After a day of legal argument yesterday, Mr Justice Johnson ruled that two expert witnesses called by Ms Sophia McColgan's lawyers from the United States and from Belfast should interview her before giving evidence.
The arguments centred on whether the experts on child sex abuse and its effects could give evidence without having examined Ms McColgan. This was the first day in the High Court for Dr Alice Swann from Belfast and Dr Suzanne Sgroi from New England, who had prepared evidence based on the transcripts of the trial so far.
Dr Swann has specialised in child sex abuse since 1983, assessing and treating victims and training the police in a number of countries, including Hong Kong. Dr Sgroi has been a director of two US institutions dealing with victims of child sex abuse and is the author of a large number of books and academic papers on the subject. Only Dr Swann was called yesterday and her evidence was suspended while the objections to it were discussed. The same objections would apply to Dr Sgroi.
The lawyers for the health board and the doctor argued that Dr Swann's evidence was not admissible. Mr John Rogers SC said the issue was Ms McColgan's soundness of mind. The Statute of Limitations provided for exceptions to the three-year time limit on taking legal action, and one of those was soundness of mind. He asked how a psychiatrist could give evidence of the personality of an individual without meeting the person and cited a number of legal precedents where such evidence was excluded.
In addition to this, Mr Pat Hanratty SC objected to Dr Swann's evidence because the material on which it was based included reports from Ms McNeely, who had not taken a single note, and Prof Browne. Neither document was before the court, he said.
Mr Justice Johnson referred to the examination of Prof Browne on Wednesday on the question of whether a person could suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder, which would inhibit certain functions, while being able to function apparently normally at another level.
"It was put to him it just could not happen. If an expert was asked just that simple question, would that be excluded?" he asked Mr Hanratty. "Are you saying that an expert can't give evidence on the theory?"
Mr Hanratty replied that this would be an unfair procedure as it was purely hypothetical.
Mr James Nugent SC, for Ms McColgan, took up this point. This witness was not being asked to give evidence of fact, he said, but to give expert evidence on the issue which had arisen. He said that a number of facts were agreed - that Ms McColgan had suffered physical and sexual abuse over a long period and that she suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder. What was at issue was how that affected her. The expert witness could give an assessment of that.
He asked how an examination now of Ms McColgan could make any difference to Dr Swann's opinion of how she could have acted in 1988. He had no objections to his client being examined by these witnesses, but this was not relevant to the evidence they would give. They were not seeking to bring in psychological evidence, but evidence of the impact of such abuse on victims.
He rejected the contention that it was necessary for an expert to have observed the facts himself in order to express an opinion on them. Quoting a legal textbook, he said a pathologist could express an opinion on the cause of death without 0seeing the body if the wounds were described to him. He also rejected the view that the transcript of the evidence was hearsay. "If it was a conversation, it would be hearsay," he said.
The case will resume today with the evidence of Dr Sgroi, who must return to the United States tomorrow, and Dr Swann's evidence will be taken later.