A MAN accused of causing brain damage to a 14-week-old child seemed more concerned about relations between himself and the social workers than the welfare of the seriously ill baby, the High Court in Dundee heard yesterday.

Social worker Alison Hill said after meeting the accused the day after the baby had been admitted to hospital she had noted in a statement she made that there was “something about the way he presented, given the seriousness of the situation.”

Ms Hill, who works with the child protection unit in the city, added, “The relationship between him and us seemed more important than the health of the child.”

She was giving evidence at the trial of Stuart Laverick (35), of Finavon Terrace, Dundee, who denies that on September 24, 2005, 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.

Speaking of an interview conducted by Tayside Police CID officers, where she was in attendance along with the accused, she said, “He was very informal, it was quite a light-hearted discussion.”

Her colleague Joyce Aitken, who was also at the interview, said Laverick had been “very co-operative,” adding, “he didn’t seem extremely anxious, he was quite tired…and puzzled” at what was going on.

Earlier a consultant paediatric neurosurgeon from Oxford gave his evidence via a video link.

Dr Peter Richards, who is based at the John Radcliffe Children’s Hospital in Oxford, told the jury that he was satisfied with the diagnosis of neuro- surgeons in Dundee that there was no medical reason for brain damage suffered by the infant.

He told the court that he had been contacted early in 2006 by CID officers from Dundee who had requested that he review the case and he had agreed to do so.

He said he had produced a report which dealt with the child’s medical history from birth to the admission in hospital, and the circumstances leading up to the infant’s admission.

The baby had been born by an emergency caesarean operation after a blockage in his windpipe caused him some difficulty, he told the court.

After spending 10 hours in the special care baby unit at Ninewells, the baby’s condition was said to be normal, although at eight weeks old it was noted that he had “slight head lag” but that condition later cleared.

On the day after the infant was brought into hospital, scans showed there was fresh bleeding between the layers surrounding his brain and the child had begun to have seizures.

But there was no evidence of any fractures in the skull and tests showed that the ability of his blood to clot was normal.

Dr Richards told the court he agreed with the previous diagnosis and said that no diseases had been identified that could mimic the brain injury features, and tests showed there was no evidence of infection.

He told the court the child had acute encephalopathy, acute subdural haemorrhaging and extensive bilateral retinal haemorrhaging.

“There was no medical reason for any one of those let alone all three together,” he said, “so I am satisfied with the diagnosis.”

He said after the initial admission, the child had been discharged some time later but subsequent scans had shown his condition was worsening.

He said there was no evidence that anyone had shown any concern for the child’s condition, apart from an aunt who said he “didn’t seem his usual self,” before the accused had raised his concerns at 7.15 that evening.

He said there was no indication when the child’s mother left the house that night at 6.14 that anything was wrong, and so he estimated that the injury had occurred sometime between her leaving and 7.15pm.

He said the child would not behave abnormally immediately after trauma, his condition would change over a period of time.

Dr Richards also told the court that life’s normal “ups and downs” would not cause injury of that sort.

Social worker Suzanne Spink, from Dundee City Council’s child protection unit, said the accused was “initially co-operative” with social workers, but said his attitude had changed at the end of the week when a child protection order was served, which meant the infant would come under the care of a registered foster adult on being discharged from hospital.

Cross-examined by defence counsel Johanna Johnston, she agreed that there had been a willingness to “get to the bottom” of it at the beginning of the week when she carried out the first interviews.

The trial continues.