Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T07:33:34.040Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Expert evidence: difficulties and solutions in prosecutions for infant harm

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

John Hartshorne  and
José Miola
John Hartshorne
Affiliation:
School of Law, University of Leicester
José Miola
Affiliation:
School of Law, University of Leicester
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper identifies and considers difficulties that gave rise to successful appeals from prosecutions where expert evidence was relied upon to demonstrate that defendants had killed or caused harm to infants in their care. It evaluates the extent to which these difficulties may be addressed by measures which have been introduced or proposed by way of tackling problems associated with expert evidence. Part of the paper is dedicated to an analysis of the Law Commission's consultation paper on the admissibility of expert evidence in criminal proceedings. The paper argues that trial judges may not be best placed to discharge the Law Commission's proposed gate-keeping test for screening the reliability of expert evidence. Expert evidence will often be ‘outcome determinative’ in prosecutions for infant harm, which is why we argue for the introduction of a specialist gate-keeping panel instead to determine the reliability of new theories and techniques.

Type
Research Article
Information
Legal Studies , Volume 30 , Issue 2 , June 2010 , pp. 279 - 300
Copyright
Copyright © Society of Legal Scholars 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. R v Clark (Sally) (No 2)[2003] EWCA Crim 1020, [2003] 2 FCR 447. For further discussion of the case see D Dwyer ‘The duties of expert witnesses of fact and opinion: R v Clark (Sally)’ (2003) 7 E & P 264.

2. For an explanation of the invalidity of this statistic, see the Royal Statistical Society's ‘Statistics & the Law’ section on its website (http://www.rss.org.uk), and ‘Letter from the President to the Lord Chancellor regarding the use of statistical evidence in court cases’, January 2002, on the same website.

3. Through media reports such as ‘His legacy of shattered lives’The Sunday Times 25 January 2004.

4. In a speech to the Medico-Legal Society, Professor Sir Alan Craft, former President of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, described how the cases had fuelled ongoing orchestrated campaigns against paediatricians, with wide ranging adverse consequences, such as trainee doctors becoming reluctant to undertake work where child protection was a major component (Professor SirCraft, Alan Paediatricians and child protection’ (2007) 75 Medico Legal Journal 55 CrossRefGoogle Scholar). See also the report of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health An Investigation into the Nature and Impact of Complaints made against Paediatricians involved in Child Protection Procedures (January 2007), available at http://www.rcpch.ac.uk/Media/Press-release-archive/2007-Press-Releases.

5. Consultation Paper No 190 (London: TSO, 2009). See A Roberts ‘Rejecting general acceptance, confounding the gate-keeper: the Law Commission and expert evidence’[2009] Crim LR 551.

6. R v Clark (Sally) (No 1) 2 October 2000 (unreported).

7. Above n 1.

8. Although Gooderham explains how the test results were wrongly placed in a file relating to Christopher which was disclosed to the defence. In those circumstances, he questions why criticism was focused solely upon Dr Williams, when the results could have been picked up by the defence lawyers and experts. See Gooderham, P Complaints about medical expert witnesses in the United Kingdom’ (2004) 6 Medical Law International 297 at 300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

9. See press release by Attorney-General's Office ‘Attorney General announces results of shaken baby syndrome cases review, and new guidance for expert witnesses’ (14 February 2006), available at http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/attachments/shaken_baby_syndrome_review.doc.

10. House of Commons Science and Technology Committee Forensic Science on Trial Seventh Report of the Session 2004–05, HC 96-I 2005.

11. Ibid, paras 130–137.

12. London: TSO, 2001, paras 130–131.

13. Ibid, para 131.

14. According to statements on its website available at http://www.crfp.org.uk.

15. Above n 10, para 135.

16. Above n 5, paras 6.75–6.77.

17. Department of Health Bearing Good Witness. Proposals for Reforming the Delivery of Medical Expert Evidence in Family Law Cases. A Report by the Chief Medical Officer (October 2006), available at http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_4140007. See proposal 15, paras 5.19–5.20.

18. Department of Health Summary of Responses to the Consultation on ‘Bearing Good Witness’: Proposals for Reforming the Delivery of Medical Expert Evidence in Family Law Cases (July 2007), para [3.1] available at http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Consultations/Responsestoconsultations/DH_076937.

