Is it possible now for any court to discover the truth behind the suspicious death of an infant? The order by a judge to stop the case against Mark Latta, who was accused of killing his 10-week old daughter Charlotte, raises further worrying questions about the impact of the ruling laid down some weeks ago by the deputy Lord Chief Justice, Lord Justice Judge. This said that where medical experts disagreed over the cause of the infant's death, there should be no prosecution of its parents unless fresh evidence was brought forward.

This ruling was apparently used by the defence in the Latta case. After thinking about the defence submission, the judge halted the trial. '“It is not simply that there is a clash of opinion. There is a valid dispute on almost every aspect of the medical evidence,” he said.' Yet he also said: 'That someone had abused Charlotte Latta is beyond doubt. Whilst Mark Latta was one of those who could have inflicted these injuries there is absolutely no evidence that he did so.” '

But if the baby was attacked, how does this square with the judge's implication as reported that, according to the disputes in the medical evidence, the death may have been from other, natural causes? Isn't it the role of a court to interrogate evidence in such a way that a jury can conclude beyond reasonable doubt which expert is likely to be right? And since virtually all cases like this involve disputes between experts, how are any culprits ever to be prosecuted?

Posted by melanie at April 21, 2004