R v Clark (Sally)
The conviction of a mother for the murder of her two babies was quashed, because a pathologist had failed to disclose evidence of infection and an expert's misleading statistical evidence may have influenced the jury.
Facts
Sally Clark, a solicitor, was convicted of the murder of her two infant sons, who had died suddenly within a short time of each other. At her trial, Professor Sir Roy Meadow gave evidence that the chance of two children in an affluent family dying of sudden infant death syndrome was about 1 in 73 million. Her first appeal was dismissed. After her conviction, it emerged that the pathologist who carried out the post mortem examinations had failed to disclose the results of microbiological tests showing that the second baby had a bacterial infection which might have caused his death.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal quashed the convictions on her second appeal, following a reference by the Criminal Cases Review Commission. The court held that the failure to disclose the test results meant that the convictions were unsafe, because the evidence might have led the jury to conclude that the second baby had died of natural causes. The court also observed that the statistical evidence given by Professor Meadow had been seriously flawed, because it assumed that the deaths were independent events, and that it might have had a major effect on the jury. The case led to a review of other convictions which had relied on similar expert evidence.
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 Cannings [2004] EWCA Crim 1
- 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.
