Knowles: Never before made findings as serious about an expert
A Family Court judge has decided to name an expert witness who did not want to be identified due to the multiple shortcomings in the evidence he gave about the death of a two-year-old girl.
Mrs Justice Knowles said she had “never before made findings as serious about an expert witness’s conduct in family proceedings”.
After a lengthy fact-finding hearing last year, held to establish the cause of death and whether the girl’s parents were responsible for her injuries, the judge made “sharp criticisms” of Patrick Mitchell’s medical evidence, which she said were “reinforced by his failure to appreciate and comply with the duties of an expert witness in the family court”.
The court heard that the girl – named as P – suffered a devastating brain injury and a cardiac arrest in November 2023. When doctors examined her at hospital, they discovered multiple retinal haemorrhages in her right eye; burns on her hand and neck, a bite mark on her left arm and multiple bruises.
She died in February 2024, after Knowles J granted the hospital’s application to withdraw treatment.
Mr Mitchell – a neurosurgeon who gave evidence on behalf of P’s mother – tried to convince the court that the girl had choked on a biscuit, saying: “Nothing in the medical evidence points towards a nonaccidental injury.”
Six other medical experts disagreed but Mr Mitchell showed “an unwillingness to engage with the opinions of other experts”. Only once did he concede that he was not an expert on choking.
Knowles J ruled that P suffered a severe traumatic injury by way of shaking.
After the fact-finding hearing, the local authority sought “extensive adverse findings about Mr Mitchell’s conduct as an expert witness”, for Mr Mitchell to be named in any published judgment” and for the court to send its judgment to the General Medical Council.
The court heard both parents were arrested after P’s death. They pleaded guilty to child cruelty. The father – who assaulted the mother and has convictions for possessing and distributing child pornography – admitted to burning P with a cigarette lighter. The mother originally denied murder but later admitted manslaughter.
Knowles J described Mr Mitchell’s evidence as “confused”, “flawed” “irrelevant” and “unwise”.
Among her findings were that he only skimmed the papers and reports of the other experts, failed to act within his competence, and drew conclusions “based on speculation and not on verifiable medical or academic sources or clinical experience”.
In the newly published decision about whether to name him, the judge said he opposed it because the “serious criticism of his behaviour and approach” – which he said he accepted – was best addressed by a General Medical Council process.
The judge did not see why both could not happen.
He also feared “a far-reaching impact on his practice as a medical doctor” and that naming him “would deter others from acting as expert witnesses in family proceedings”, but the judge said there was no evidence to back up either submission.
Mr Mitchell said this was the first time he had been instructed to act as an expert in family proceedings and “accepted that this case had been a salutary warning to him”.
Knowles J acknowledged that naming Mr Mitchell would be an interference with his article 8 right to private and family life.
“However, that interference is in pursuit of a legitimate aim, namely the right to freedom of expression under article 10 enjoyed by all those in society in reading, commenting and reporting on matters in the Family Court.
“The public interest is engaged in various ways, for example, in knowing why one set of expert opinion is preferred over another; in correctly identifying child abuse and understanding where that may be put at risk by an expert failing in his duties to the court; and in ensuring that experts comply with their duties to the court and understanding why and when significant criticism of an expert is legitimate.
“Balancing the rights engaged in this case, I am satisfied that the interference with Mr Mitchell’s article 8 rights is necessary in a democratic society.”
Leave a Comment