INTERVIEWED BY police after a 14-week-old boy was admitted to hospital, a man accused of shaking the child said, “I have no idea how he came by a head injury,” the High Court in Dundee heard yesterday.

Stuart Laverick had given a 13-page statement some 14 hours after the child was taken to Ninewells Hospital, PC Tom Anderson (46) told the court.

After failing to get assistance from NHS 24, Laverick told the police that he had decided to take the baby to Ninewells himself.

With the infant in his arms, he turned quickly and the baby’s head glanced off a door but the contact had not left a mark, he told the interviewing officers.

Cross examined by defence counsel Johanna Johnston QC, PC Anderson agreed the accused had co-operated and answered all questions.

Laverick (35) of Finavon Terrace, Dundee, denies that on September 24, at a house in the city, he assaulted the infant by shaking him and banging his head on a door, all to his severe injury, permanent disfigurement, permanent impairment and to the danger of his life.

Professor Robert Minns, a consultant paediatric neurologist at the Royal Hospital for Sick Children Edinburgh said he could conceive of no explanation other than non-accidental head injury to account for the severe brain and eye injuries sustained by the 14-week-old infant.

Giving evidence on the seventh day of the trial, Professor Minns said he was asked to provide a second opinion by the consultant responsible for the child’s care at Ninewells.

As a result of his own examination and a review of the child’s history and medical information provided to him he said that the injuries were indicative of severe trauma.

It was his conclusion there was, “a very highly probable likelihood of non-accidental head injuries.” The effects on the brain and eyes suggested “repetitive rotational injury.”

Advocate depute Gary Allan asked the professor if, in reaching his conclusions, he had taken into account the pregnancy and all attendant factors, the progress of labour, the mother taking migraine medication during pregnancy and being involved in a car accident.

He was also asked if he took into account concerns about the shape of the baby’s head after his birth, events in the days before his admission to hospital and events on the day of his admission, in particular when he had been in the care of the accused.

Professor Minns replied, “I don’t think anything in pregnancy, in delivery, or following delivery had any contribution to make.”

He said that the injuries could have happened very shortly before a high-pitched scream, an aversion to light and an arching of his back by the baby were first reported.

Professor Minns said these symptoms were very readily consistent with following rapidly from the time of injury.

He was asked if the injuries were consistent with something that happened some considerable time before and first became apparent much later.

Professor Minns answered, “I don’t think so.”

The degree of force involved, “was not the sort of force you would have in normal baby care and neither in rough baby care. Force would have to be severe to produce these injuries.”

He said that but for medical assistance it was highly likely the baby would not have survived.

Cross examined by defence counsel, Professor Minns agreed articles by him had been published and he had contributed to books on the subject of non accidental head injury.

He accepted this is an area which attracts controversy and there is a group of medical practitioners who argue that a human cannot generate the force required to cause these injuries.

He also agreed that there a number of medical conditions which can cause bleeding on the brain and some doctors who suggest that old injuries can start bleeding again.

In the case of non accidental head injuries, he said he did not belong to any of these schools of thought.

The trial continues.