Sir, Camilla Cavendish rightly highlights some of the problems with restricted reporting in the family division (“Family courts: a call for justice”, times2, July 7).

She is right that justices have criticised councils and experts. It is iniquitous that a court could deny a need for an expert opinion. And yet I suspect that there is a fundamental misunderstanding. No expert in the family division, medical or otherwise, is prosecution or defence; their duty is to the court, to present the evidence and the range of opinion on it. It is for the court to decide the facts.

Ms Cavendish repeats the mistaken view that Professor Sir Roy Meadow was misleading; a careful review of the transcripts indicates that not only was the jury advised appropriately by the judge, but that it was counsels’ questioning that played a key part. Readers should note that he was never struck off the medical register.

It may be worth considering why the Family Division has long waits for experts, and that almost no paediatrician wishes to engage in child protection. Is it that reporting that ignores the subtleties or fails to gather the whole picture is partly responsible? Interestingly, the answer to these discrepancies is precisely as Ms Cavendish offers — greater openness. The innocent have nothing to fear.

Dr M. E. J. Wise
Chairman, British Medical Association Medico-Legal Committee

Explore Letters

• Feedback