No Win No Fee Claim Struck Out for “SHaken Baby” Mother
A mother who was freed after being wrongly convicted and imprisoned for manslaughter in a “shaken baby” case lost her High Court bid for compensation today.
Lorraine Harris, 38, claimed she had suffered a “miscarriage of justice” after her conviction for the manslaughter of four-month-old son Patrick was declared “unsafe” and quashed by the Court of Appeal.
But today Mr Justice Mitting rejected her challenge to the Home Secretary’s refusal to compensate her.
The judge said: “All the Court of Appeal decided was that new evidence created the possibility that, when taken with the evidence given at the trial, a jury might properly acquit her.
“That falls well short of demonstrating beyond reasonable doubt that there was a miscarriage of justice in this case.”
The judge said there had been “powerful evidence” against Ms Harris, formerly of Long Eaton, Derbyshire.
It would have been for a jury to determine the issue. But the appeal court did not order a retrial as Ms Harris had served her three-year jail sentence and a new trial would have been pointless and not in the public interest, said the judge.
The mother was convicted of manslaughter at Nottingham Crown Court in September 2000.
A jury found that Patrick was the victim of “shaken baby syndrome”, and that a “triad” of injuries showed that his death in December 1999 was not an accident.
These included swelling of the brain, bleeding between the brain and skull and bleeding in the retina of the eyes.
But the jury verdict was declared “unsafe” by the Court of Appeal in July 2005 and the mother’s conviction quashed.
By the time of the appeal, lawyers argued medical opinion had changed, making the convictions unsafe. They said new research since 2001 had led to a reappraisal.
Ms Harris applied to the Home Office for compensation under section 133 of the 1988 Criminal Justice Act.
Her claim was refused on the basis that her conviction had been quashed because of a change in medical opinion, and not because any “newly discovered fact” had come to light since her trial.
Mr Justice Mitting said the refusal was based on too narrow a construction of the law that was “seriously unjust”.
He said: “It matters not whether a miscarriage of justice occurs as a result of a new fact or new opinion, as occurred in this case.”