R v Lane
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE CROOM-JOHNSON |
| Judgment Date | 31 July 1985 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1985] EWCA Crim J0731-1 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 4712/B/84: 4836/C/84 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Date | 31 July 1985 |
[1985] EWCA Crim J0731-1
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Lord Justice Croom-Johnson
Mr. Justice Hirst
and
Sir John Thompson
Nos. 4712/B/84: 4836/C/84
MR. G. ELIAS QC and MR. R. CHRISTIE appeared as Counsel on behalf of the Appellant Linda Joan Lane.
MR. M. STEPHENS QC and MR. N. COOKE appeared as Counsel on behalf of the Appellant James Lane.
MR. J. ROGERS QC and MR. J. WILLIAMS appeared as Counsel on behalf of the Crown.
Linda Joan Lane and James Lane were jointly charged on an indictment containing two counts. Count 1 was of manslaughter, in that on 2nd September, 1983 they both unlawfully killed Sara Monique Phillips, the 22-month old daughter of Linda Lane by her former marriage. Count 2 was of cruelty to a person under 16 years contrary to s. 1 (1) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. The subsection is wide-ranging and where relevant reads: "If any person who has attained the age of sixteen years and has the custody, charge, or care of any child or young person under that age, wilfully assaults, ill-treats, neglects, abandons, or exposes him, or causes or procures him to be assaulted, ill-treated, neglected, abandoned, or exposed, in a manner likely to cause him unnecessary suffering or injury to health (including injury to or loss of sight, or hearing, or limb). … that person shall be guilty of an offence." The penalty on indictment is a fine or imprisonment not exceeding two years.
In this indictment the particulars of the offence in count 2 charged the Lanes that "on a day or days unknown between the 31st day of December, 1982 and the 3rd day of September, 1983", they "wilfully ill-treated" Sara Monique Phillips. They did not allege those parts of the subsection specifying, for example, neglect.
Mr. and Mrs. Lane began living together in February, 1983 and were married in June, 1983 after Mrs. Lane's previous marriage was dissolved. At trial both defendants pleaded not guilty to both counts. They were both convicted on both counts, and each was sentenced to six years' imprisonment on count 1 and two years' imprisonment on count 2 to run concurrently. Linds Lane appealed against her conviction on count 1 but not against that on count 2. James appealed against his conviction of both but in argument in this Court abandoned his appeal on count 2.
On 30th April, 17th June and 1st July, 1983 Sara was admitted to hospital and on each occasion was found to be suffering from injuries that had not been caused by accident. There were no explanations satisfactorily given as to how those injuries were caused. Those three occasions formed the subject of count 2. During the evening of 1st September, 1983 Sara was again admitted to hospital, suffering from injuries from which she died during the early hours of 2nd September. Since no issues any longer turn on the earlier, count 2, incidents, they can be taken shortly.
The prosecution expressly said that these were not to be treated as similar fact evidence in order to negative any defence of accident which might be advanced to explain the injury on 1st September, and the learned judge so directed the jury. The earlier incidents were described in evidence as mainly non-accidental injuries. On 30th April there were bruises caused by or consistent with hard gripping, slapping or punching. Sara was admitted to hospital with gastro-enteritis. She was otherwise well-nourished and in good condition. On 17th June Sara appeared to be unconscious and not breathing. James Lane said at the time he had tried to give the "kiss of life", but there was no evidence to connect his attempt with any injury found to Sara. On her admission to hospital bruising was found which was thought to be non-accidental. There was also some brain injury which was consistent with shaking.
On 1st July the family doctor, Dr. Baig, saw the child in the morning. She was then all right. In the evening he was sent for and found her unconscious and on occasions not breathing. Both Linda and James Lane denied having hit her. The medical evidence was that there was neurological damage to the brain consistent with violent shaking. There was no evidence of a blow to the head. Neither appellant described any incident which would explain Sara's condition. Sara was taken to hospital, where she remained until 12th August, because while she was an in-patient she contracted measles. It appears that at this time an infection of the foot developed. It was accepted by counsel for Linda Lane that the explanations given by her at the time could not have been true, and had been given perhaps to shield her husband or for fear that her child would be taken into care. There was a real possibility that that might happen.
Before 1st September Sara was visited daily by medical staff to treat the infected foot. No complaint was made against the parents in respect of the foot. There was some confused and contradictory prosecution evidence about whether or not she then had a small bruise on her forehead.
On 1st September Linda brought Sara to the hospital in the morning for a routine medical appointment. In evidence Dr. Evans said that he examined the child and noted that there were no new haemorrhages and that the only visible bruise was on her back. Linda Lane left the hospital with Sara and returned home with her at noon. At 8.39 p.m. the ambulance was called by the appell ants and Sara was again taken to hospital. The injury from which she died was therefore, sustained during that period of 8½ hours.
After Linda had taken Sara home from hospital at noon the child was in the company of one or other or both of the appellants almost all day. There was some time during the afternoon, though how long is not clear, when she was alone in her cot while James went out to shop. But there is no suggestion that any injury was inflicted by a third person.
