For Love and For Justice / Part 101 / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

Reporting on February 3, 2010 in Chilliwack Court

YESTERDAY WAS HUGE
On Wednesday, Dr. Margaret Colbourne MD, FRCPC, was on the witness stand giving testimony in support of the Ministry of Children and Family Development as they seek to prevent the Baynes from ever having their children returned to them. Dr. Colbourne is a clinical assistant professor in the UBC Department of Pediatrics, a pediatric emergency medicine physician at BC’s Children’s Hospital, Vancouver, BC, and a pediatrician with the Child and Family Clinic (Child Protection Service Unit) at BC’s Children’s Hospital. When on October 18, 2007, seven week old baby Bayne was admitted to Children’s Hospital, her injuries were flagged as serious enough to be a potential abuse case. When Dr. Colbourne was called to examine the baby she concluded that this was a shaken infant. Understandably, that diagnosis led to the subsequent arrest of Paul and Zabeth, an RCMP charge of aggravated assault, an RCMP investigation and an RCMP dismissal of the charges yet the MCFD seizure nonetheless of all three of the Bayne children. Of course there were numerous factors that ultimately led to the MCFD grave action of removing the children yet Dr. Colbourne’s initial medical diagnosis was perilous for this family. MCFD has consistently refused to believe that the girl’s injuries were accidental. The Baynes have stated from the start that one child fell on the smaller one and that was the moment from which the infant’s observable medical issues began.

Lawyer Finn Jensen provided Dr. Colbourne’s CV and developed her credentials for the Judge. Her testimony has been considered critical to the MCFD presentation. Instead of allowing Jensen to proceed with her testimony and her medical opinion, quite unexpectedly, at least to MCFD I presume, Doug Christie, legal counsel for the Baynes, cross examined Dr. Colbourne’s qualifications as an expert in this area of testimony. Christie referenced the Goudge Inquiry and the Goldsmith Inquiry and other occasions where legal and medical controversy over shaken baby syndrome has been intense. Under cross examination Dr. Colbourne acknowledged this controversy between medical experts with regard to shaken baby. Mr. Christie submitted that she was not qualified to give an opinion as to the cause of the baby’s injuries because she was not a biomechanic expert which was a prerequisite for estimating the force needed to generate the injuries. Dr. Colbourne's answers to Mr. Christie's questions revealed that she had not examined the baby’s brother whom the Baynes said fell on their baby. She had not determined the boy’s head circumference, weight and other details or history from the Baynes that could have further informed her diagnosis. She also admitted that she had not conferred with any biomechanic about the girl’s injuries. Christie then submitted tests for reliability of expert witness testimony and noted that Dr. Colbourne did not meet those standards.

Mr. Jensen’s response to this submission concerning the credibility of her expertise prompted another rebuttal from Mr. Christie, at which time Judge Crabtree adjourned proceedings for almost one hour as he deliberated his decision. When he returned he ruled that Dr. Colbourne could testify to the injuries she observed on the baby but she could not provide an opinion of whether she felt this had been accidental or non-accidental. She would not be allowed to testify that it was her opinion that this was a shaken baby. She is back on the stand today.

Do I have to tell you how significant this ruling is? This is positively huge! This sets a precedent that will affect the rest of this case and other cases to come. More about this at another time.