The Duties of Expert Witnesses of Fact and Opinion: R v Clark (Sally)
| Author | Déirdre Dwyer |
| Published date | 01 December 2003 |
| Date | 01 December 2003 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1350/ijep.7.4.264.21946 |
| Subject Matter | Case Note |
264 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EVIDENCE & PROOF
CASE NOTE
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EVIDENCE & PROOF (2003) 7 E&P 264–269
M
The duties of expert witnesses of fact
and opinion:
R
v
Clark (Sally)
By Déirdre Dwyer
University of Reading
rs Sally Clark was convicted on 9 November 1999 of the murder of each
of her two baby sons, Christopher and Harry. Her first appeal was
dismissed on 2 October 2000. At a second appeal, in January 2003, the
Court of Appeal quashed that conviction, on the basis of new evidence that
provided a real possibility that the two verdicts might be rendered unsafe.1 The
Crown did not seek a retrial.
This case raises significant issues about the duties of expert witnesses in providing
evidence of fact and opinion.
The facts of the case
Mrs Clark’s first child Christopher, born on 26 September 1996, was an apparently
healthy baby until his sudden death on 13 December 1996. At post-mortem, the
Home Office pathologist, Dr Williams, concluded that the cause of death was
lower respiratory tract infection. Christopher’s death was treated as a case of
sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) and the body was cremated.
Mrs Clark’s second child Harry, born on 29 November 1997, was again an
apparently healthy baby until his sudden death on 26 January 1998. Dr Williams
again conducted the post-mortem, and this time concluded that shaking was a
likely cause of death, on the basis of injuries that he believed were indicative of
non-accidental injury. He reconsidered Christopher’s case and concluded that
the first death had also been unnatural, with evidence of smothering.
1R v Clark (Sally) [2003] EWCA Crim 1020.
To continue reading
Request your trial