The introduction of the Suspected Inflicted Head Injury Service (SIHIS) has sparked significant concern within public law care proceedings.
- Three pilot programmes are currently operational across Manchester, Sheffield, and Birmingham hospitals.
- Legal experts are apprehensive about SIHIS’s impact on the rights guaranteed under Articles 6 and 8 of the Human Rights Act.
- Critiques focus on the shift from traditional independent medical assessments, potentially diminishing the role of individual experts.
- Concerns about transparency and lack of stakeholder consultation amplify apprehensions regarding the SIHIS implementation.
The rollout of the Suspected Inflicted Head Injury Service (SIHIS) has prompted notable apprehension from key stakeholders in public law care proceedings. With pilot programmes underway in Manchester, Sheffield, and Birmingham, the primary aim of SIHIS is to streamline assessments for suspected head injuries in young children. However, the legal community has voiced grave concerns regarding this new service.
A major point of contention is SIHIS’s potential impact on individuals’ rights under Articles 6 and 8 of the Human Rights Act. Legal practitioners have highlighted that the service appears to divert from traditional methods where independent medical experts are engaged by legal representatives based on specific expertise. Such a shift raises concerns over diminishing the critical role that these independent experts play in ensuring fair trial and respect for private and family life.
The introduction of SIHIS has also led to debates about the adequacy of the information provided by the Department for Education (DfE). Their initial summaries have been met with scepticism from the legal fraternity, who argue that the reports might undermine existing court procedures by reducing the need for court-appointed expert assessments, thereby limiting comprehensive case evaluations.
Quality of information remains a crucial concern. Stakeholders suggest that SIHIS clinicians might not have full access to all case documents or detailed statements, which are essential for a robust defence. The ability to cross-examine these experts, a cornerstone of fair legal processes, might be compromised, potentially affecting NAHI case outcomes.
Moreover, the legal community has expressed dissatisfaction with the transparency surrounding the SIHIS rollout. With minimal input from key legal and medical bodies during its implementation, questions about the selection criteria for expert clinicians and the evaluation metrics for the pilot programmes remain unanswered. These gaps fuel worries about potential erosions of due process.
Recent meetings intended to clarify SIHIS’s role only served to heighten concerns. The Family Justice Council addressed that the clinical arrangements are not meant to alter the legal process, yet doubts about the influence of SIHIS reports persist. The legal fraternity continues to seek clarity on how much weight courts will place on these new reports when considering whether further expert instruction is necessary.
While beneficial aspects from a medical standpoint are acknowledged, the necessity for dialogue between the legal and medical communities is emphasised. Such collaboration is crucial to enhance the service while safeguarding justice and the rights of families involved.
Balancing SIHIS’s medical benefits with the protection of legal rights remains essential to maintaining integrity in care proceedings.
