Sally Clark: Our Comments
09/12/1999
Thank you very much for the brilliant service, professionalism and caring attitude whilst handling my recent claim.
Vicki, Sheffield
Richard Barr, Partner at Alexander Harris comments on the
evidence in the case of Sally Clark, a Manchester solicitor convicted
of the murder of her two sons.
When
a solicitor finds himself or herself in trouble with the law most of us
do not gloat. We know the pressures of our kind of work. We worry about
someone whose life has been ruined, who was once one of us.
The
feelings generated among the legal profession about the conviction of
Sally Clark, a Manchester solicitor, for the murder of her two little
boys Christopher and Harry, has raised questions across the whole
profession. How could she do it? Why did she do it? Most importantly, did she do it?
She
was convicted of the two murders by a majority verdict (10-2) in the
Chester Crown Court on evidence which ought to have been viewed with
extreme caution.
The death of her first son was initially put down
to natural causes: a cot death. It was only when her second son died
that suspicions were raised. The prosecution initially alleged that she
had shaken her second son Harry to death. However, shortly before the
trial, a key prosecution pathology witness had to concede that on
re-examination of the slides the evidence was not consistent with death
by shaking, and that she must have smothered her son.
By the time
the case had concluded, none of the five prosecution witnesses were
able to assert categorically that the deaths were not due to natural
causes.
The media made great play of Sally's alcohol problem and
depression (a matter entirely irrelevant as she had not taken a drink
on the day either of her sons died), hers and her husband's expensive
house, and the fact that her husband is also a solicitor.
On the day
of his death, Mrs Clark took her second son Harry to have his DPT
(whooping cough) vaccination at 4.30. She and her son were noted by the
surgery to be fit and happy. About an hour after she returned home, a
health visitor called unannounced to deliver a replacement apnoea
monitor (a device often supplied to families who have suffered a cot
death. It sets off an alarm if there is a break in a child's breathing
pattern). The first monitor had apparently been faulty, in that it gave
frequent false alarms. Or did it? A medical consultant approached by
the family after the conviction has suggested that the monitor might
actually have been doing its job, and was giving an early warning of a
problem with Harry.
This health visitor found no problems and mother and baby happy.
Harry
was found to be dead after her husband had gone downstairs for a few
minutes to make a night time drink. It was a few hours after his
vaccination. The matter is controversial, but papers have been
published which associate this vaccine with cot deaths.
What seems
to have clinched the prosecution case was a statistic (given by a
paediatrician, not even an epidemiologist) that the chances of a double
cot death occurring in one family were only one in 73 million? Quite
apart from the fact that the figure is quite obviously wrong (at least
one family each year in this country suffers such a double tragedy -
and one cot death is a predisposing factor for the second), it
demonstrates how dangerous it is to rely on large numbers to back up
what at best is highly tenuous evidence. The chances of winning the
lottery are 14 million to one against. Does that mean that the chances
are so remote that anyone who does win must have cheated?
Before,
during and after her trial Sally maintained her innocence. After each
death, medical staff reported that she was beside herself. Is this the
mark of a good actress, or an innocent woman caught up in a horrendous
tragedy?
Sally Clark is to take her case to appeal. It is vital that
the matter is resolved speedily. If she was wrongly convicted, it is
essential that she should be given the best possible chance of
rebuilding her shattered life.
Produced by kind permission of The Solicitors Journal 10th December 1999.
Back to news
If you would like us to provide you with advice with regard to your potential claim, please complete our brief claim form. We will reply to your enquiry within one working day.
Fill out our quick claim form
If you would like to speak to someone directly about your claim, please call our friendly team on:
0870 024 0558