That ruling is also the subject matter of a separate ground of review so it does not fall for consideration at this stage. However, prima facie, it seems to me that the ruling is confused, difficult to understand and fails to apply the correct law. Dr Sale then gave evidence unimpeded by his report. He described the condition Munchausen by proxy and said that a common pattern of the illness was some sort of food deprivation and impairment of physical, intellectual, social and emotional development. The giving of Dr Sale's evidence was constantly interrupted by unsoundly based objections to admissibility. Resolution of the objections to the admissibility of evidence was not enhanced by the learned magistrate apparently permitting counsel to argue back and forth between themselves, instead of requiring orderly submissions to the Bench followed by the making of a proper ruling. In the end, the learned magistrate appeared to rule that Dr Sale was not to refer to material concerning the children's birth mother or her siblings even though it was apparently the doctor's opinion that such material was relevant to the issue of whether the respondent suffered from Munchausen by proxy. The basis for the ruling is unclear. Dr Sale made it clear that in his opinion, it would not be possible to express an opinion (as Dr Weidmann did) about the existence of Munchausen by proxy without examining all the medical records of the relevant people. Counsel for the applicants in the court below attempted to take Dr Sale through the entries in the various medical records that had become exhibits. Counsel for the respondents objected in terms such as, "I'm just wondering exactly where this is going, where its getting us. It's fairly straightforward stuff". Instead of asking counsel for the basis of his objection, the learned magistrate took up the question of "where this is going", indicated that it might be "nothing more than a mother concerned -- nothing more than a mother -- I use the word advisedly here -- being really concerned to ensure that their children are 100% OK", and said "I can see us being here for days". Finally, the learned magistrate said, "I'll take it de bene esse, Mr Warmbrunn. Let's get moving." From this point on, counsel for the applicant in the court below appeared to be inhibited in leading evidence from Dr Sale for no reason that is apparent to me. Within the constraints imposed upon him, Dr Sale referred in great detail to some of the written material concerning attendances on medical practitioners that had been tendered in evidence. He noted that the weight charts kept by Dr Fricker showed that until recently S was very much under weight and under height for boys the same age. Dr Sale said he found this disturbing, and, when presented for excessive eating it does "not make clinical sense." Dr Sale said that the presence of a number of very rare clinical disorders within the same household "raises the index of suspicion that there is something more to this situation than meets the eye", and that whilst each consultation with respect to each child, viewed in isolation, was unremarkable, a close examination of all the consultations gave rise to the possibility of a factitious disorder (Munchausen). Although the tenor of Dr Sale's evidence was to the effect that he considered that there was a possible diagnosis of Munchausen by proxy, so far as I am able to discern from the transcript of proceedings, there was no express opinion to that effect in his evidence-in-chief, perhaps because as Dr Sale said, the only way one can be sure of such a diagnosis is if the person concerned confesses.