19. Solon, M Experts: amateurs or accredited?’ (2004) 154 NLJ 292.Google Scholar

20. Above n 10, para 144.

21. Sudden Unexpected Death in Infancy. A Multi-Agency Protocol for Care and Investigation. The Report of a Working Group Convened by the Royal College of Pathologists and the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (September 2004) p 6, available at http://www.rcpath and http://www.rcpch.ac.uk.

22. Dwyer, D The causes and manifestations of bias in civil expert evidence’ (2007) 26 CJQ 425.Google Scholar

23. Ibid, at 434.

24. Ibid.

25. [2004] EWCA Crim 1, [2004] 2 Cr App R 7.

26. Ibid, at [22].

27. [1993] 2 Lloyds Rep 68.

28. [2005] EWCA Crim 1980, [2006] 1 Cr App R 5.

29. [2006] EWCA Crim 417, [2006] 2 Cr App R 3.

30. Criminal Procedure Rules Committee Consultation on Proposed Rules about Expert Evidence (14 October 2005) para 3, available at http://www.jspubs.com/Experts/library/lib_cpidx.cfm).

31. Woolf, Lord Access to Justice: Final Report (London: HMSO, 1996) ch 13.Google Scholar

32. CPR r 35.3.

33. CrimPR r 33.2(1).

34. CrimPR r 33.3. Encouragingly, these requirements have been largely mirrored in the General Medical Council's new guidelines on acting as an expert witness, introduced on 25 July 2008 (see the website available at http://www.gmc-uk.org/guidance/ethical_guidance/expert_witness_guidance.asp).

35. At [3.3](8)(b).

36. At [3.3](8)(c).

37. [2006] EWCA Crim 820, [2006] All ER (D) 184 (Apr).

38. See Meadow v General Medical Council[2006] EWCA Civ 1390, [2007] QB 462.

39. Surprisingly, the Court of Appeal ordered a retrial.

40. See BBC news website, ‘Pair cleared of boy's salt death’ (2 March 2007), available at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/6411903.stm. See also the case of Marianne Williams, who was acquitted at trial of the murder of her 16-month-old son by salt-poisoning, after the prosecution's experts were unable to exclude the possibility that the raised sodium levels had been caused by the side-effects of a drug (The Guardian 28 October 2006).

41. P Roberts ‘Tyres with a ‘Y’: an English perspective on Kuhmo Tire and its implications for the admissibility of expert evidence’ (1991) 2 International Commentary on Evidence, Article 5, p 1.

42. See Lawton LJ's judgment in R v Turner (1974) 60 Cr App R 80 at 83.

43. (1984) 38 SASR 45.

44. Per King CJ, ibid, at 46, quoted with approval by Rose LJ in R v Luttrell[2004] EWCA Crim 1344, [2004] 2 Cr App R 31 at [32].

45. [2002] EWCA Crim 1903, [2003] 1 Cr App R 12.

46. Per Gage LJ, above n 28, at [270].

47. Redmayne, M Expert Evidence and Criminal Justice (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001) pp 116–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

48. Ibid, p 122.

49. Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, s 76(2).

50. Where the defendant is alleged to have been mentally impaired in some way at the time of the making of the confession, however, it is acknowledged that the jury would require assistance from an expert on the extent to which a confession obtained in such circumstances might be reliable. Other circumstances could arise where such assistance may be required on the reliability of a confession, ie where a handwritten confession might have been fabricated.

51. Kovera, M, Russano, M and McAuliff, B Assessment of the commonsense psychology underlying Daubert ’ (2002) 8 Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

52. Ibid, at 193.

53. Cooper, J, Bennett, E and Sukell, H Complex scientific testimony: how do jurors make decisions?’ (1996) 20 Law and Human Behavior 379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

54. Above n 10, para 142.

55. See, eg, S Lloyd-Bostock ‘The Jubilee Line Jurors: does their experience strengthen the argument for judge-only trial in long and complex fraud cases?’[2007] Crim LR 255.

56. M Zander and P Henderson The Royal Commission on Criminal Justice: Crown Court Study, Research Study No 19 (London: HMSO, 1993) [8.2.2].

57. See Sanders, J The merits of the paternalistic justification for restrictions on the admissibility of expert evidence’ (2003) 33 Seton Hall Law Review 881.Google ScholarPubMed

58. Redmayne, above n 47, p 125.

59. 509 US 579 (1993).

60. Which restricted its recommendation to the development of a gate-keeping test built upon Daubert. Above n 10, para 173.