The movements of the two appellants came from times given by them, which varied from interview to interview, or from other persons whom they visited or spoke to when they were out. A very rough reconstruction is that at 12.30 p.m. James went out to visit his mother and returned at 2 p.m.; that soon after that Linda went out to visit some friends and returned at 5 p.m., by which time James was at home. At some time during the afternoon James was out again, as has been said, for some uncertain time. At 6 p.m. Linda went out again and came back at 8 p.m.
There is no question but that both parents were arguing with each 6ther during the day. Shortly before the ambulance was called Sara was seen and heard to he unwell. Linda accompanied Sara in the ambulance to the hospital, where she remained. On examination Sara was found to be unconscious. Extensive haemorrhages were found in both eyes. There was a severe bruise on the right side of her face and in her ear which was later found to bear a pattern similar to that on the edge of a rush mat in the kitchen of the appellants' home. X-ray examination showed a fracture of the skull. The doctor who conducted the examination said that it was not possible for the bruising or the fracture to have been caused by a simple fall on to the mat. He was of the view that the injuries would have required considerable force. This view was confirmed by the post-mortem examination. The injuries were consistent with having been caused by a single blow. Sara died in the early hours of 2nd September.
The medical evidence went no further than to prove that the injuries from which Sara died had been caused at some time between 12.30 and 8.30 p.m. During that time each of the appellants, as has been said, had been alone for some time with the child.
When the Crown opened the case on count 1, manslaughter, it was said that the injuries had been caused by one or other or both of the appellants, but that it could not be established which of them had done so. Analysing it further, there was no evidence of the time when the blow was struck, who did it, or even who was present when it happened.
There followed a number of interviews between the police and each appellant. They lasted over several days. They were long interviews, properly conducted, but very detailed. In the bundle of exhibits they consist of more than 300 pages. In all Linda was seen nine times, and she consistently denied any responsibility. James was interviewed nine times, and he too denied responsibility.
Soon after Sara's death, when at the hospital there was some talk about a possible charge of manslaughter, Linda and James agreed together to say that they had been together all day, to "alibi each other", as one of them said. At first Linda told the police that she had been in with James all day, but police information about their various movements soon caused her to abandon that. James said that he and Linda had agreed to say that, but he did not himself put forward that statement to the police. By the end of his long interviews he had given conflicting accounts of his movements and the times at which events took place. He strongly denied that he had struck Sara or that Linda had done so.
The police arranged three confrontations between Linda and James. These produced nothing in the way of admissions by either of them. The first took place at about noon on 2nd September. Until then Linda had denied that she had injured Sara and finally said that it must have been her husband who had done so. James, for his part, denied that he or Linda had done so. When the first confrontation took place Linda accused him of having killed her child. James said: "1 can't believe that she really means what she is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- R v Nojimu Giwa Bilkis Giwa
-
Bernal et Al v Reginam
...and Fox v Chief Constable of Merseyside [1988] Crim. L.R. 247, which restated the principle set out in R. v. Abbott (supra). [See also R. v. Lane (1986) 82 Cr. App. R 5]. Because of its relevance to this complaint, the following passage from the learned resident magistrate's judgment is aga......
-
R v Ikram and Parveen
...be acquitted at the conclusion of the prosecution case”. The consequences were illustrated in a number of well known decisions, such as R v Lane and Lane [1986] 82 CAR 5, where it was alleged that two defendants, jointly indicted, unlawfully killed a child in their household, without the ev......
-
Re J (Children) (Care Proceedings: Threshold Criteria) [SC]
...seriously injured or died at the hands of one of his parents, but it could not be proved which, both had to be acquitted: see, for example, R v Lane (1986) 82 Cr App R 39 It will be immediately apparent that child care law already protects the child who is injured in such circumstances. He......
-
Court of Appeal
...thatA or B has committed an offence, but cannot say which of thetwo is guilty. Both must be found not guilty: see R. v. Lane andLane (1986) 82 Cr.App.R. 5. The difficulty which can arise fromputting before the jury two sets of mutually destructive counts wasexaggerated in the present case b......
-
Prosecuting Complicity
...[2013] EWCA Crim 1781; RvGiannetto [1997] 1 Cr App R 1; Mohan vR[1967] 2 AC 187; Smith vMellors(1987) 84 Cr App R 279; RvLane (1986) 82 Cr App R 5; RvTowle (1816) Russ & Ry 314; RvMoore (1784) 1 Leach 314.See further G. Williams, ‘Which of You Did It’ (1989) 52 MLR 179.70. RvSalajko [1970] ......
-
Criminalizing Vulnerability
...2016).CasesR v Folbigg [2003] NSWSC 895R v Green & Critchley (unreported, 2013) (Crown Ct (Preston Crown Court))R v Lane & Lane (1986) (1986) 82 Cr App R 5R v Lewis (Rebecca) (unreported, 2006) (Crown Ct (Swansea))R v Mujuru [2007] EWCA Crim 1249R v Rigby & Smedley (unreported, 2012) (Crown......
-
To punish or not to punish? Dealing with death or serious injury of a child or vulnerable adult
...to the head byeither her mother or stepfather. In the initial trial both defendants were found guilty of manslaughter and1. Lane vLane (1985) 82 Cr App R 5 and RvAston and Mason (1992) 94 Cr App R 180.2. (1984) 80 Cr App R 24.3. Ibid. at 30.4. Ibid. at 29.5. Ibid. at 30.6. Lane vLane (1985)......