Summary Judgment: R –v– Harris, Rock, Cherry and Faulder

1. Though all raising issues connected with “baby shaking”, more accurately, non-accidental head injury (“NAHI”), these four appeals have been separately determined in accordance with their own individual facts, as is illustrated by their different outcomes
2. Courts can and must, when necessary to the outcome, resolve questions concerning disputed expert evidence but such questions must relate to the issues in the instant case and the manner of resolution will depend on the Court’s function in the particular manner; the role of the Court of Appeal Criminal Division is and is no more than to review the safety of the convictions in the case(s) before it. Courts do not act as arbiters of intra-professional debates, unrelated to the issues before them.
3. The Court has followed and endorsed the observations in R v Kai-Whitewind [2005] EWCA Crim 1092 emphasising the limited scope of the Court’s observations in R V Cannings [2004] 2 Cr.App. R. 7.
4. As a result of the evidence given on these appeals, the “unified hypothesis” (Geddes III) cannot be regarded as a credible or alternative cause of the “triad of injuries” (encephalopathy, subdural haemorrhages and retinal haemorrhages), the latter hitherto regarded by some (but not all) as diagnostic of NAHI, and by all as consistent with NAHI.
5. Geddes I and II retain validity but with important limitations as to their true scope and their ability to explain subdural haemorrhages and retinal haemorrhages.
6. The mere presence of the “triad” does not automatically or necessarily lead to a diagnosis of NAHI and/or a conclusion of unlawful killing. The triad has not, however, been undermined in the manner envisaged by the authors of Geddes III.
7. The Court declined an invitation to give new guidance as to expert witnesses but underlined the importance of compliance with existing guidance.
8. The Court’s decisions in the individual appeals are as follows. The appeal of Lorraine Harris is allowed and her conviction for manslaughter quashed. The appeal of Raymond Rock is allowed to the extent that his conviction for murder is quashed and a verdict of guilty of manslaughter substituted. The appeal of Alan Cherry is dismissed. The appeal of Michael Faulder is allowed and his conviction for s.20 inflicting grievous bodily harm is quashed.
9. These appeals are not concerned with the issues raised in the recent hearing involving Professor Roy Meadows.

Notes for Editors

This is a summary of the judgment made by Lord Justice Gage, Mr Justice Gross and Mr Justice McFarlane in the Court of Appeal on 21 July 2005.

Ends