Book contents
- Shaken Baby Syndrome
- Shaken Baby Syndrome
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Foreword
- About This Book
- Abbreviations
- Section 1 Prologue
- Section 2 Medicine
- Section 3 Science
- Section 4 Law
- Section 5 International
- Chapter 21 Ptolemy Rather Than Copernicus
- Chapter 22 Shaken Baby Syndrome in France
- Chapter 23 Shaken Baby Syndrome/Abusive Head Trauma in Sweden
- Chapter 24 Shaken Baby Syndrome/Abusive Head Trauma in Japan
- Chapter 25 Shaken Baby Syndrome in Australia
- Chapter 26 Shaken Baby Syndrome around the World
- Section 6 Postface
- Appendix: Frequently Repeated Claims concerning Shaken Baby Syndrome
- Index
- Plate Section (PDF Only)
- References
Chapter 21 - Ptolemy Rather Than Copernicus
The State of Shaken Baby Syndrome in the British Legal System
from Section 5 - International
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 June 2023
- Shaken Baby Syndrome
- Shaken Baby Syndrome
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Foreword
- About This Book
- Abbreviations
- Section 1 Prologue
- Section 2 Medicine
- Section 3 Science
- Section 4 Law
- Section 5 International
- Chapter 21 Ptolemy Rather Than Copernicus
- Chapter 22 Shaken Baby Syndrome in France
- Chapter 23 Shaken Baby Syndrome/Abusive Head Trauma in Sweden
- Chapter 24 Shaken Baby Syndrome/Abusive Head Trauma in Japan
- Chapter 25 Shaken Baby Syndrome in Australia
- Chapter 26 Shaken Baby Syndrome around the World
- Section 6 Postface
- Appendix: Frequently Repeated Claims concerning Shaken Baby Syndrome
- Index
- Plate Section (PDF Only)
- References
Summary
This chapter highlights problems with SBS cases in UK courts. Unlike Daubert in the USA, the British legal system does not have a protocol for the validation of scientific techniques. Intimidation of experts who question the SBS hypothesis has led to a dearth of experts. There is a lack of transparency with no right to a complete and public transcript of a trial. Publicly reported decisions are available in only around 5% of cases. A preliminary study of public decisions in UK SBS cases showed that the ‘triad’ continues to be deemed relevant. Just four medical experts providing 48.5% of all expert testimony referenced, while the great majority of legal players have little significant expertise in SBS, most appearing in just one case in this study. Several lessons emerge: there is need for a more comprehensive study; a need for full transparency and for copies of all SBS judgements to be made available. The government should establish an official inquiry into the science behind SBS. Experts, from the UK and abroad, who honestly and legitimately question current SBS theories should be encouraged. Training should urgently be offered to all lawyers and medical experts on SBS.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Shaken Baby SyndromeInvestigating the Abusive Head Trauma Controversy, pp. 321 - 332Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2023