A Co Antrim couple have gone on trial accused of inflicting multiple fractures to an infant who was close to death. The Newry Crown Court jury heard on Monday that when the “very young child” was admitted to the Royal Belfast Hospital for sick children, doctors found that he had sustained a fractured skull, associated bleeding on his brain and retinas, a laceration to his liver, almost 30 fractures to his ribs and two fractures to each of his legs.
On trial jointly charged with four offences are 35-year-old Amanda Fulton and her husband Christopher (35). The couple, from Rockfield Gardens in Mosside near Ballymoney, are accused of causing grievous bodily harm with intent, causing or allowing the child to suffer significant physical harm and a charge of child cruelty in that they allegedly wilfully neglected the child in a manner likely to cause him suffering, alleged to have been committed on dates between November 5th and November 8th, 2019.
The couple face a further allegation of child cruelty alleged to have been committed between October 17th and November 2nd. Before the prosecution opened its case, Judge Peter Irvine emphasised to the jury that because of the emotive nature of the charges and the evidence they will hear, they had to set aside any feelings of sympathy or prejudice.
“Such feelings or emotions will not assist you in deciding this case,” the judge said, adding that they should assess the evidence in a “cool and calm way”. Opening the trial prosecuting counsel Toby Hedworth told the jury the Crown case is that the child was subjected to significant blunt force trauma whether by a punch by a closed fist or potentially being thrown or dropped on to a hard surface. He also suffered shaking which was violent enough to cause fractures and compression with sufficient force that would fracture multiple ribs.
He explained how the prosecution believe one or other of the defendants inflicted the injuries at a time and place when their co-accused was “in close proximity,” would have known the infant was being harmed yet did nothing to intervene. Turning to the background of the case, Mr Hedworth told the court how Mr Fulton rang his GP surgery just after 1pm on November 7th to report how the infant “had a raw throat and was not drinking his bottles”.
They saw the doctor at 4.10pm that afternoon and when the GP noted the child was not responding to physical stimuli and his pupils were not reacting the way they should, “the doctor suspected a possibly serious head injury” and contacted 999 himself to arrange an ambulance. The jury heard the child was initially taken to the Causeway Hospital but when doctors there discovered that he had a fractured skull and bleeding on to his brain, the child was transferred to the intensive care unit at the children’s hospital.
Mr Hepworth told the jury that “further medical investigations revealed that he had sustained a catalogue of injuries”, including a fractured skull with associated bleeding to the brain and retinal bleeding; 27 rib fractures; fractures to both thigh bones and both shin bones; a fractured wrist; and laceration to his liver. Surgeons removed part of his skull to relieve the pressure and the jury heard that “he was deemed to be gravely unwell and there was a fear that he would not survive.”
Mr Hedworth told the court that as the case develops over the next month, there would be evidence from a consultant paediatric radiologist and a neurosurgeon as to the timings of the injuries, how they could have been sustained and how the victim would have presented. According to the radiologist, “her view is that the fractures to the rib cage were caused on at least two different occasions as some of them had evidence of healing”, said the barrister.
He continued that she also opined the liver laceration was likely to have occurred in the few days before the victim was admitted to hospital but that the skull fracture and some of the rib fractures were the most recent injuries to have been inflicted. The jury heard that while all of the injuries “could have been caused accidentally” or have an innocent explanation such as the child being dropped or an adult falling on to the child, “neither Mr nor Mrs Fulton have given any explanation for how any of these injuries could have been sustained”.
“At no stage when questioned by nurses, doctors or police officers has either defendant referred to a single incident that could have accounted for these significant injuries,” Mr Hedworth told the jury. It is the prosecution case, he told the jury, that the child was deliberately struck or impacted on a hard surface and that “in the absences of any explanation put forward by the defendants, it is our case the injuries were caused either by direct blow or by significant compression”.
Possible Explanations for the Injuries
The prosecution argued that the couple's lack of explanation for the child's injuries raises suspicion. “Neither Mr nor Mrs Fulton have given any explanation for how any of these injuries could have been sustained,” said Mr Hedworth. The defense could argue that the injuries were accidental, perhaps due to a fall or a clumsy movement. However, the sheer number and severity of the injuries, along with the fact that they appear to have occurred over a period of time, would make this explanation difficult to sustain.The Role of the Jury
The jury will be tasked with carefully considering all of the evidence presented in the case. They will need to weigh the testimony of the medical experts, the police officers, and the defendants themselves. Ultimately, they will have to decide whether they believe that the couple inflicted the injuries on the child, or whether there is a reasonable doubt about their guilt.A Case with Far-Reaching Implications
This trial is likely to have a significant impact on the lives of all involved. For the child, the injuries he sustained could have lifelong consequences. For the defendants, a conviction could mean a lengthy prison sentence. For the community, the trial raises important questions about child protection and the responsibility of parents to care for their children. This case underscores the importance of protecting vulnerable children and ensuring that they are safe from harm.The trial, set to last up to four weeks, continues.
