Commentary
Laura Langley, 38, was alleged to have killed her seven-week-old daughter Edith who collapsed at the family home in Blackpool, Lancashire, in the early hours of 20 November 2020. Efforts were made to revive Edith by paramedics and then in hospital before she was declared dead. Ms Langley was charged after it was discovered Edith had sustained 33 rib fractures. She went on trial in October 2023 but the jury was discharged so expert evidence could be reviewed. Days before the start of a scheduled retrial, the Crown Prosecution announced: "Following a review of new, additional expert evidence, we have concluded there is no longer a reasonable prospect of securing a conviction. On that basis it was right for us to end the proceedings." Accordingly, the mother was acquitted of Edith's murder at the direction of the court.
See: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwy1wy4l3v3o
The mother then successfully applied to re-open findings of fact regarding the death of Edith made in the Family Court in a judgment handed down on 25 April 2023. The court had found that the mother inflicted non-accidental injury to Edith on two occasions and caused her death. A key factor in the court's decision to permit its findings to be re-opened was the expert opinions provided for the criminal proceedings by Professor N and Professor D for the defence and Professor G for the Crown.
Having heard their evidence, and that of other experts, the Mr Justice Macdonald found that: the mother was responsible for all of the rib fractures identified by reason of applying a squeezing force to Edith's chest on two separate occasions; Edith's death was caused as a result of compressive chest trauma inflicted on her by the mother on 20 November 2020; the mother was responsible for the death of Edith; in an attempt to conceal the truth and exculpate herself from any responsibility, the mother had not been honest with professionals engaging in promoting and safeguarding the welfare of the R.
With considerable regret, Mr Justice Macdonald said he was “satisfied that the evidence of Professor G, of Professor N and of Professor D each at times fell below the high standard expected of expert witnesses giving evidence before the family court in this jurisdiction”. He added that the concerns he had highlighted with respect to their expert evidence were “thrown into still sharper relief in circumstances where their evidence appears to have played a significant role in the decision of the Crown Prosecution Service to offer no evidence against the mother in her trial for the murder of Edith”.
This judgment illustrates a number of important lessons for expert witnesses. The criticisms go well beyond a disagreement between experts—they concern the duties of an expert to the court. An expert who appears to defend a predetermined hypothesis rather than follow the evidence risks losing credibility entirely, regardless of their qualifications or experience. This judgment illustrates that methodological rigour, transparency, and impartiality are essential to persuasive expert testimony.
Learning points
-
The most persuasive expert evidence is not the evidence expressed with the greatest certainty. It is evidence demonstrating a transparent, independent, and scientifically grounded reasoning process. Reliable expert evidence:
-
identifies accurate facts and observations;
-
distinguishes fact from inference and hypothesis;
-
applies reliable methods;
-
uses appropriate scientific foundations;
-
considers the complete evidential picture;
-
addresses alternative explanations;
-
fairly engages with contrary evidence;
-
acknowledges uncertainty and limitations; and
-
explains why the balance of evidence supports one interpretation over another.
Case
The concerned the welfare of RR, born in 2014, and now aged 11 years old. The parents had another child, Edith, born on 30 September 2020. Edith died on 20 November 2020. This matter came before the court following the successful application by the mother to re-open findings of fact regarding the death of Edith made by this court in a judgment handed down on 25 April 2023. There followed criminal proceedings against the mother in which, ultimately, the Crown offered no evidence in light of conflicting expert medical opinions. Accordingly, the mother was acquitted of Edith's murder at the direction of the court.
There had been in this case a perhaps unprecedented level of expert discussion and analysis of a number of areas of controversy concerning the significance of bone fractures in infants. These include the question of whether bone fragility can present without any physiological signs beyond the presence of a significant number of fractures, whether minute lesions in metaphyses comprise small fractures or are lesions consequent upon remodelling in response to 'micro injury' or metabolic bone disease and whether cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) can cause posterior rib fractures.
To continue reading you must be an EWI member, become a member and access exclusive content.
Already a member? Login