Unsafe conviction rejected in Roy Meadow expert witness case
http://www.100md.com
《英国医生杂志》
The Court of Appeal last week endorsed the paediatrician Roy Meadow as an expert witness, asserting that he "had and still has enormous expertise" as a child abuse expert.
The comment, from three judges, who rejected an appeal by a man jailed for life for murder after Professor Meadow gave evidence at his trial, came just days after the paediatrician was struck off the medical register for giving misleading evidence at the trial of solicitor Sally Clark.
Paul Martin, who was convicted at Nottingham crown court of murdering Patricia Robinson's 7 month old son, argued that his conviction was unsafe because Professor Meadow had been found guilty of serious professional misconduct and discredited as a witness.
But Lord Justice Kennedy, Mr Justice Crane, and Mr Justice Hedley ruled that the former president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health had not strayed outside the boundaries of his expertise in giving evidence about the length of time a baby's breathing would have to be cut off to cause death or brain damage.
Professor Meadow was struck off for going beyond his expertise in giving statistical evidence about the chances of two cot deaths in a family like Mrs Clark's, which he wrongly put at one in 73 million. Mrs Clark was jailed for killing two of her babies and served more than three years in prison before her conviction was quashed in 2003.
Mr Martin claimed that he had put his hand over baby Shane's mouth to stop him crying and had not intended to harm him.
Professor Meadow told the judge and jury at the trial that it would have taken between one and a half and two minutes to kill the baby and that it could not have been unintentional.
At the appeal, the Crown Prosecution Service called Cindy Christian, associate professor of paediatrics at the University of Pennsylvania, who gave evidence by video link supporting Professor Meadow's conclusions.
The appeal court judgment indicates that the predicted flood of successful appeals in cases in which Professor Meadow gave evidence is unlikely to materialise. It shows that as far as the judges are concerned he has not been discredited generally as an expert witness but only where he ventured beyond his expertise.
Mr Martin was one of 28 people convicted of killing babies in their care whose cases were identified in a review ordered by the attorney general as raising possible concerns over medical evidence in the wake of the Angela Cannings case. Mrs Cannings was convicted of killing two of her babies on disputed medical evidence, including Professor Meadow's, and in the absence of any other evidence.
In Mr Martin's case, the court heard that the baby's mother had seen him grip Shane earlier by both sides of his head and bite his nose, making it bleed. Twenty recent bruises were found on the baby's body, including bruises indicating that a hand had been held firmly over his mouth and chin, and there was an older bruise in the same position on the chin.(Clare Dyer, legal correspondent)
The comment, from three judges, who rejected an appeal by a man jailed for life for murder after Professor Meadow gave evidence at his trial, came just days after the paediatrician was struck off the medical register for giving misleading evidence at the trial of solicitor Sally Clark.
Paul Martin, who was convicted at Nottingham crown court of murdering Patricia Robinson's 7 month old son, argued that his conviction was unsafe because Professor Meadow had been found guilty of serious professional misconduct and discredited as a witness.
But Lord Justice Kennedy, Mr Justice Crane, and Mr Justice Hedley ruled that the former president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health had not strayed outside the boundaries of his expertise in giving evidence about the length of time a baby's breathing would have to be cut off to cause death or brain damage.
Professor Meadow was struck off for going beyond his expertise in giving statistical evidence about the chances of two cot deaths in a family like Mrs Clark's, which he wrongly put at one in 73 million. Mrs Clark was jailed for killing two of her babies and served more than three years in prison before her conviction was quashed in 2003.
Mr Martin claimed that he had put his hand over baby Shane's mouth to stop him crying and had not intended to harm him.
Professor Meadow told the judge and jury at the trial that it would have taken between one and a half and two minutes to kill the baby and that it could not have been unintentional.
At the appeal, the Crown Prosecution Service called Cindy Christian, associate professor of paediatrics at the University of Pennsylvania, who gave evidence by video link supporting Professor Meadow's conclusions.
The appeal court judgment indicates that the predicted flood of successful appeals in cases in which Professor Meadow gave evidence is unlikely to materialise. It shows that as far as the judges are concerned he has not been discredited generally as an expert witness but only where he ventured beyond his expertise.
Mr Martin was one of 28 people convicted of killing babies in their care whose cases were identified in a review ordered by the attorney general as raising possible concerns over medical evidence in the wake of the Angela Cannings case. Mrs Cannings was convicted of killing two of her babies on disputed medical evidence, including Professor Meadow's, and in the absence of any other evidence.
In Mr Martin's case, the court heard that the baby's mother had seen him grip Shane earlier by both sides of his head and bite his nose, making it bleed. Twenty recent bruises were found on the baby's body, including bruises indicating that a hand had been held firmly over his mouth and chin, and there was an older bruise in the same position on the chin.(Clare Dyer, legal correspondent)