A NANNY and grandmother suspected of shaking a baby and leaving it brain-damaged have been exonerated - leaving only the boy's parents possible suspects.

Hospital staff last autumn found the boy, aged almost 12 months and from North Yorkshire, had suffered brain damage, a fractured right arm and other injuries as a result of being shaken.

They also found evidence suggesting the boy had been shaken on another occasion.

Only four people could be to blame - his "affluent" parents, a highly-qualified night nanny, or his grandmother.

Earlier this year, Mr Justice Charles, at Leeds High Court, said he could not rule out any of them - but today the Court of Appeal overturned his decision.

Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, sitting with Lord Justice Thorpe and Lord Justice Clarke, said Mr Justice Charles had applied the wrong evidential test in the case.

"There is no real possibility that the night nanny caused the injuries to the baby," the judge said, adding that she had come to the same conclusion about the grandmother.

The parents - who still care for the boy - both deny harming their son, who has made a good recovery.

"The parents are connected and neither can exonerate the other, unless or until someone tells the truth about what actually happened," added Dame Elizabeth.

"Both of them have to be treated on the basis that there is a real possibility that one or both injured the child."

The judge said Mr Justice Charles had decided he could only rule out one of the quartet if there was "no possibility" of them being responsible, but this evidential test was "patently too wide".

"It might encompass anyone who had even a fleeting contact with the child in circumstances in which there was the opportunity to cause injuries," Dame Elizabeth added.

Describing the agency night nanny as having the "highest credentials", the judge said her career had been affected by the case and would continue to be unless she were cleared.

If the baby had been injured on an earlier occasion, said the judge, the night nanny could not possibly have been responsible as she was not then working for the couple.

The grandmother was also in an unenviable position, as she has other grandchildren and may be considered a possible risk to them unless cleared.

The evidence against her was weak, and one of the injuries was likely to have occurred at a time when she could not have been responsible.

Updated: 11:01 Wednesday, July 02, 2003