Rapid Responses to:

NEWS: Clare Dyer Judges rule that children can sue for wrongful diagnosis of abuse BMJ 2003; 327: 305 [Full text]

Rapid Responses: Submit a response to this article

Rapid Responses published:

Children can sue for wrongful diagnosis of abuse

Richard PW Fry   (9 August 2003)

Re: Children can sue for wrongful diagnosis of abuse

C Johnson   (12 August 2003)

Re: Children can sue for wrongful diagnosis of abuse

Jay Ilangaratne   (12 August 2003)

Children can sue for wrongful diagnosis of abuse 9 August 2003
Richard PW Fry, Consultant Child and Family Psaychiatrist Basingstoke RG21 8QN Send response to journal: Re: Children can sue for wrongful diagnosis of abuse	Editor Dyer’s report (BMJ 327, 9 aug 2003, 305) on the abuse of experts is most interesting. What, I wonder, are experts’ rights under the Human Rights Act? Which piece of legislation would they best be advised to privilege? That relating to their contract of work which may include the implication that they must provide evidence to Courts as part of their duties, and that if they demur from may mean they are in breach of contract; or that relating to their rights under the Human Rights Act which may excuse them from this position? Also, who is actually to be sued by the child here? Who is responsible for the decisions in these situations? And, who is involved in granting leave to detain children in a place of safety under the Childrens’ Act? Why, bless my soul, it is the Courts. I suggest his Honour should also look to his malpractice insurance / indemnity scheme, if Judges have such things. Oh no, of course they were only acting on the evidence before them, which they may have, in all good faith, misinterpreted. Does that sound familiar? When is this amazing ruling going to be overturned? I for one will not be doing any expert work for Court until this is cleared up. But it’s Ok, there’s hundreds of experts out there only too willing to take money for old rope and do the 30+ hours work involved in comprehensive Child Protection assessments – aren’t there? Not. Yours sincerely Dr Richard Fry Consultant Child and Family Psychiatrist Competing interests:   None declared
Re: Children can sue for wrongful diagnosis of abuse 12 August 2003
C Johnson, Parent LA9 Send response to journal: Re: Re: Children can sue for wrongful diagnosis of abuse	Perhaps Richard PW Fry would prefer a mandatory prosecution for attempting to pervert the course of justice in the event of a his making a false allegation of child abuse? (I speak hypothetically). He would then get his opportunity to present before a jury in his defence the detailed, thorough and comprehensive investigation he undertook before making an allegation of abuse. On seeing such evidence a jury would be entitled to acquit him on the grounds that he did indeed misinterpret the evidence in good faith. If professionals have done their job properly before launching an otherwise catastrophic child "protection" process, what need they fear from the civil courts? Doctors who make allegations send the parents to the criminal courts without compunction. As yet parents get no justice when falsely accused. Are their damaged children at least not entitled to redress? Competing interests:   None declared
Re: Children can sue for wrongful diagnosis of abuse 12 August 2003
Jay Ilangaratne, Founder Medical-Journals.com Send response to journal: Re: Re: Children can sue for wrongful diagnosis of abuse	Dr Fry poses some interesting questions.The full judgment of this case can be seen by following the link below: http://www.courtservice.gov.uk/View.do?id=1939 However,I am not sure whether the said judgment provides clearcut answers to any of the cogent matters raised by Dr Fry.As to judges' "indemnity insurance", the Human Rights Act 1998 provides a remedy against alleged 'judicial acts' but I am not aware of caselaw which shows that anyone had successfully(or unsuccessfully)challenged a 'judicial act' under the Human Rights Act.When the UK judiciary is another self-regulated body,one wonders whether a complaint regarding a 'judicial act'(or misconduct)could ever be fairly tried in accordance with Article 6(ECHR),at the domestic level?. With regard to the above judgment,may I pose the following issues for further debate: 1)When both parent/s and child are victims,how is it that the child- victim gets advanatgeous rights over the parent-victim?Especially, when the Human Rights Act confers no special or superior rights to children over parent/s, as in the instant case. 2)Is it fair and just for the judiciary to impose restrictions on one party(parent/s-victims) on 'public policy' grounds and act as gatekeepers, when the judiciary consists of individuals who are not elected by the public.In a democracy,shouldn't the public policy making role of the judiciary be scrutinized more vigorusly? 3)In the instant case,what is the just fear of the judiciary to restrict a remedy to parents on 'public policy' grounds?Does the judiciary has substantial information in its 'books' that this type of calims are bound to succeed and many more are in the pipeline?--if so, in the interest of transparency, the judiciary owes a duty to disclose such information.As they say, justice must not only be done,but also seen to be done. 4)Generally, should not all 'public policy' issues which the judiciary considers apt, be referred to an indedepnedent commission or indeed,parliament( or a specialist committee of that)for further consideration, before imposing restrictions on the public via a judgment? Finally,as someone in the BMA said recently,"it is a funny old world", and this judgment illustrates the effects of that "world". Competing interests:   None declared