The majority confirmed that the 'triad' of subdural haemorrhages, retinal haemorrhages and encephalopathy remains a valid diagnostic basis for abusive head trauma in criminal proceedings, and that fresh evidence challenging the scientific consensus underlying the triad will not be admitted where it is inconsistent with the defence case at trial and would not have resulted in acquittal. Walker JA's dissent raises significant concerns about prosecution disclosure obligations regarding expert witness materials and the reliability of expert evidence denying the existence of medical controversy in the field. The question of whether the science underlying the triad diagnosis is 'settled' or 'controversial' remains a live issue, particularly in light of the SBU Report and evolving international literature.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 4 later cases that cite this judgment.
3 of the 4 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.