Richard Jones KC, leading Samuel Marks and instructed by Sarah Ashby of Machins Solicitors LLP, appeared in the High Court representing the child in Re P (A Child) (Interference with medical equipment) [2026] EWHC 2100.

The question the High Court had to decide was whether a mother who loved and was devoted to her son would interfere with his medical equipment?

The child (‘P’) had profound medical needs requiring specialised care (2). Whilst in hospital, P remained critically dependent on continuous medication delivered via an infusion line. Concerns were raised within the hospital that P’s infusion lines had been tampered with on three occasions, that the damage and disconnections could not readily be explained by accidental causes, and that P’s parents may be responsible (11). The parents were arrested on suspicion of the attempted murder of P.

The local authority alleged the mother deliberately cut her son’s line with scissors, and intentionally disconnected other lines on two separate occasions. A finding was also sought against the father, though this was not pursued at the close of the fact-finding hearing.

The mother refuted responsibility for interference with the medical equipment. She said a nurse must have cut the line accidentally.

The judgment of Keehan J is of interest for the following:

1. the case highlights the crucial and active role the guardian can play within fact-finding hearings. The Court agreed with the guardian’s analysis in its entirety on the findings which should and should not be made (83).
2. the application of the RCPCH on perplexing presentations / fabricated or induced illness. Given it was accepted by all that this was a child whose medical needs were both identified and serious, the case did not fall squarely into the paradigm of fabricated or perplexing illness. The evidence required careful consideration as to whether parental perception and actions stepped over the line from anxiety to interference and whether this constituted a basis for the s.31(2) criteria to be met (39, 105-9).
3. even in cases with voluminous medical records, the wider canvas of the evidence remains essential. There were forensic challenges surrounding the allegations – on two occasions it was the mother herself who alerted staff to the damage in the medical equipment; on one occasion, the mother was under the supervision of two contact supervisors when the disconnection took place. Overall, however, the Court found a compelling picture of the mother’s mental health and emotional turmoil which provided an evidential context for the incidents of interference for which she was found to have caused (87-8, 95, 99).
4. the Court’s evaluation that just the mere fact that it has made two adverse findings about previous events are not of themselves probative about what occurred on a later date (103).  

This is the second published judgment in this case. The earlier judgment of Lieven J in A Local Authority v A Mother & Ors [2025] EWHC 3498 was among the first judgments to consider the application of PD12J post Abbasi v Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2025] UKSC 15.