BRITISH CROWN PROSECUTION SERViCE UPDATES SHAKEN BABY SYNDROME PROSECUTION GUIDELINES; (THIS BLOG SAYS UPDATE DEMEANS THE BRITISH JUSTICE SYSTEM);

"Evidence of head injuries is unlikely to be sufficient on its own to charge someone with homicide, attempted murder or assault of young children, the Crown Prosecution Service said today.........

But the CPS also said that prosecutors should continue to resist defence challenges that the three injuries associated with NAHI – bleeding into the lining of the eyes, bleeding beneath the brain's dural membrane, and damage to the brain that affected function – might be explained by lack of oxygen, infection or raised intercranial pressure."

REPORTER JAMES MEIKLE: THE GUARDIAN;

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: On the surface, the up-dated Crown Prosecution Service Guidelines appear to be an improvement to the status quo which has been sending innocent parents and caregivers to prison as killers based on a controversial "Shaken Baby Syndrome" medical theory involving the presence of a triad of injuries. In the view of this Blog, the prosecutors demean themselves and their justice system by clinging to a discredited set of medical assumptions which have been rejected by an ever-increasing number of judges and juries, in an apparent bid to shield itself (and the physicians involved) from lawsuits brought by those who have been wrongfully convicted. The up-dated guidelines should have stressed that prosecutors will consider all of the relevant medical evidence related to the death and the psycho-social evidence which may help explain what has occurred on a human level, in order to determine if there is a reasonable prospect of conviction, instead of binding itself to a controversial medical theory. A Crown Prosecution Service which respects the nation's justice system would have committed itself to reviewing all criminal convictions based on the triad to ensure that the convictions were proper - and to compensate all those who are found to have been wrongfully convicted because of its slavish devotion to the discredited theory. For shame...

HAROLD LEVY: PUBLISHER; THE CHARLES SMITH BLOG;

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Evidence of head injuries is unlikely to be sufficient on its own to charge someone with homicide, attempted murder or assault of young children, the Crown Prosecution Service said today," the Guardian stpry by reporter James Meikle published on January 6, 2011 under the heading, "Murder convictions for child head injuries to require extra evidence - CPS: Updated guidance given over when to prosecute in cases of what used to be known as 'shaken baby syndrome,' begins.

"Updated guidance on whether to prosecute in cases of what used to be known as shaken baby syndrome, and is now called non-accidental head injury, or NAHI, says that although medical evidence of intercranial injuries is crucial, other non-medical facts are important," the story continues.

"These might include a history of violence towards children, previous atypical hospital visits of a dead child or siblings, a history of domestic, alcohol or drug abuse and conflicting accounts of what happened.

But the CPS also said that prosecutors should continue to resist defence challenges that the three injuries associated with NAHI – bleeding into the lining of the eyes, bleeding beneath the brain's dural membrane, and damage to the brain that affected function – might be explained by lack of oxygen, infection or raised intercranial pressure.

The guidance updates were issued five years ago following concerns over the evidence of paediatrician Roy Meadow in the prosecution of Angela Cannings, as well as other high profile cases in which it was later decided mothers had been wrongly convicted of child murder. It includes lessons the CPS takes from recent court of appeal and high court decisions.

Karen Squibb-Williams, a senior policy adviser at the CPS, said: "These are complex and sensitive cases … The guidance makes clear that it is unlikely a charge for a homicide or attempted murder or assault could be justified where the only evidence is the triad of injuries."

In cases where the three injuries were found, "the prosecutor will always consider all the surrounding circumstances and the evidence in each case before reaching a decision".

However, prosecutors should also challenge defence experts' attempts to explain the injuries by other medical factors, an accidental short distance fall or as the result of a birthing injury. "It is important for prosecutors to know that the court of appeal has not endorsed the theory challenging the triad and rejected it as recently as July 2010.

"Each case will have its own individual facts and very careful consideration will be given to deciding whether there is sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction, and then whether it is in the public interest to bring a prosecution."

Prosecution guidance was first issued as a result of the legal debate that followed the appeal court's 2003 freeing of Cannings, who had been imprisoned for life for the murder of her two baby sons. The convictions were ruled unsafe, but opened arguments over what weight ought to be given to the evidence of expert witnesses in such cases."

The story can be found at:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jan/06/child-head-injuries-cps

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be accessed at:

http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith

For a breakdown of some of the cases, issues and controversies this Blog is currently following, please turn to:

http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=120008354894645705&postID=8369513443994476774

Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.com;