---

Shaken Baby Syndrome

My right hon. Friend the Attorney General has made the following Oral Statement. ““I wish to make a statement announcing the outcome of my review of Shaken Baby Syndrome cases and to also make the House aware of new guidance relating to expert witnesses in court. The House will recall the high profile cases of Sally Clark, Trupti Patel and Angela Cannings, all of which related to allegations of unlawful killing of children. It was following these cases that I undertook to review past cases where a parent or carer had been convicted of killing a baby or infant under the age of two, in the past 10 years. In December 2004 I reported to the House that 297 cases had been reviewed and 28 were found to have questionable convictions. Today I report that I have fulfilled my pledge to re-examine the 88 cases which were identified at the outset of this process as shaken baby cases. The review of the shaken baby cases was undertaken once the Court of Appeal ruled in July last year. Today I am able to report that three cases have been found to have questionable convictions. The three convictions identified as questionable include: one male convicted of murder in 2001 and sentenced to life imprisonment [and currently still serving that sentence] one male convicted of manslaughter in 2001 and sentenced to three years imprisonment [no longer in prison] one female convicted of manslaughter in 1994 and sentenced to seven years imprisonment [no longer in prison—carried out extensive searches but appears to have left the country or changed her name] The cases of Sally Clark, Trupti Patel and Angela Cannings generated a wide ranging medical debate about infant deaths and also the causes of shaken baby syndrome. The judgment of the Court of Appeal, which considered the evidence of 25 expert witnesses from all disciplines, is now considered the case law authority on shaken baby syndrome and has helped clarify the law. It stated that the presence of all or some of three particular injuries is a strong pointer towards shaken baby syndrome. The Court was therefore uniquely placed to comment upon this difficult area, and the differing medical evidence put before it. The Court's primary focus was on the significance of the so-called ““triad”” of injuries which, when all or some are present in an infant, is suggestive of deliberate harm. These consist of subdural haemorrhaging, retinal haemorrhaging and encephalopathy or brain swelling. The Court's critical focus was on the degree of force required to cause those injuries, or indeed whether any force was required. The Court of Appeal found that:"The presence of the triad of injuries is consistent with shaken baby syndrome, but the triad alone cannot automatically lead to a conclusion that the infant has been shaken;""The triad however remains ““. . . a strong pointer . . . ”” to shaken baby syndrome." Taking into account the judgment of the Court of Appeal, a thorough review of the 88 cases was carried out by a senior CPS lawyer and independent Counsel, who were part of a team that conducted my wider review into infant homicides in 2004. I have taken an active personal role in supervising the review and believe we have acted carefully, and as swiftly as practicable, in reaching conclusions. The review has found that three convictions may give cause for concerns as to the safety of those convictions. In the considerable majority of the remaining SBS cases, other extraneous evidence existed to support the findings of shaken baby syndrome. A few examples are: evidence the infant had been struck against a wall causing catastrophic injuries; admissions to shaking and punching the infant; earlier fractures; and head injuries occurring on two separate occasions. My office has written to the legal representatives of those involved in the three cases suggesting that it might be appropriate for the safety of their client's conviction to be referred to the Court of Appeal or the Criminal Cases Review Commission. The letters stress that the determination of the review does not mean that the convictions are unsafe. That will be a matter for the Court of Appeal to decide in due course, if the defendants decide to take the matter further. While I believe, after careful review, the vast majority of shaken baby syndrome convictions do not give rise to concern, it remains open to anyone with such a conviction to seek leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal or a referral to the Criminal Cases Review Commission. To ensure that this problem does not happen again, the DPP will be issuing further guidance to prosecutors as a result of this review. Infant death cases such as those of Angela Cannings and Sally Clark led to concern among practitioners and the public at the way in which the criminal dealt with the issues surrounding expert evidence. It is a concern I share. I can therefore announce today that, as a result of that work between the Crown Prosecution Service and ACPO, we will now be implementing new guidance that focuses on the requirements made on such witnesses in terms of disclosure. Where experts are police employees, they will continue to work to the requirements of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996, and in particular the obligations to retain, record and reveal. Experts who are not police employees will receive a guidance booklet setting out what is required of them, including the need to reveal to the investigator all the material they will have created in working on the case. They will also be required to certify that they have revealed to the prosecution any information that might adversely affect their credibility and/or competence as an expert witness. They are reminded that they must not give expert opinion beyond their area of expertise. This guidance will set standards across the criminal justice system for the use of expert witnesses. The new guidance is one of a number of initiatives underway across government which will improve the management of expert evidence in the criminal courts. In addition the Criminal Procedure Rule Committee is considering new rules that would provide explicitly for pre-trial discussion between experts to identify areas of agreement or disagreement and so save court time. I believe the clear and thorough guidelines I have announced today will assist in bringing about greater confidence in the criminal justice system in handling such difficult cases where expert witnesses are called on””.