The Court of Appeal held that a manslaughter conviction based on shaking a baby could not stand where the Crown's expert medical evidence did not affirmatively support either causation theory advanced by the prosecution. The Court held it was not open to a jury to reject unchallenged expert opinion that death was not caused by re-bleeding or shaking, and then reach an affirmative conclusion to the opposite effect beyond reasonable doubt, absent other evidence justifying such a conclusion. The Court also held that where manslaughter is alleged on alternative bases involving discrete physical acts on different days, the jury must be directed that they need to be unanimous as to which act founds the conviction.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 180 later cases that cite this judgment.
37 of the 180 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.