The Suspected Inflicted Head Injury Service (SIHIS) has sparked concerns within public law care proceedings.
- The service pilots are operational in Manchester, Sheffield, and Birmingham hospitals.
- Legal experts are worried about the impact on fair trial and family life rights.
- Limited information from the Department for Education raises transparency issues.
- Upcoming meetings provided little clarification or reassurance to stakeholders.
The introduction of the Suspected Inflicted Head Injury Service (SIHIS) has generated significant concern among professionals involved in public law care proceedings. Currently being piloted in Manchester, Sheffield, and Birmingham, the SIHIS aims to streamline assessments for children with suspected non-accidental head injuries, intending to speed up court processes and reduce costs.
Despite these intentions, senior practitioners in family law have voiced apprehensions regarding the implications of SIHIS, particularly its impact on Article 6 and Article 8 rights, which pertain to fair trial and respect for private and family life. A major issue is the deviation from traditional methods, where independent medical experts are appointed based on specialised expertise.
Concerns are exacerbated by the lack of comprehensive information; the Department for Education has released only a brief summary document on SIHIS weeks after its implementation. While it claims these reports augment existing court reports, the limited information suggests they might reduce the need for further court-instructed expert assessments, potentially diminishing the role of independent experts.
Further unease arises from the quality and scope of SIHIS reports. Clinicians may lack access to complete case documents or in-depth statements from those accused, which are crucial for fair evaluation. The efficacy of cross-examination, a critical component in achieving just outcomes in such cases, is also questioned under this new framework.
Transparency issues during the SIHIS rollout have also been a cause for concern. There appears to have been minimal consultation with key stakeholders, such as the Law Society and the Family Law Bar Association, as well as relevant medical and expert witness bodies. The criteria for selecting expert clinicians and metrics for pilot evaluation remain unclear, raising questions about the integrity of care proceedings.
Recent meetings intended to address these concerns have done little to assuage the legal community. An open council meeting by the Family Justice Council and a Department for Education meeting provided inadequate responses to critical questions. It was noted that the SIHIS is a health service pilot, not a legal one, but the extent to which courts might rely on SIHIS reports has not been transparently communicated.
While SIHIS could be advantageous from a medical standpoint by potentially creating a standard of care, the legal implications are troubling. The community calls for increased transparency, detailed consultations, and assurances that the fundamental rights in care proceedings remain protected. Without these, the integrity of the legal process and the lives of those involved may be adversely affected.
The SIHIS aims to enhance medical assessments but necessitates urgent clarity and assurances to safeguard legal rights.
