A petition has been launched urging the Victorian Parliament “to establish an independent inquiry into paediatric forensic pathology practices and the legal frameworks governing expert evidence, particularly in cases involving Shaken Baby Syndrome (SBS) and Abusive Head Trauma (AHT).”
The petition proposes that “This inquiry should ensure that evidence used in criminal and child protection proceedings is scientifically valid, legally robust, independently verified, and fully disclosed, preventing miscarriages of justice caused by incomplete investigation or reliance on unsupported methodologies (“junk science”).” (See our report)
“Lions Law is the proposed legislation,” says Kaneal Lindsay, who launched the petition. “We are in the process of formalizing a not-for-profit structure based in Victoria to address shaken baby / abusive head trauma cases as we are inundated with emails from families almost daily. We hope with the release of our report on Lindsey, Rowe, Harvey and Vinaccia it will be enough to prompt an inquiry or at least fuel discussion around expert evidence in such cases.”
Lion’s Law advocates emphasise that the inquiry is not about revisiting individual verdicts, but about ensuring Victoria’s systems for interpreting complex paediatric medical evidence are scientifically robust, transparent, and accountable.
“Where criminal responsibility depends on specialised medical interpretation, the systems producing that evidence must be beyond reproach. Science before accusation. Evidence before judgement.” says spokeman Kaneal Lindsey.
The following is part of the media release announcing the petition:
Why the Inquiry Is Needed
Analysis of Victorian cases from 2014 to present shows a significant rise in prosecutions, the publicly known matters of Lindsay, Rowe, Vinaccia and Harvey, highlights systemic gaps in forensic pathology practices. In each case, there were alternative medical explanations (“mimics of abuse”) that could account for the injuries observed, yet these were not always fully investigated.
Concerns include:
- Limited or incomplete differential diagnosis
- Absence of certain blood tests, genetic testing, or bone fragility investigations.
- Over Reliance on single expert opinions without peer review.
- Limited consideration of ambulance notes, hospital records, scans, and child protection files.
- incomplete or non-compliant reports where no authorities for conclusions or diagnosed medical conditions were absent.
- no consideration for observations or ambulance notes/ documented findings.
Historical cases dating back to 1994 are also referenced in supporting documentation to the proposed inquiry.
“Where serious criminal allegations rely heavily on specialised medical evidence, all possible medical explanations must be fully explored.”
Judicial Concerns About Expert Evidence
Victorian appellate decisions have highlighted risks when expert testimony exceeds recognised qualifications. In DPP vs Lombardo, the Court considered the scope of expert evidence provided by Abuse Paediatrician Dr Geetika Badkar (VFPMS).
The court found that:
- In respect of the opinion evidence of Dr Badkar:
- (a) Dr Badkar is qualified to express an opinion as to the nature and extent of the injuries sustained by MB, and as to the likely or possible mechanism by which those injuries had been caused – such as whether the injuries were the result of blunt force trauma, or acceleration/deceleration forces, or, in the case of the bruising to the neck in combination with the areas of infarction to the brain, strangulation. The opinions of Dr Badkar, as to those issues, are wholly or substantially based on her specialisedknowledge derived from her training, study and experience.
(b) Save in the case of the widespread bruising sustained by MB to his head, neck, abdomen, back, limbs and genital region, Dr Badkar is not qualified to express an opinion as to whether the other injuries, sustained by MB, had been, or might have been, the result of a non-accidental cause. Such an opinion is not based wholly or substantially on Dr Badkar’s specialised knowledge derived from her training, study and experience.
Dr Badkar also served as a key prosecution witness in the Lindsay trial, where alleged injuries were of the same type discussed in Lombardo. In the Lindsay committal proceedings Dr Badkar based her findings on “observations alone” provided no authorities to support her claims and stated that the coagulation that was diagnosed on admission could not produce bruising and bleeding despite a contemporaneous opinion from an ophthalmology fellow within the same report. “These statements simply do not align with medical literature nor literature produced by VFPMS in teaching materials, coagulation particularly DIC is known to produce both bleeding and bruising from the mucous membranes.” – Kaneal Lindsey
The overlap underscores the need for:
- – Clear qualification standards for expert witnesses
- – Mandatory peer review of complex forensic opinions
- – Independent multidisciplinary diagnostic panels
“When similar medical findings and expert opinions arise across multiple prosecutions, it is not only a matter of individual cases but of public confidence in the systems interpreting medical evidence.” – Kaneal Lindsey
International Lessons
The Goudge Inquiry in Canada revealed how systemic weaknesses in forensic pathology oversight can contribute to miscarriages of justice. Recommendations included stronger peer review, independent oversight, and rigorous differential diagnosis—measures Lion’s Law advocates for in Victoria.
