Parents of baby at centre of life-support fight questioned by police over ‘non-accidental’ injuries

The parents of a baby at the centre of a life-support treatment fight have been questioned by police after the boy suffered what “appeared” to be “non-accidental injuries” to his brain and ribs, a court heard.

A barrister representing the boy’s parents on Wednesday gave details of a police investigation into the five-month-old boy’s case at a Court of Appeal hearing in London.

The case made headlines during the summer when it emerged that the boy had tried to breathe after doctors at a London hospital diagnosed him as being brain-stem dead.

A judge recently ruled that doctors could lawfully stop providing treatment after a trial in the Family Division of the High Court in London.

Mr Justice Hayden had been asked to decide what moves were in the boy’s best interests by bosses at Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, who are responsible for his care.

The baby’s parents have challenged Mr Justice Hayden’s ruling and appeal judges Lord Justice Singh, Lord Justice Baker and Lord Justice Phillips are considering arguments at a Court of Appeal hearing in London.

Mr Justice Hayden had been told of the police investigation at the High Court trial but had said detail could not be revealed in media reports.

The three appeal judges relaxed a reporting restriction order on Wednesday, after journalists argued the public had a right to know about the police investigation.

They ruled that nothing could be reported which would identify the baby, and said medics involved in his care could not be named.

The baby’s parents, who are of Bangladeshi origin and represented themselves at the final hearing before Mr Justice Hayden, want a fresh trial.

They say Mr Justice Hayden should have adjourned the final High Court hearing to give them time to find lawyers, and argue they did not have a fair trial.

Barrister Bruno Quintavalle, who is representing the boy’s parents, gave appeal judges details about the police investigation in a written case outline.

He said the boy was found to have what “appeared to be non-accidental injures to his ribs as well as to his brain”.

Mr Quintavalle said the boy’s parents had been interviewed, and remained “under investigation for the injuries caused” to the boy. He argued that the trial overseen by Mr Justice Hayden had not been fair.

Mr Quintavalle argued that, by “failing to adjourn the proceedings” to allow the couple to be legally represented, Mr Justice Hayden had breached “fair trial rights” enshrined in Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Appeal judges were told that the boy’s parents had been represented by lawyers at preliminary High Court hearings. They heard that legal aid had been “revoked” shortly before the trial.

Mr Quintavalle said the judge should have granted a short adjournment to allow legal representation to be arranged.

Lord Justice Singh said the appeal was “about” Mr Justice Hayden’s decision not to adjourn in the circumstances in which he found himself.

Additonal reporting by PA