R v Cannings
Where there is a serious disagreement between reputable experts about the cause of death of an infant, and no other cogent evidence, the prosecution should not generally proceed.
Facts
Angela Cannings was convicted of the murder of two of her infant sons, who had died suddenly. A third child had also died. There was no evidence of harm to the children other than the fact of the deaths, and the prosecution relied on expert evidence that the deaths were unlikely to be natural, while the defence called experts who said that they could be explained by natural causes, including a genetic condition. She appealed against her convictions after the Sally Clark case.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal quashed the convictions. Judge LJ said that, where a full investigation into two or more sudden unexplained infant deaths in the same family is followed by a serious disagreement between reputable experts about the cause of death, and a body of such expert opinion concludes that natural causes, whether explained or unexplained, cannot be excluded as a reasonable and not a fanciful possibility, the prosecution of a parent for murder should not be started or continued, unless there is additional cogent evidence, extraneous to the expert evidence, which tends to support the conclusion that the infant was deliberately harmed. The case led to a review of many other cases.
Related cases on witnesses, identification and expert evidence
- Jones v Kaney [2011] UKSC 13, [2011] 2 AC 398
- Kennedy v Cordia (Services) LLP [2016] UKSC 6, [2016] 1 WLR 597
- R v Barker [2010] EWCA Crim 4
- R v Clark (Sally) [2003] EWCA Crim 1020
- R v Dallagher [2002] EWCA Crim 1903
- R v Davis [2008] UKHL 36, [2008] 1 AC 1128
- R v Forbes [2001] 1 AC 473
- R v Lucas [1981] QB 720
Studying evidence? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