Proposed Lion’s Law Safeguards
Lion’s Law proposes reforms designed to protect children while strengthening the integrity of the justice system:
- Mandatory peer reviewof paediatric forensic pathology opinions
- Independent multidisciplinary diagnostic panelsfor complex infant injury cases
- Comprehensive review of all medical evidence, including hospital records, scans, pathology results, ambulance notes, and child protection files
- Expanded diagnostic investigation where clinically indicated: blood testing, genetic testing, bone fragility testing, and tissue analysis
- Post-conviction review mechanismsto examine cases where new evidence emerges
“Effective child protection and a fair justice system depend on accurate science, rigorous investigation, and independent scrutiny of expert evidence.” – Kaneal Lindsey
Given the number of court decision that have been raised in Wrongful Convictions it appears that the observations of Steven Fennel and indeed Andrew are only too prevalent in numerous court cases. Juries are generally people of ordinary intelligence and life experience being subjected to arguments presented by professionals whose role it is to gain a conviction or a not guilty. Thus those parties will only present material that serves their purpose and not necessarily give an overall balanced account. To achieve this end the dialogue is often not that of the lay person being a member of a jury and thus is confusing.
Police and prosecution are all out to gain a conviction not necessarily expose the facts and serve justice. Sue Neil- Fraser is a prime example of this process and clearly demonstrates the reluctance of not only, the Court, Police and those involved but also
Government and Politicians whom refuse an inquest and stand by a most absurdly flawed, unjust conviction. Meanwhile the killer or killers of Bob Chappell remain free.
Surely it is time that the alleged “Justice System” be overhauled and we move away from the current Adversarial System to one whereby police merely gather facts and evidence to present to the court which then decides if a prosecution should proceed. Police are no longer tasked with the decision to prosecute nor gain a conviction
Whilst there is the No Bill plea it appears to fail in that the evidence presented against the defendant whom may have been locked-up and does not enjoy the resources of the police is that gathered to gain a conviction not necessarily to dispense justice.
Your frustration with the legal system is well justified – and shared. (Just one correction: the police present a brief of evidence to the ODPP who makes the decision whether to prosecute.)
There is a sea of issues worthy of reform, yet none is under way. We recently published a report about this: https://wrongfulconvictionsreport.org/2025/10/29/so-many-law-reformers-so-little-reforming/
Damian, your frustration with the adversarial system is widely shared and not without foundation. The concern that trials can become contests of persuasion rather than structured searches for truth has been recognised by legal scholars and reform bodies for decades. But it’s important to separate what the system is designed to do from how it sometimes operates in practice.
Investigations are conducted by police, but charging decisions particularly in serious matters are typically made or reviewed by independent prosecuting authorities such as the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions or state equivalents. Those prosecutors are bound by guidelines that require a reasonable prospect of conviction and a public interest test, not simply a desire to “win.” I call that to be a good talking point but a failure in reality. That said, your broader point still lands: the system is adversarial, and each side presents its case selectively within the rules.
Where your argument gains real traction is in the comparison with systems that are explicitly designed to seek truth rather than resolve a contest.
In countries like France and Germany, inquisitorial models place judges at the centre of the fact-finding process. Investigating magistrates can direct inquiries, gather evidence, and test both prosecution and defence theories before trial. The aim is not to referee competing narratives, but to build a coherent, evidence-based account of events. These systems also impose a formal duty to pursue both inculpatory and exculpatory evidence something adversarial systems rely on the defence to uncover.
There are also hybrid approaches worth noting. Norway, often cited for its high levels of public trust in justice outcomes, uses a mixed system where professional judges and lay judges sit together and actively engage with the evidence. In Canada, reforms have strengthened disclosure obligations to ensure the defence has access to all relevant material, not just what supports the prosecution case. That is something that Australia needs to adopt as of 1990. However we are lead by cowards so nothing changes.
