Context
The cross-examination of Dr Ravi Jayaram at the Thirlwall Inquiry, by counsel for the other core participants, on the sequence of events around Child K, the relationship between his contemporaneous 2016 record and his later oral testimony, and the unit’s staffing picture during the cluster. It follows Ms Langdale’s examination, covered on the first page. Both are the same hearing day — 13 November 2024, the only day on which he gave evidence.
Key passages
The elephant in the room. Under cross-examination by Ms Blackwell, for the former senior managers, Jayaram reflected that “one of the elephants in the room here was that… all of these actions were predicated on the suggestion from Stephen Cross that involving the police at this stage would not be appropriate.” Counsel said “Yes”, and he went on: “And I fell for that.” He said it had felt “strange”, adding: “if you’re being told by somebody who is a legal adviser and an ex detective that it’s inappropriate to call the police I am not in a position to argue however uncomfortable it seems.”
The drawer of doom. Asked by Ms Blackwell whether he had ever seen Dr Brearey’s “drawer of doom”, Jayaram said “I’d never even heard of the concept of a drawer of doom. It seems to come up in a lot of statements.” Pressed further, he repeated “I have never heard it referred to as a drawer of doom” and said “you’ll have to ask Dr Brearey about drawers of doom”. Asked whether Brearey had ever discussed it with him, he said “He discussed all the information he had. I never knew about a drawer of doom”.
Thinking the unthinkable. Mr Baker, for a number of the families, took Jayaram to his criminal trial evidence that by February 2016 “that unthinkable thought had crossed my mind and other colleagues as well”. Reflecting on that period, Jayaram said “I should have, I should have been — I should have put my head over the parapet and, and been more —… explicitly articulated it” — the answer resumed after counsel thanked him — and said he could “only apologise to the parents of the babies that had tragic events after those times”. He added: “I can only speculate as to whether had I raised those concerns at that time things might have been different. I honestly don’t know.”
Permission to go to the police. Mr Skelton put to Jayaram that the case was criminal in nature. Jayaram replied: “in many ways I wish somebody had just said that to us, you know. When we initially raised it in June ‘16 we were told: not the police, when we discussed it with the Royal College reviewers we were told — why don’t you just go to the police.” He concluded: “I think, looking back, we shouldn’t have had to have waited for permission to go to the police. We should have just gone.”
What to read alongside this
See our Child K evidence page, Ms Langdale’s examination of Dr Jayaram, and the Child K sentencing remarks.