Court hears shaken baby cases
http://www.100md.com
《英国医生杂志》
The Court of Appeal in London was asked this week to quash the convictions of four parents or carers convicted of killing or injuring babies by shaking them, in a case that could change the way courts deal with cases of shaken babies.
The four were convicted solely on the basis of expert evidence that had now been thrown into doubt, Michael Mansfield QC told Mr Justice Gross, Lord Justice Gage, and Mr Justice McFarlane.
The judges were told that research since 2001 had led to a reappraisal of the triad of features seen in shaken baby syndrome: swelling of the brain, bleeding in the tissue between the brain and the skull, and bleeding behind the eyes.
Mr Mansfield said new studies indicated that the features once considered classic signs of shaken baby syndrome could result from other causes.
Three of the four cases come from a review ordered by the attorney general of convictions for child killing resting solely on medical evidence where experts were in dispute. The trawl followed the appeal court's judgment in the case of Angela Cannings, whose conviction for killing two of her babies was quashed on appeal. The judges ruled in her case that no prosecutions for killing a baby should be brought in future solely on the basis of disputed medical evidence, where there was no other cogent evidence.
The four appellants are Raymond Rock, serving life for murdering his girlfriend's daughter, Heidi Davis, aged 13 months, in 1998; Lorraine Harris, jailed for the manslaughter of her four month old son, Patrick McGuire, in 2000; Alan Cherry, convicted in 1995 of the manslaughter of his girlfriend's 22 month old daughter, Sarah Eburne-Day; and Michael Faulder, jailed for two and a half years in 1999 for causing grievous bodily harm to a boy aged seven weeks, who later made a full recovery.
Three papers by Jennian Geddes, consultant neuropathologist at the Royal London Hospital, are crucial to the defence case, but Dr Geddes admitted under cross-examination that there was an error, previously unacknowledged, in her third paper and that further research was needed.
After learning this, the prosecution counsel, Richard Horwell, applied to the court to halt the hearing and have all the appeals dismissed on the ground that the prosecution no longer knew what case it had to answer.
But Lord Justice Gage said it would be wrong not to allow the appeals to go ahead, because the cases depended on individual circumstances which might be affected by the fresh evidence from the medical experts.(Clare Dyer, legal correspondent)
The four were convicted solely on the basis of expert evidence that had now been thrown into doubt, Michael Mansfield QC told Mr Justice Gross, Lord Justice Gage, and Mr Justice McFarlane.
The judges were told that research since 2001 had led to a reappraisal of the triad of features seen in shaken baby syndrome: swelling of the brain, bleeding in the tissue between the brain and the skull, and bleeding behind the eyes.
Mr Mansfield said new studies indicated that the features once considered classic signs of shaken baby syndrome could result from other causes.
Three of the four cases come from a review ordered by the attorney general of convictions for child killing resting solely on medical evidence where experts were in dispute. The trawl followed the appeal court's judgment in the case of Angela Cannings, whose conviction for killing two of her babies was quashed on appeal. The judges ruled in her case that no prosecutions for killing a baby should be brought in future solely on the basis of disputed medical evidence, where there was no other cogent evidence.
The four appellants are Raymond Rock, serving life for murdering his girlfriend's daughter, Heidi Davis, aged 13 months, in 1998; Lorraine Harris, jailed for the manslaughter of her four month old son, Patrick McGuire, in 2000; Alan Cherry, convicted in 1995 of the manslaughter of his girlfriend's 22 month old daughter, Sarah Eburne-Day; and Michael Faulder, jailed for two and a half years in 1999 for causing grievous bodily harm to a boy aged seven weeks, who later made a full recovery.
Three papers by Jennian Geddes, consultant neuropathologist at the Royal London Hospital, are crucial to the defence case, but Dr Geddes admitted under cross-examination that there was an error, previously unacknowledged, in her third paper and that further research was needed.
After learning this, the prosecution counsel, Richard Horwell, applied to the court to halt the hearing and have all the appeals dismissed on the ground that the prosecution no longer knew what case it had to answer.
But Lord Justice Gage said it would be wrong not to allow the appeals to go ahead, because the cases depended on individual circumstances which might be affected by the fresh evidence from the medical experts.(Clare Dyer, legal correspondent)