Category: Let's talk
today there was an article on the radio about a couple who are launching an appeal after they were convicted last month of the manslaughter of their soon to be adopted son. The 3 year old child was admitted to hospital and had been found to have large quantities of salt in his blood stream. it was thought this couple had fed him salt as a punishment for not eating his food. Apparently, part of the evidence that was provided was an article written by professor Sir Roy Meadows, who is a well-known, but now somewhat infamous pediatrician. he appeared as an expert witness in the cases of Sally Clarke, and Angela Cannings, who were aquitted of killing their babies after spending some time in prison having been convicted on his evidence. the brother of this latest case, Angela Gay, said that they were relying on her being aquitted because the article had been written by Roy Meadows. So is it possible that because he has now been discretided in previous cases, that women will get away with killing their children, or will assume they'll get away with it if he has anything to do with evidence?
They shouldn't get away with it! That's horrible! I mean, isn't it kind of obvious that feeding a youngster salt in liberal doses could ultimately be fatal?
We have to remember that Angela Cannings and Sally Clarke were tragically and falsely accused, of killing babies who had died naturally,the mothers undertook a long and courageous campaign against this Doctor. I can only guess that his evidence given against Ms Gray, will have to be re-examined and its validity called into question
... its a wonder he is still allowed to practise medicine, but often these people are above the law and the medical profession looks after its own..
See, that's the thing you have to be careful of. Most doctors are good and help people, but you're going to get the creep doctor now and again. You just have to be careful, I don't know how exactly but you do. okay this was a totally stupid post sorry. But yes I suppose the doctor will ahve to be talked to and the case reexamined and what not.
There is a very real worry with this Doctor if he was the only 1 to examine that child and he stated that the mother did harm her child,then the court would be in a quandry because how can you believe the evidence of a man who has previously lied...
.........Also how many "abused" children has he examined and wrongly diagnosed, I wonder if this man has some kind of hidden agenda and I question his intentions...
I do question thm too...why couldn't the child have been examined by another doctor, one that had not had a previous record of lying?
Because he would be the top man and in the medical profession there is an unwritten law that you do NOT question the top consultant or registrar ect, their word is law and thats that.
This topic is given a somewhat inflamatory, and dare I say it a somewhat misleading and not entirely balanced title. I'm afraid Sugarbaby that the need for an appeal is obvious. this chap was not just discredited, he was demolished. The couple were convicted on evidence whose credibility is now worthless, and yes I do mean completely worthless. This does not mean that the court of appeal will overturn the convictions, but there is a realistic chance that they will and that they will perhaps order a retrial on new evidence provided by another expert. I'm afraid it's extremely artificial to talk about them 'getting away with it' when none of us were at the trial, none of us have full knowledge of the circumstancial evidence that may have supported the expert's view, and I doubt we could describe the likes of Sally clarke as getting away with it could we? remember, this is more than a technicality we're talking aboutt here. it's not some lawyerly point that the conviction should be overturned because the judge didn't correctly interpret subparagraph 4 of schedule 25 to the criminal Justice Act 2003, nor that the appeal should be overturned because the judge missed a few sentences out of his summing up to the jury. no, this is in effect the use of possibly completely false evidence, which is a fundamental flaw. We don't allow the police to plant evidence and we can't allow people to be convicted on hopeless expert evidence. So what will happen is this: there will be a substantive hearing as to the expert's duties, his conduct and his evidence, its credibility and sustainaability. If it is shown that the evidence is worthless as has been shown with other appeals that this doctor has been involved in, then it's in effect new medical evidence and the case will be remitted for trial, and nothing else would be acceptable. I want to make it clear that talk of their getting away with it, especially in the context of this situation with this particular expert, is misguided. No, I do not think that women can assume they'll get away with murder merely by appealing against expert evidence, but to appeal is their right. If they are wrong, they will lose. If they are right, then they will and should win.
Good grief Lawlord you confuse me! But I think the nub and thrust of what you're saying is that, as we weren't there, we shouldnt' judge the situation and what not. Which makes some good sense. ... I mean if it's proven that thsi mother really did kill her child she should be convicted, but if she didnt' then obviously she shouldnt' be convicted. And i don't think one doctor sayign that she meant to kill her child should be enough to condemn her, but tha'ts just me.
that is part of what I am saying, Caitlin. The other part, in summary, is that this is the most glaringly just and obvious basis for an appeal, whatever its outcome may be, and that consequently, it is misconceived to condemn the couple on the fface of clearly bad evidence as this topic, by its title, purports to do.
Ooooh okay, I kinda didn't get that part but I think I do now. ... So when will we know how this turned out?
actally though, this professor did not appear at the trial as an expert witness, it was purely something that he had written that was brought up as evidence for the prosicution, and it is on that basis that they are appealing. Secondly, a large number of the cases where Prof Sir Roy Meadows appeared as expert witness were reviewed, and only a small proportion of those were actually re-tried.
