Wednesday, 9 July 2008

Open family courts

Full Story:

Ms Cavendish repeats the mistaken view that Professor Sir Roy Meadow was misleading; a careful review of the transcripts indicates that not only was the jury advised appropriately by the judge, but that it was counsels questioning that played a key part. Readers should note that he was never struck off the medical register. It may be worth considering why the Family Division has long waits for experts, and that almost no paediatrician wishes to engage in child protection. Is it that reporting that ignores the subtleties or fails to gather the whole picture is partly responsible? Interestingly, the answer to these discrepancies is precisely as Ms Cavendish offers greater openness. The innocent have nothing to fear.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

This of course is wholly disengenuous. Meadow WAS struck off but reinstatated on appeal as the Judge thought the penalty unduly harsh. He did not even appeal against the findings of guilt of various charges of professional misconduct and it is universally accepted that he was wrong - by all except a few doctors who persist in recycling selected soundbites. Not unlike Meadow was convicted of when you come to think about it.