Mothers suspected of killing their babies might be dealt with outside criminal system
http://www.100md.com
《英国医生杂志》
BMJ
Mothers suspected of killing their babies could be dealt with outside the criminal justice system rather than prosecuted, suggested the new director of public prosecutions for England and Wales last week.
Ken Macdonald floated the idea in the wake of the appeal court judgment in January in the case of Angela Cannings, whose convictions for killing her two baby sons were quashed in December 2003.
Giving judgment, Lord Justice Judge said that there should not be prosecutions when reputable experts disagreed about the cause of death and there was no other cogent evidence.
Mr Macdonald said there was an "attraction" in removing such cases from the criminal process altogether, as happened in some European countries, where they went to a family law panel.
The Cannings case followed that of Sally Clark, whose convictions for killing her two infant sons were also quashed last year, and Trupti Patel, who was acquitted of killing her three babies. Concerns arose in all three cases that mothers could be wrongly convicted as a result of expert evidence that was too dogmatic.
A formal process bypassing the criminal justice system would require legislation, but it seems likely that cases involving the deaths of several babies will require clear cut evidence before prosecutions go ahead in future.
Trupti Patel was acquitted of killing her three babies
Credit: IJO/REX
Mr Macdonald has pledged to review personally all 15 pending prosecutions of parents or carers for the killing of a child aged under 2, to decide whether the cases should proceed. He said it was unlikely that these were all cases of unexplained sudden infant death—"some will be battered baby cases."
Another 258 cases in which parents or carers have been convicted over the past 10 years are being reviewed by the Criminal Cases Review Commission to see if they fall into the category highlighted by Lord Justice Judge.
Mr Macdonald, a former criminal defence QC who has never prosecuted, said: "One can hardly imagine a worse miscarriage of justice than a woman who has lost her baby, is then convicted of murder, and then sentenced to life in prison."
In civil cases, he said, joint experts were sometimes appointed to reach an independent conclusion rather than taking sides. But in criminal cases, he said, "the view has always been that the defendant is entitled to fight his or her corner and instruct his or her expert witness."
Normally in a criminal case there was other evidence apart from the expert's. But in cases hinging on expert evidence, "across all criminal cases, in an adversarial hearing where you have experts on each side, how is the jury to determine which expert is right?"
In the wake of the Cannings case, ministers promised also to review family court cases involving mothers who were not prosecuted but had their children taken into care on the evidence of expert witnesses. It was thought at the time that thousands of cases might be reopened, but judges and social services directors now expect only a few dozen cases at most to go to the courts.
Many children will have been adopted and adoption orders can be set aside only in the most exceptional circumstances, such as fraud or procedural error.(Clare Dyer, legal corresp)
Mothers suspected of killing their babies could be dealt with outside the criminal justice system rather than prosecuted, suggested the new director of public prosecutions for England and Wales last week.
Ken Macdonald floated the idea in the wake of the appeal court judgment in January in the case of Angela Cannings, whose convictions for killing her two baby sons were quashed in December 2003.
Giving judgment, Lord Justice Judge said that there should not be prosecutions when reputable experts disagreed about the cause of death and there was no other cogent evidence.
Mr Macdonald said there was an "attraction" in removing such cases from the criminal process altogether, as happened in some European countries, where they went to a family law panel.
The Cannings case followed that of Sally Clark, whose convictions for killing her two infant sons were also quashed last year, and Trupti Patel, who was acquitted of killing her three babies. Concerns arose in all three cases that mothers could be wrongly convicted as a result of expert evidence that was too dogmatic.
A formal process bypassing the criminal justice system would require legislation, but it seems likely that cases involving the deaths of several babies will require clear cut evidence before prosecutions go ahead in future.
Trupti Patel was acquitted of killing her three babies
Credit: IJO/REX
Mr Macdonald has pledged to review personally all 15 pending prosecutions of parents or carers for the killing of a child aged under 2, to decide whether the cases should proceed. He said it was unlikely that these were all cases of unexplained sudden infant death—"some will be battered baby cases."
Another 258 cases in which parents or carers have been convicted over the past 10 years are being reviewed by the Criminal Cases Review Commission to see if they fall into the category highlighted by Lord Justice Judge.
Mr Macdonald, a former criminal defence QC who has never prosecuted, said: "One can hardly imagine a worse miscarriage of justice than a woman who has lost her baby, is then convicted of murder, and then sentenced to life in prison."
In civil cases, he said, joint experts were sometimes appointed to reach an independent conclusion rather than taking sides. But in criminal cases, he said, "the view has always been that the defendant is entitled to fight his or her corner and instruct his or her expert witness."
Normally in a criminal case there was other evidence apart from the expert's. But in cases hinging on expert evidence, "across all criminal cases, in an adversarial hearing where you have experts on each side, how is the jury to determine which expert is right?"
In the wake of the Cannings case, ministers promised also to review family court cases involving mothers who were not prosecuted but had their children taken into care on the evidence of expert witnesses. It was thought at the time that thousands of cases might be reopened, but judges and social services directors now expect only a few dozen cases at most to go to the courts.
Many children will have been adopted and adoption orders can be set aside only in the most exceptional circumstances, such as fraud or procedural error.(Clare Dyer, legal corresp)