MEMORABLE QUOTE: "It is a sad day for science when a 21st-century inquisition denies one doctor the freedom to question ‘mainstream’ beliefs. It is a particularly sad day for the parent or carer who ends up on the wrong end of another doctor’s ‘diagnosis’ that an infant was shaken, when the child may have died from entirely different, natural causes." Clive Stafford Smith and Michael Mansfield QC;
MEMORABLE QUOTE: ‘The Tribunal appeared to be strongly biased against Dr Squier, not only because it omitted most of the defence case, but because of its outrageous treatment of the five expert witnesses who gave evidence on her behalf. It dismissed their evidence in a few sentences as outdated in one case and, in the other four, as lacking impartiality and/ or credibility. Thereafter it completely ignored their opinions save in a few cases where it thought that they supported the prosecution argument. So the Tribunal itself picked cherries: by the kilo.’ Michael Birnbaum QC;
COMMENTARY: "The silencing of Dr Waney Squier," by Jon Robins, published by 'The Justice Gap. (Jon is editor of www.thejusticegap.com. He is a freelance journalist. Jon's books include The First Miscarriage of Justice (Waterside Press, 2014), The Justice Gap (LAG, 2009 – with Steve Hynes) and People Power: how to run a campaign (Daily Telegraph and LawPack, 2008). Jon is a visiting senior fellow in access to justice at the University of Lincoln and a patron of Hackney Community Law Centre. He won the Bar Council's legal reporting award in 2015 and previously in 2005). www.thejusticegap.com is an online magazine about the law and justice aimed at the public.
GIST: "A leading QC has attacked as ‘deeply flawed’ the recent decision of a medical disciplinary panel responsible for striking off a doctor who dared to question the existence of shaken baby syndrome. Back in March Dr Waney Squier, a world-renowned neuropathologist, was banned from practicing after having been found to have lied and misled courts in a determination by the Medical Practitioners Tribunal, the disciplinary arm of the General Medical Council. In a forensic analysis of the judgment, Michael Birnbaum QC, who gave evidence on behalf of the doctor, pulls few punches accusing the tribunal’s reasoning of being ‘largely formulaic and frequently illogical’ as well as being littered with ‘howlers’. ‘In my 43 years of practice at the Bar I have rarely read a judgment of an English Court or Tribunal so deeply flawed and unfair as this,’ he begins. ‘Given this bizarre combination of the apparently one-sided and the obviously inept, I cannot make up my mind whether the tribunal was actually biased in the sense of being actively prejudiced against Dr Squier or whether it was just not up to its task,’ he writes. ‘Whatever view one takes on its impartiality, the tribunal’s presentation of the evidence is so inadequate and its conclusion so poorly reasoned that it(s) termination lacks all credibility.’ You can read article Michael Birnbaum QC’s article – A tissue of error, illogicality and apparent bias – on the Inside Justice website here. ‘For now Dr Squier’s voice has been silenced, but I sincerely hope that situation will change on appeal,’ comments Louise Shorter, who runs the miscarriage of justice investigative unit Inside Justice. Shorter have evidence for the expert at her tribunal. ‘I am glad the Tribunal wrote in their judgment that they considered me to be a credible witness when I told them that I thought she was inherently honest and scrupulously fair,’ she says. The former Rough Justice producer approached Dr Squier a couple of years ago to help on an Inside Justice case. Shorter recalls: ‘Dr Squier spent an enormous amount of time reviewing the evidence in the case entirely without payment. Her motivation seemed to be one of over-riding fairness; that it would not be fair if we weren’t aware of research that could help our case so thought it her duty to help us understand all of the medical learning that could assist.’ ‘Anyone touched by a miscarriage of justice will know that what an expert like Dr Squier does is offer a life-line of hope; they act as interpreter and guide in a world of ever-advancing medical knowledge,’ she adds. ‘What is most alarming though is the ripple effect this Judgment will have on the wider criminal justice system. Already we see it is being used as a weapon, in a criminal trial and an appeal in Canada and America, to attack the credibility of an expert who gave evidence on behalf of Dr Squier. The aim of the Courts, whichever jurisdiction, must surely be to let justice prevail but this Judgment, if allowed to stand, will only serve to silence experts who ought to be applauded for sharing their knowledge and understanding. And if that situation is allowed to remain, that is a serious threat to us all.’........." Michael Birnbaum calls the tribunal’s final determination ‘little more than a detailed recital of the main points of the prosecution case against Dr Squier, punctuated by only very occasional references to her own evidence, the arguments of her counsel and the huge array of character witnesses who supported her.’ The tribunal was apparently less than impressed by the barrister. He was described as ‘somewhat vague’ and they concluded that he “lacked some credibility”. The QC calls the implication that he was dishonest ‘outrageous’, not least because no one at the tribunal challenged a word of his evidence. However, he adds that ‘the insult’ is ‘a pinprick of no significance in the real-world’ and, he insists, not why he has spoken out. ‘The Tribunal appeared to be strongly biased against Dr Squier, not only because it omitted most of the defence case, but because of its outrageous treatment of the five expert witnesses who gave evidence on her behalf. It dismissed their evidence in a few sentences as outdated in one case and, in the other four, as lacking impartiality and/ or credibility. Thereafter it completely ignored their opinions save in a few cases where it thought that they supported the prosecution argument. So the Tribunal itself picked cherries: by the kilo.’"
The entire commentary can be found at:
http://thejusticegap.com/2016/05/silencing-dr-waney-squier/
PUBLISHER'S NOTE:
I have added a search box for content in this blog which now encompasses several thousand posts. The search box is located near the bottom of the screen just above the list of links. I am confident that this powerful search tool provided by "Blogger" will help our readers and myself get more out of the site.
The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at:
http://www.thestar.com/topic/
Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at:
http://smithforensic.blogspot.
Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com;
Harold Levy; Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog;
