[2005] EWCA Crim 1092 [2005] EWCA Crim 1092

While there had been conflicting expert opinion about the probable cause of death of the appellant’s baby, unlike in R. v Cannings (Angela) (2004) EWCA Crim 01 , (2004) 1 W.L.R. 2607 there had also been sufficient additional evidence before the jury to justify the verdict that she was guilty of his murder. The fact that the expert chosen by the defence had not given evidence at trial as well as was hoped, or that parts of his evidence were exposed as untenable, thereby undermining confidence in his evidence as a whole, did not begin to justify the calling of fresh evidence by further medical expert witnesses on appeal.

A failure by the Crown to disclose a fingerprint on the murder weapon that did not belong to the accused was a defect in the trial, but in the circumstances it did not render the conviction unsafe.