Case No. YO21C00174

in which he indicated, and I quote: “It is the local authority that seeks a finding that the injuries are non-accidental. It is for the local authority to prove its case. It is not for the mother to disprove it. In particular, it is not for the mother to disprove it by proving how the injuries were in fact sustained. Neither is it for the court to determine how the injuries were sustained. The court’s task is to determine whether the local authority has proved its case on the balance of probability. Where as here there is a degree of medical uncertainty and credible evidence of a possible alternative explanation to that contended for by the local authority, the question for the court is not has the possible alternative explanation been proved but rather it should ask itself in the light of that possible alternative explanation can the court be satisfied that the local authority has proved its case on the simple balance of probability.”19.It seems to me that the approach as articulated in that case should be applied faithfully in the instant case. Of course, I must decide the facts on a binary system in which the only values are ‘0’ and ‘1’. In reaching that conclusion I must assess all of the evidence including the wider canvas of evidence. The evidence of the parents and the other carers is obviously of the utmost importance. I must assess their credibility and their reliability following the fullest opportunity being given for their evidence to be scrutinised following searching questions asked by experienced Leading Counsel.20.As to my approach in relation to the expert evidence, I bear very much in mind that the role of the Court and the experts are distinct and that I must weigh their evidence against my findings and evaluation of the other evidence in the case. I very much bear in mind ,as set out in the Judgment of Mr Justice Newton in Central Bedfordshire Council v. F, D and C