A series of posts on patient consent – (2) [<–Previous]
“If the outcome of the trail depends exclusively or almost exclusively on a serious disagreement between distinguished and reputable experts, it will often be unwise, and therefore unsafe to proceed.”
Introduction
In this series of posts, I consider the use of expert witnesses by the UK courts and the ability of those experts to do great harm if they depart from the high standards required from expert witnesses.
In my previous post in the series, I discussed the case of Sally Clark and the serious miscarriage of justice that occurred in her case as a result of the actions of prosecution witness Dr Williams, who did not disclose evidence obtained from tests and Professor Sir Roy Meadow who gave inaccurate statistical evidence to the jury.
In this second post in the series I consider the case of Angela Cannings who was convicted in 2002 of the murder of 2 of her children only to have the conviction quashed by the Court of Appeal in 2004 [1].
Again, Professor Sir Roy Meadows gave evidence for the Crown at the trial, although by the time of the appeal in the Angela Cannings case the Court of Appeal had quashed the conviction of Sally Clark [2] and Professor Sir Roy Meadow’s reputation was in question.
Background
Angela Cannings was the mother of 4 children, 3 of whom died in infancy. She was charged with the murder of her son Jason, who died in 1991 at the age of 7 weeks, and her son Matthew who died at the age of 17 weeks.
The charge in relation to the death of her daughter Gemma did not proceed although the jury were aware she had been initially charged with her daughter’s death. Gemma had died in 1989 and the death was recorded as natural (SIDS). There was never any evidence that Gemma’s death was anything other than SIDS.
It was alleged that Angela had smothered her sons with the intention of killing them. Prior to their death Jason and Matthew had suffered what was described as an acute or apparent life threatening event (ALTE) and both boys had been taken to hospital and discharged. Her daughter Jade also suffered a similar incident but she survived.
Angela denied harming her children and it was said the deaths were natural and explained by sudden infant death syndrome (“SIDS”) or cot death.
She was described as a loving mother of good character and the family were supportive. There was no suggestion that any other person had harmed the babies. At the trial, it was known that there were relatives who had children who died in infancy of SIDS and had children who had suffered ALTE’s but not death.
It was clear as in the Sally Clark case that the case would be determined on the basis of expert witness evidence. A mass of expert evidence from many witnesses of great distinction was presented to the jury at the trial.
The Grounds of Appeal
On 16 April 2002 in the Crown Court at Winchester Angela was convicted of the murder of her sons. She was sentenced to concurrent terms of life imprisonment and she appealed.
The appeal was based on two grounds. The first was that the judge should have taken the case from the jury on the basis that the medical evidence was not capable of proving that the deaths were unnatural.
The second ground was that there was fresh medical and scientific evidence from recent research which demonstrated that three infant deaths in the same family occurred more frequently than the prosecution had stated to the jury.
By the time of the appeal there was further evidence from a half-sister of Angela Cannings who had also had a similar experience with two of her babies although they did not die. One of the babies was admitted to hospital with a life-threatening event requiring resuscitation. Angela had been unaware of this relative and she came forward following the original trial but remained anonymous.
Sudden Infant Death Syndrome
It was recognised that sudden infant deaths do occur in different circumstances. No underlying condition for every death classified as SIDS had been identified at the time of the trial. The critical point of each death is that it is unexplained, and its cause or causes although natural are not unknown. The term does not apply to deaths where it can be demonstrated that there was trauma. In each SIDS death, the mechanism is apnoea, loss of breath or cessation of breathing. What was clear at the time of the trial and the appeal that there was a great deal about death in infancy and its causes that remained unknown and undiscovered
Professor Sir Roy Meadow
In the Angela’s case, as in Sally Clark’s case, the Prosecution led evidence from Professor Sir Roy Meadow. His evidence in this case did not extend to the flawed statistical evidence presented to the jury in the Sally Clark case although it was submitted by Michael Mansfield QC on behalf of Angela Cannings that although he did not expressly give statistical evidence he offered that to the jury by implication.
When he gave evidence in the trial the result of the Sally Clark appeal was not known and therefore the jury proceeded on the basis that he was an expert witness of great distinction, if not pre-eminence in his field. The Appeal Court recognised that the flawed evidence he gave at the Sally Clark trial served to undermine his high reputation and authority as a witness.
When he gave evidence in the trial the result of the Sally Clark appeal was not known and therefore the jury proceeded on the basis that he was an expert witness of great distinction, if not pre-eminence in his field. The Appeal Court recognised that the flawed evidence he gave at the Sally Clark trial served to undermine his high reputation and authority as a witness.
“..the flawed evidence he gave at Sally Clark’s trial serves to undermine his high reputation and authority as a witness in the forensic process.”
They recognised that had the jury been aware of the flawed evidence given in the Sally Clark case they may not have placed much weight on his evidence. He gave evidence to the jury about the rarity of three infant deaths in the one family and the Appeal Court found on consideration of the new evidence before them that this proposition was demonstrably undermined.
The decision in the Appeal
It was recognised that the expert evidence was absolutely critical to the convictions and it was concluded that the convictions were unsafe. The fundamental basis of the Crown’s case was the extreme rarity of three separate infant deaths in the same family. In the case of this particular family it was concluded given the history this was undermined. It was recognised that the fact of three infant deaths in one family did demand an investigation into their causes. However, the fact that the deaths did occur did not identify that the cause of death was a deliberate infliction of harm. It was noted that care had to be taken not to allow the rarity of the event to be subsumed into an assumption or virtual assumption that the babies were deliberately killed.
The court then provided that where a full investigation into two or more deaths in the same family is followed by a serious disagreement between reputable experts about the cause of death, and a body of such expert opinion concludes that natural causes whether explained or unexplained, cannot be excluded as a reasonable (and not a fanciful) possibility, the prosecution of a parent or parents should not be started, or continued, unless there is additional cogent evidence, extraneous to the expert evidence which tends to support the conclusion of deliberate harm or one of the infants.
It was recognised that in following that approach in a small number of cases justice may not be done and that this was an undesirable result. However, it avoided a worse one whereby a mother would be wrongfully convicted of the murder of her child.
Conclusion
This case demonstrates the power of expert witnesses and this is particularly so when cases are being tried by jury. Angela Cannings was imprisoned for a year and a half but she had been sentenced to life imprisonment. At the time he gave evidence in the cases of Sally Clark and Angela Cannings Professor Sir Roy Meadow was considered to be an eminent paediatrician. He had become an authority on child abuse and infant deaths and his testimony was used in legal cases for the prosecution in the 1980’s and 1990’s. The quashing of Angela Cannings conviction followed the quashing of Sally Clark’s conviction and the acquittal of Trupi Patel in the same year. Donna Anthony had also been jailed in 1998 after being convicted of murdering her two babies. She was freed after spending more than 6 years in prison. All the cases had featured evidence from Professor Sir Roy Meadow. In Angela’s case the court said:
“Unless we are sure of guilt the dreadful possibility always remains that a mother, already brutally scarred by the unexplained death or deaths of her babies, may find herself in prison for life for killing them when she should not be there at all. In our community, and in any civilised community, that is abhorrent.” [179] Professor Sir Roy Meadow was initially struck off the GMC register but later reinstated on appeal when it was held that his evidence did not amount to serious professional misconduct.
[1] R v Cannings [2004] 1WLR 2607
[2] R v Clark [2003] EWCA Crim 1020
