The extraordinary decision of two jurors to speak out against the verdict in the Keran Henderson case was documented by Legal Editor Frances Gibb in the Times on December 19, 2007, under the heading "Jurors break silence to insist childminder did not kill baby."
"Two jurors have spoken out to question the guilty verdict in a case last month in which a childminder was jailed for shaking a baby to death," the story began.
"In an unprecedented move, the two jurors – a man and a woman – say they believe that Keran Henderson, 42, a childminder and mother, was wrongly convicted of killing 11-month-old Maeve Sheppard by shaking her so violently that she was left blind and brain damaged," it continued;
"Henderson, a respected Scout leader, allegedly lost her temper and shook the baby so hard that she was taken to hospital, blind and unconscious. She died two days later.
But the jury foreman, who cannot be named for legal reasons, has told The Times that he does not think the case should ever have come to court.
Expert View
The two jurors have demonstrated the urgent need for full-scale research into the 'secrets' of the jury room;
“A case relying on circumstantial evidence and forensic opinion based on evidential proof from other cases should never have reached a court,” he said. He added: “I think that although the trial was very carefully run, the case in my view was flawed and the accused innocent.”
He said: “I think Mrs Henderson’s heartrending response [she broke down in uncontrolled weeping] to the verdict confirms that it was flawed.”
A second juror named as Carol told BBC Radio 5 Live yesterday: “I believe a miscarriage of justice has occurred and there’s nothing I can do about it.
“I don’t think you can get a fair outcome. I will never know, as long as I live, whether the verdict was right or not because we have not got all this medical expertise and I think if medics can’t decide between themselves, what chance have we got?”
Jurors are prohibited by law from disclosing the secrets of the jury room and the discussions as to how a verdict was reached. But the readiness of two of the 12 in this trial to speak out is an indication of how strongly they feel.
A campaign has already begun by friends and relatives who maintain that Henderson is innocent and want to secure her release. She was jailed for three years. And yesterday an MP called for an inquiry into the use of medical experts in trials.
At the time of the trial, some media commentators suggested that the verdict was unjust. They said that it raised a question mark over majority verdicts, implying that given more time the jury might have reached a different verdict.
But the foreman of the jury insisted that the verdict was understandable on the basis of medical expert evidence presented.
Henderson qualified as a childminder in 2000 and often had up to eight children in her care at her home in Iver Heath, Buckinghamshire. She had looked after Maeve since January 2005, having been recommended to her parents, Ruth and Stephen, by a mutual friend.
On the day Maeve died she was described as “full of energy” although she had been unwell in the weeks before her death.
The jury foreman told The Times that there was no question, as has been suggested, of the jury being rushed. It was given ample time and the decision was 10-2 against, all based on the evidence.”
He added: “The jury majority voted guilty because it could do no other.
“The medical evidence was overwhelming. All the necessary ingredients of what the experts call the ‘triad’ [a collection of features typically caused by shaking that lead to hypoxic-ischaemic brain injury and death] were there.
“But many expert witnesses vouchsafe that the literature on shaken baby syndrome is contentious and far from complete. And so who caused the death, or whether anyone did, is not proved. The evidence, whether expert or other, was merely circumstantial – probabilities, therefore uncertainties.”
The juror said that the defence was good; but up against “the weight of a dozen medical and forensic experts, was clearly on a hiding to nothing.
“The circumstances were that of amateurs made to do a professional’s job.
“Such a complex case was made easier by the judge’s excellent, well-rounded summary . . . although we were told we could not have a transcript.” Had the jury been given a transcript they might have reached a better verdict, he added.
What was not proved, he said, was who caused the death “or indeed whether anyone did”.
He added: “Ultimately the case was decided by laymen and laywomen using that despicable enemy of correct and logical thinking, that wonderfully persuasive device, common sense.”
The outcome has left him disillusioned with the jury system. “One’s peers, however good and true, are generally not up to the job.”
The Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming, chairman of Justice for Families, called on the Government and the judiciary to set up a review of medical expert evidence. “Keran Henderson’s case had been taken up by the Angela Cannings Foundation, who believe that a miscarriage of justice has occurred,” he said.
“This makes it clear that the way in which our courts use expert evidence, and particularly medical expert evidence, has insufficient intellectual rigour. Evidence which is clearly unreliable and based upon pet theories without proper research groundings is accepted as fact in court.” He said he had written to the Lord Chief Justice and the Attorney-General."
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
