gresham.ac.uk/watch-now/sexu…
The content of the report should not be a revelation- they confirm what many of us have been saying publicly for years. This lecture was one of the most graphic & distressing to prepare & deliver. It was one of many platforms taken to agitate for change

Herewith @barcouncil announcement of & reaction to the Harman Report. r1.ddlnk.net/cr/AQiNsAwQ3My…
We need the response of the BSB & JCIO to the recommendations-what will be actioned, by whom & when. The Inns,circuits & chambers must act. This must not be kicked into long grass

And it was a huge pleasure to meet and lead Emily James of @1gcfamilylaw.bsky.social No surprise to any of us that she took silk this year. It was a privilege to lead such an amazing team

Can I also give credit to @GoodmanRay and the superb client care that Ann Thompson and Amina Gillani gave to our vulnerable mother. I can genuinely say that without their patient empathetic professional skilled dedication the mother would have been misunderstood and isolated

And never assume the reliability of records made in hospital,by the police station or social workers where translation is required.Check dialect. Check culture.Check religion.Check gender issues. Don’t make assumptions about behaviours based on European norms.This case explains. Please read and shar

At a time when it is hard to persuade a judge to ‘permit’ an expert to be xx & written questions are deemed an adequate substitute-get a judgement on the point-consider appeal. Ensure witness of fact are called-front line treaters, health visitors.They establish the factual premise of opinion advice

Experts are not infallible.Families affected by their opinions deserve the right to have the experts opinion tested by specialist counsel after witnesses of fact have been called to test the robustness of the factual premise the expert has constructed from reading the papers ( in this case poorly)

So too did the paediatric radiologist shift his perspective. But for robust cross examination and a judge prepared to listen and reflect on what was emerging in the witness box ,a great injustice would have been done
, with life long consequences, to the children and parents.

98. Counsel for the child for in closing submissions refers to Dr Cleghorn’s evidence as “terrifying” and from a safeguarding perspective for children an utter “disaster”. That was the expert paediatrician with the key role of an overview of all specialist expert & clinical material.

Dr Cleghorn conceded in cross examination that,in parts,her evidence was “appalling”.That there were multiple examples of her lack of “due diligence” in the preparation of her report; addendum report;and in terms of her preparation for & participation in the experts meeting for which she apologised.

97. Dr Cleghorn was subject to a detailed & forensic cross examination by Prof Delahunty on behalf of the mother. It was nothing short of a demolition of Dr Cleghorn’s evidence. No other party needed to cross examine after she had concluded. Cont ..

Well said