Kai-Whitewind, Regina v: CACD 3 May 2005

The defendant was convicted of infanticide and murder. The experts differed as to the cause of death. She appealed her conviction saying that the experts in effect cancelled each other out.
Held: Her appeal failed. The jury was entitled to listen to both reports and to choose which it accepted. ‘It was therefore for the jury to evaluate the expert evidence, taking account of the facts found at post mortem, bearing in mind in addition, for example, that the findings related to a infant whose mother had spoken about killing him and had made a comment about smothering another child; who had had difficulties in achieving a bond with him in the way in which she thought appropriate; who may have delayed reporting his death; and who had elected not to give evidence. In the context of disputed expert evidence, on analysis, what was required in this case was no different to that which obtains, for example, when pathologists disagree about the cause of death in a case of alleged strangulation. ‘ The law of infanticide is in need of clarification.


Judge LJ, Hallett, Leveson JJ


[2005] 2 Cr App R 31, [2005] EWCA Crim 1092, Times 11-May-2005




Criminal Appeal Act 1968, Infanticide Act 1938 1(1)


England and Wales


CitedRegina v Angela Cannings CACD 19-Jan-2004
The defendant had been convicted of murdering her children. The substance of the evidence against her was that on a medical expert. His evidence was disputed and later doubted.
Held: Appeal allowed. In general courts should be careful to . .
CitedRegina v Pendleton HL 13-Dec-2001
The defendant had appealed his conviction for murder to the Court of Appeal. The 1968 Act required the court to consider whether the conviction was unsafe. New evidence was before the Court of Appeal, but they had rejected the appeal.
Held: . .

Cited by:

CitedBowman, Regina v CACD 2-Mar-2006
The defendant appealed his conviction of murder saying that evidence of other pathologists undermined the evidence given by similar experts for the crown.
Held: The court took the opportunity to give guidance on the provision of expert . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.224522