a recommen-dation formally accepted by the government.

But Ann Thompson, the solicitor who represented Al-Alas in the family courts, says that without the experts called during the case, the result would almost certainly have been a miscarriage of justice.

“Without the experts, I don’t think we would have got the result we got,” Thompson says. “Of course the child is the centre of the proceedings and it is important that justice is dealt within a reasonable timescale. But if children are taken away from their family because the courts have to stick to some tight deadline when this is not necessarily the best outcome, it is not a right balance of the child’s interests.”

She believes that government must return to the issue of experts and conduct further research before making changes to guidance or legislation.

Research conducted by Oxford University on the role of independ-ent social work experts, published last month, supports her view.

The report found that in a sample of 65 cases involving 121 children, independent social workers had on average 24 years of experience in the field. Contradicting the findings of the Family Justice Review, the research said that the use of experts did not cause delays in the vast majority of cases and did not duplicate work conducted by other parties, including the local authority.

Solid evidence
In fact, the report argues that the Family Justice Review failed to look at solid evidence and could fail children if taken forward without further research.

Philip King, director of the Confederation of Independent Social Work Agencies, says: “The government has accepted the recommendations of the Family Justice Review about severely limiting the role of experts, particularly independent social work experts, because the review said they cause delay and duplication.

“But the Oxford University findings show that far from causing delay, the experts provide valuable, forensic-based, child-focused evidence to the court that will assist the court in making these very profound decisions for children and families.”

The Family Justice Review also insists that the quality and supply of expert witnesses must be examined, saying that the “lack of availability of expert witnesses is a widespread problem”.

Thompson believes that the family court proceedings in the case of Al-Alas provide a good practice example. “The experts used were not ones who are usually used in such cases, which meant they were more prepared to look at the new science rather than sticking to the old theories,” she says.

Thompson adds that input from overseas experts was vital in the case, something that she says must not be limited.

“In this case, there were a number of really important foreign experts,” she explains. “To restrict their use because you have equivalents in this country would be very unfortunate, because they have a different perspective to bring. It is important to increase the pool of experts, otherwise it could become stagnant.”