Judge slams doctor who confused twins and called her own evidence ‘appalling’

Doctor’s flawed evidence nearly led to a wrongful care order after mixing up twin children’s records

 A High Court judge has delivered a damning verdict on expert medical evidence that almost tore a family apart, after a doctor admitted confusing twin children in a case involving alleged abuse.

Dr Nicola Cleghorn, the expert instructed to produce a paediatric overview in a care proceedings case brought by the London Borough of Croydon, confessed under cross-examination that parts of her evidence were “appalling”. Her critical error? She mixed up the twin children’s medical records—despite their vastly different health profiles—and never revisited her conclusions.

The case, LB Croydon v D, involved three children whom the local authority believed had suffered non-accidental injuries at the hands of their parents. Dr Cleghorn’s report supported that claim, asserting that medical findings suggested the injuries were inflicted. But her Honour Kathryn Major, sitting as a deputy High Court judge, found that the report read as “subjective, closed-minded and disbelieving of the parents’ account”.

In a forensic cross-examination that the judge described as “nothing short of a demolition”, Professor Delahunty KC, counsel for the mother, exposed major flaws in Dr Cleghorn’s evidence. The scrutiny was so thorough that no other party felt the need to cross-examine. Cleghorn herself apologised for her role in the experts’ meeting and admitted the gravity of her errors while on the stand.

Perhaps most shockingly, she confused which twin had suffered which medical issues. One twin had been born weaker and more medically vulnerable than the other, yet Cleghorn failed to account for this when forming her conclusions. Even worse, she referenced unexplained “bruising” that did not exist in any of the primary medical records.

The judge concluded that this reversed the burden of proof—effectively assuming guilt without factual backing.

The consequences could have been devastating.

“This was not just flawed evidence,” the judge stated, “but an approach that could contaminate the entire professionals’ meeting. Children could be wrongly taken from safe homes, or left in harm’s way due to poor analysis.”

Cleghorn’s closed-off attitude meant she outright dismissed the parents’ explanations without properly considering alternative possibilities for the children’s conditions. When cross-examined, her testimony not only contradicted her report but ultimately bolstered the parents’ version of events.

Even counsel for the child described Cleghorn’s involvement as “terrifying” and a “safeguarding disaster”.

The judge underscored the real-world stakes: when expert witnesses fail in their duty to remain analytical and thorough, families can face unwarranted devastation. The local authority, which continued relying on Cleghorn’s flawed testimony, also came under fire for failing to critically examine the evidence or properly assess the parents’ version of events.

Ultimately, the allegations against the parents were not proved. The care order was denied.

“This case highlights why rigorous, informed cross-examination of expert evidence is not just procedural formality—it’s vital for justice,” said the judge.

Her message was unequivocal: unreliable expert evidence doesn’t just harm cases. It puts children and families at real risk.