The defendant appealed against her conviction for the murder of her two infant children by, in the one case, smothering and, in the other, suffocation. Amongst the experts called at her trial by the Crown was Professor Sir Roy Meadow. The statistical evidence he had given suffered the ‘prosecutor’s fallacy’ and had badly misled the jury.
Held: The appeal was allowed. Evidence had been found that there was a possible second medical explanation for one death, and some analysis had not been revealed by of of the prosecution’s expert witnesses to the court to the defence or to the other expert witnesses.
Judges:
Kay LJ, Holland and Hallett JJ
Citations:
[2003] EWCA Crim 1020
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Hakala CACD 2002
The court discussed the correct approach of the Court of Appeal to new evidence on appeal: ‘However the safety of the appellant’s conviction is examined, the essential question, and ultimately the only question for this Court, is whether, in the . .
Cited – Regina v Doheny, Adams CACD 31-Jul-1996
The court set out the procedure for the introduction of DNA evidence in criminal trials. In particular the court explained the ‘Prosecutor’s Fallacy’ when using statistical evidence. The significance of the DNA evidence will depend critically upon . .
Cited by:
Cited – Kent County Council v The Mother, The Father, B (By Her Children’s Guardian); Re B (A Child) (Disclosure) FD 19-Mar-2004
The council had taken the applicant’s children into care alleging that the mother had harmed them. In the light of the subsequent cases casting doubt on such findings, the mother sought the return of her children. She applied now that the hearings . .
See Also – Regina v Clark CACD 2-Oct-2000
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Evidence
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227040