Fact of it is, this couple have, to date, been found guilty of manslaughter, and yes, they have the right to appeal against that conviction, as does any convicted criminal, even rosemary West, although she lost that appeal, and it will be up to an appeal court to decide if the conviction is safe. but in the eyes of the law, right now, that couple is guilty of manslaughter, until they are proved innocent.
True, Sugarbaby, perfectly true, but in post 1 of this topic you make a very specific point, whereas in post 12 you appear to be talking more about appeals generally. You ask the question whether it will be possible they'll get away with it, implying of course that even if an appeal is successful, they'll still be guilty in your eyes. Now, I could understand that sort of a reaction if, as I said before, they were appealing on the basis of the invocation of a bizarre cannon of statutory construction or something similar, but they're not. AS you quite rightly state, they have the right to appeal against evidence which has been significantly discredited since the trial leading to the quashing of a small number, but a sufficiently concerning number, of convictions. The consequence of that admission is that you'll agree with me that this is a glaringly obvious case for an appeal. Consequently, talking of their 'getting away with it' is misleading because of the loaded nature of that expression. Your essential concern, it seems to me, is that women will assume they will escape conviction purely because Sir Roy Meadows' opinion was found to be flawed in previous cases, but I don't think that by bringing an appeal there is any such assumption. The grounds of appeal are that the article was written by Roy Meadows whose opinion must now be doubted, and that is an entirely propper ground of appeal. If a barrister didn't pick up on that he would probably be guilty of professional misconduct. People appeal on the basis of new medical evidence all the time, or medical advances I should say. How do you think that battered wife syndrome was discovered? well it was discovered because of the case of R v. Thornton no. 2 in 1996, which was an appeal against a murder conviction. The upshot of course is that the notion of their 'getting away with it' being a very loaded expression to use, gives the impression that even if the appeal is successful you'll still consider them guilty. I'm not saying that is your view, but that's how it seems.
but ll this case was tried after the convictions of Angela Cannings and Sally Clarke had been quashed. If Roy Meadows opinions and evidence is considered so doubtful, then why is it still being used in trials?
Unfortunately Sugarbaby, you've just made my own point for me beautifully. I'll tell you why the evidence may have been used: either it was gathered prior to the appeal of Sally clarke, which was the one that really finished Roy Meadows off, or alternatively it was a prosecutorial oversight on the part of the crown. Either way, it seems a paradigm case for an appeal, which further underlines the point that talk of their 'getting away with it' is misplaced and wrong, in any context. In short, I accept your point that the crown must have had faith in the evidence to use it, but this in my view was an error on their part. even if I am wrong on that point, it should have been blindingly obvious to counsel for the crown that this would be a point the defence would take against them, and quite rightly so. It will be up to the crown on appeal to show that the evidence is still worthy of examination, and that's a point worth remembering. all the defence has to establish is that there is some doubt, and it's glaringly obvious that this expert's evidence is going to be viewed with suspicion forever, by counsel and courts alike. It would be a damning indictment on the justice system were innocent people to be convicted on evidence that was lacking credibility so I think Sugarbaby that what is going to happen here is a retrial, and quite right and proper.
but why was the credibility of the evidence not questioned at the original trial then!
Well Sugarbaby, let me ask you this: you've told us already that the expert did not testify at trial. You've also told us that the evidence used was based merely on what he wrote. My question to you, then, is how can the credibility of evidence by a witness be challenged when that witness is not there to be cross-examined? The defence couldn't ask questions about the evidence, could it? Whoever the forensic expert was at the trial might well have used the Meadows article, but he cannot be cross-examined about that as it is a hearsay statement and one cannot cross-examine a witness about matters that lie outside his own knowledge. the most that could have been said would have been something along the lines of: 'you are aware, Mr forensic expert, that evidence by this particular doctor has been undermined in the past, aren't you? And it might be reasonable to suggest that in this case this is what happened, would that be a fair assessment?' You'll see that this is very limited cross-examination, and more detail would have been possible had the crown actually had roy Meadows at court. but, assuming even the best case scenario viz. that both our hypothetical questions were answered 'yes' by our forensic expert, the judge would still have to deliver an adequate warning to the jury about the evidence in his summing up. If the expert answered 'no' to both our questions, then the defence could merely ask the judge to warn the jury about the possible question surrounding the credibility of Sir Roy Meadows' research. In either case, if the judge forgets to do this, then that is a paradigm case for an appeal. do you see the problem? your point is a good one in that nobody can expect you to be familiar with the minutiae of crown court trial procedure, but with no witness actually there, questions as to credibility cannot really be asked, and it is far more likely that the jury were not properly directed on the medical evidence. a misdirection so fundamental and material is, I'm afraid, the paradigm of an appeal, as it jolly well should be.