After three days of legal debate, the records of the North Western Health Board relating to the McColgan family finally came before the court yesterday. They were referred to when Mr Paul Gilligan, a clinical psychologist and director of services with the ISPCC, was called to give evidence last Thursday.
He said he had been furnished with documentation and had formed opinions based on it. Mr James Nugent SC, for Ms Sophia McColgan, had begun to question him about his opinions.
Mr John Rogers SC, for the health board, objected on the basis that the documents had not been proved. The "proving" of documents is a legal procedure whereby the authenticity of a document introduced into evidence is either accepted by both sides or is proved through its author identifying it.
Mr Justice Johnson asked if Mr Rogers was seeking the proving of his own documents, which had originated with his client, and to which he had referred in cross-examining earlier.
"I would like a lot of authority that documents put in must be proved by the other side," he said, deferring the legal debate on this until the next day.
The next day the court heard two other expert witnesses as Dr Suzanne Sgrio had to return to the US on Saturday, and Dr Alice Swann's evidence was closely related to hers.
When Dr Swann finished her evidence on Tuesday, Mr Gilligan was again called. Mr Garret Cooney SC, for Ms McColgan, said they had analysed the documents introduced to the court by the plaintiff and the defendants, and the vast majority had originated with the defendants.
Mr Rogers acknowledged that he did use some of the documents in cross-examining Mr Gerard McColgan but said they had still not been proved.
Mr Justice Johnson asked why this point was not made when the documents were handed to him at that time. Mr Rogers replied that he was approaching the case on the basis that plaintiffs had to prove every document.
Mr Justice Johnson asked if it would be possible to call the witnesses from the health board purely for the purposes of proving the documents. Mr Rogers said this would not be enough. It would be necessary to go into the circumstances in which the documents were written so that Mr Gilligan could have a full picture.
The judge ruled that any document handed in to him before the eighth day of the case, when this objection was first made, had been admitted as evidence. This left certain documents to be proved.
When the case resumed on Wednesday, a social worker with the North Western Health Board, Ms Edna Keon, described how she had been asked in 1994 to write a chronology of the McColgan case, based on a file of case-notes and reports. She identified a document handed into the court as this chronology.
As she was being taken through the chronology, Mr Rogers objected to her referring to the file on the grounds that the documents in it had not been proved. He said Ms Keon could not prove the authenticity of the documents in the file as she had not written them.
There were further legal arguments. Mr Pat Hanratty SC, for Dr Moran, agreed with Mr Rogers as his client had been referred to in some of them.
Mr Cooney accused Mr Rogers of "attempting to throw sand in the eyes of the court". This document was a resume of what one of the defendants did, through its employees, "some of whom are the perpetrators of negligence in this case".
Mr Justice Johnson said he was going to allow the witness to give evidence as to the contents of the file on which she based her chronology. Ms Keon's evidence continued, under examination from Mr Cooney.
When the hearing resumed yesterday, Mr Cooney drew the judge's attention to a legal precedent when medical reports had previously been admitted as evidence although the witnesses had not written them.
Mr Rogers said he understood that Mr Justice Johnson's earlier ruling had referred only to the chronology, and not to the file. Mr Justice Jonhnson said that, especially in the light of this precedent, his ruling included the contents of the file.
The documents at the centre of the dispute are case-notes, reports and correspondence from various employees of the health board dealing with the McColgan case. The health board is accused of negligence by Ms McColgan in that it did not intervene to stop the abuse by her father.
If and when the health board and the doctor start to give evidence on their side, the people who dealt with the McColgan family, and who wrote these documents, will be called by their lawyers. They will then face cross-examination by Ms McColgan's lawyers.
If they had to be called at this stage by Ms McColgan's lawyers to prove the documents and to outline the circumstances in which they were written, it is understood they would become the plaintiff's witnesses and could not be cross-examined on her behalf about their handling of the case.