61. Above n 5, para 6.8.

62. Ibid, para 6.9.

63. Ibid, para 6.10.

64. Ibid, para 6.22.

65. Ibid, para 6.26.

66. Ibid, paras 6.55 and 6.62–6.64.

67. Ibid, paras 6.59–6.61.

68. Per Associate Justice Van Orsdel, Frye v United States 293 F 1013 at 1014. This is the test which was applied in US federal courts prior to the decision of the Supreme Court in Daubert.

69. Beecher-Monas, E Blinded by science: how judges avoid the science in scientific evidence’ (1998) 71 Temple Law Review 55 at 101.Google Scholar

70. Ibid, at 102.

71. Gatowski, S et al Asking the gatekeepers: a national survey of judges on judging expert evidence in a post-Daubert world’ (2001) 25 Law and Human Behavior 433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

72. Ibid, at 452.

73. Ibid, at 453.

74. Kovera et al, above n 51, at 186.

75. Groscup, J et al The effects of Daubert on the admissibility of expert testimony in state and federal criminal cases’ (2002) 8 Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

76. Ibid, at 357 and 367.

77. Above n 5, para 4.83.

78. Ibid, para 4.84.

79. Ibid, para 4.82. The main support for this assertion was a reference by Sanders (above n 57, at 930) to research conducted by Dixon, L and Gill, B Changes in the standards for admitting expert evidence in federal civil cases since the Daubert decision’ (2002) 8 Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 251 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, where it was reported that in a study of 399 federal district court opinions in civil cases during a 19-year period, over time judges scrutinised expert testimony more carefully and applied stricter admissibility standards. However, Sanders notes (at 930) that: ‘Dixon and Gill are careful to note what their study cannot do: it cannot specifically address the question of how well judges are performing the gatekeeping function’. The study by Gatowski et al (above n 71) suggests that judges are not performing their gate-keeping function well.

80. Walsh, J Keeping the gate’ (1999) 83 Judicature 140 at 143.Google Scholar

81. Above n 68.

82. Beecher-Monas, above n 69, at 78–79.

83. Lobban v The Queen[1995] 1 WLR 877.

84. See Review of Infant Death Cases following the Court of Appeal Decision in the Case of R v Cannings (2004), available at http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/attachments/Infant_death_report.pdf.

85. The review group identified 97 cases where convictions appeared to have been based on a finding of SBS, with 12 of these categorised as being potentially unsafe: Review of Infant Death Cases: Shaken Baby Syndrome (14 February 2006), available at http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/attachments/shaken_baby_syndrome_review_report.doc.

86. Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, s 76A(2).

87. Redmayne, above n 47, p 136.

88. Ibid.

89. Hand, L Historical and practical considerations regarding expert testimony’ (1901) 15 Harv L Rev 40 at 54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

90. Per Judge LJ, above n 25, at [178]–[179].

91. CP Walker and C McCartney ‘Evidence: expert witnesses seriously disagreeing as to whether cause of death of infants natural or unnatural’[2005] Crim LR 126 at 128.

92. An expression used by Judge LJ in R v Kai-Whitewind[2005] EWCA Crim 1092, [2005] 2 Cr App R 31 at [82].

93. BBC news website, above n 40.

94. [2005] EWCA Crim 1092, [2005] 2 Cr App R 31.

95. Per Judge LJ, ibid, at [84].

96. Ibid, at [82]. Although as Walker has commented, to say that R v Kai-Whitewind‘had no resonance with Cannings is untrue’: C Walker ‘Case comment on R v Kai-Whitewind’[2006] Crim LR 348 at 350.

97. [2008] EWCA Crim 971, [2009] Crim LR 195.

98. Per Toulson LJ, ibid, at [58].

99. Ibid, at [57].

100. Re X (Non-Accidental Injury: Expert Evidence)[2001] EWHC Fam 1, [2001] 2 FLR 90, per Singer J at [118].

101. See British Medical Journal online GMC Strikes Off Proponent of Temporary Brittle Bone Disease (13 March 2004), available at http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/search.dtl (doi:10.1136/bmj.328.7440.604-a). See also Hansard HC Deb, vol 422, col 52WS, 17 June 2004, and letter on behalf of the Minister for Children, Margaret Hodge, to local authorities dated 20 December 2004 (available at http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/@dh/@en/documents/digitalasset/dh_4099862.pdf).

102. Fitzpatrick, B Case comment on R v Cannings ’ (2005) 69 J Crim L 210 at 213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

103. Above n 28, at [68].

104. Above n 100.