Within Australia, we already use non-adversarial models where truth-finding is paramount. Coronial inquests and royal commissions are not about winning they are about establishing what happened and why. Bodies like the NSW Crime Commission and anti-corruption commissions also operate with strong investigative powers and fewer adversarial constraints. The Queensland version the CCC is on record for many substandard decisions.
So your proposal, that police gather evidence and a court determines whether prosecution should proceed is not radical. Elements of it already exist in committal hearings and prosecutorial review processes. The real question is whether those safeguards go far enough in complex or high-risk cases, particularly where wrongful convictions are a concern.
The challenge, however, is balance. Inquisitorial systems are not immune to error; concentrating investigative power in the state can create its own risks. The adversarial system, for all its flaws, is built on the idea that testing evidence through challenge protects the accused.
What your comment highlights is the need for evolution, not abandonment. Greater judicial oversight of investigations, stronger disclosure obligations, and expanded use of independent review bodies may offer a path forward one that moves the system closer to truth without losing the safeguards that prevent its abuse.
“When Opinion Becomes Evidence”
There is a quiet but consequential pattern emerging in Victorian Abusive Head Trauma (AHT) prosecutions, one that should concern anyone who believes in the integrity of both science and the justice system. The same expert voice appears, again and again.
Dr. Geetika Badkar has become a familiar presence in these cases, offering opinions that frequently sit at the centre of the prosecution narrative. On its face, that is not unusual. Courts rely on experts. But what is unusual and in my lay opinion I find troubling is the apparent absence of balance. Where are the equally qualified dissenting voices? Where is the rigorous contest of ideas that science demands and justice requires?
In DPP v Lombardo, the court itself drew a line. Dr. Badkar was accepted as qualified to describe injuries and possible mechanisms; but not to determine whether most of those injuries were non-accidental. That distinction should have sent a clear signal; interpretation is not the same as conclusion. Yet in practice, that boundary appears to blur. The problems are the juries that fail to understand the importance of that distinction. Because in a courtroom, nuance does not travel well.
When a jury hears a confident medical opinion, particularly one delivered repeatedly across cases, it can take on the weight of certainty. Now that comment does not have to remain with just medical if the jury hears from a forensic accountant that makes bold and confident statements they can be swayed even if the math is either wrong, convoluted or contrived. And when that opinion is rarely challenged by an equally resourced expert on the other side, it risks becoming something more dangerous than evidence, it becomes doctrine.
This is where the concern deepens. In several cases, alternative medical explanations coagulopathies such as Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation (DIC), genetic conditions affecting bleeding or bone integrity, or even birth-related trauma, appear to have been minimised or dismissed. These are not fringe theories. They are well-documented differentials in paediatric medicine, increasingly recognised internationally as potential “mimics” of abuse.
Yet when such possibilities are not fully explored or worse, are excluded without transparent reasoning the diagnostic process begins to look less like science and more like confirmation. A hypothesis forms early. Evidence is then interpreted through that lens. Critics have described this as a “prosecution-led diagnosis.” It is a confronting phrase, but one that captures a growing unease: that in some cases, the medical narrative may be shaped as much by the context of investigation as by the underlying biology.
Equally concerning is what is not visible. There is little public indication that Dr. Badkar’s views have been subjected to robust academic debate, or that they have evolved in step with the broader international reassessment of shaken baby syndrome and AHT. In other jurisdictions, courts and medical bodies have begun to acknowledge uncertainty, complexity, and the risk of overreach. Here, the message appears more static, more certain—perhaps too certain.
And certainty, in this context, is not a virtue. It is a risk. Because when one expert voice is repeatedly amplified within a system without meaningful challenge, without structured peer review, and without enforced standards of differential diagnosis and that voice does not just inform the system. It begins to define it.
This is not an argument against expert evidence. It is an argument against imbalance. Against the quiet consolidation of influence that can occur when systems rely too heavily on too few perspectives in areas of profound scientific uncertainty.
The stakes could not be higher. These cases involve the protection of children—one of the most serious responsibilities any society carries. But they also involve the potential loss of liberty, reputation, and justice itself. We cannot afford a system where the appearance of scientific certainty replaces the reality of scientific scrutiny. Because when opinion is repeated often enough, it starts to sound like fact. And when that happens in a courtroom, the consequences are not academic. They are measured in years.