Download - Law_Skills_Portfolio_pathway_2-_Infantic
pg. 1
Shahima Akter Topu SRN: 111246320
Laws skills Portfolio‐ Pathway 2
pg. 2
Laws Skills Portfolio
Contents: Laws Skills Portfolio submission form
Claims document
Appendix A: Research essay
Appendix B:
a) Conceptual Diagram;
b) Research Route:
c) Feedback session.
Appendix C: Documents (cases, article, journals, newspapers),
a) Articles screenshot; b) Case judgments;
c) Law Commission;
d) Online newspapers and cases.
Appendix D: Screen shots
Appendix E: E-mail correspondence with peers and Facilitators
Appendix F: Power Point Slides
Appendix G: Oral Presentation Certificate
pg. 3
Declaration paper:
pg. 4
Claims document:
OUTCOME 1: Identify the principal issues for research on a specific legal topic.
Claim:
I believe that I achieved this outcome, and the skills alongside, by
identifying a specific legal topic for research, Infanticide and the
principle issues raised by the topic by formulating a research question ‘Is
the current law on infanticide sufficient and need reforms? An objective
analysis of Infanticide Act 1938 with the alternative defence of
diminished responsibility.’
I wanted to do my research from Criminal Law area as I was aware of its
wide areas and keeping this in my mind I was looked through some
serious offences in United Kingdom and I found the topic Infanticide. I
found the topic very interesting. Although it was not outside the ambit of
LLB Hon’s syllabus, it was not studied in depth during first year. So, it
was somewhat easy for me to locate the area of the question for my
research. I started picking issues and also discussed with my teachers as
to the possibility to do research in this area and I received their approval.
As it was not a new topic, every time I had to stop and find out whether
the information was becoming within my ambit. Hence I had to make
amendment to my question several times. After some preliminary
research I got some idea about the legal position of England and Wales
with grey areas arising out of Infanticide laws. Laws of infanticide had
some unsatisfactory results in cases and the law commission had been
criticized for not reforming it. It’s been a common issue in the TV
channels and newspapers not only in UK but also in the rest of the
world. Therefore, I thought of the current state of the infant killing law is
worth researching.
In my research I have primarily focused on the laws against infant
killing and the criticisms for its arbitrary results in the UK. There are
authors and commentators who think that for the better decisions of
infanticide laws the parliament should amend the existing laws regarding
killing of infants or at least should make some change such as increase
pg. 5
awareness of these offences to both public and the officials and take
necessary steps to protect mothers who had killed their infants due to
their non-recovery from childbirth. I also came across the fact that the
parliament should take such propositions into consideration.
Evidence: In (Appendix B pg. 25), I have provided a conceptual
diagram that I addressed in my essay. In my research essay Paragraph
2(Appendix A pg.16-17) shows that I successfully placed the definition
of infanticide. In paragraph 1(pg.16) I have mentioned the issues that I
intended to deal with in my essay also I mentioned about the problem
and criticism the law is facing regarding its enforcement. In my essay,
paragraph 3(pg.17) is a brief statistics of claims brought in and the little
need of the law.
In my research work, I attempted to show the insufficiency of laws
against infanticide with the alternative defence of diminished
responsibility. In my discussion I have mentioned the significant case
Kai-Whitewind in paragraph 4 of Appendix A on page 17, as it was the
first case which has expressed the unsatisfactory nature of Infanticide
Act 1938. This helped me to clarify the further issues for research. The
other cases were R v Cannings, R v Anthony (Donna) and R v
Henderson, Butler, Oyediran.
Further, I explored the research and scrutinized the status of both cases
Cannings and Kai-Whitewind despite having similar issues; their
decisions differed at odds with the interest of justice. I found the
provision of fresh evidence as a relevant factor in both cases where the
appeal of Cannings advanced due to the fresh evidence and in Kai-
Whitewind the evidence did not make any difference. In page 17-18,
paragraph 4, I have discussed about it.
During my research I gathered some materials at first instance but I later
found them irrelevant to my topic. Some cases I declined to cite from the
UK’s legal jurisdiction as they had nothing to add to my essay. I mainly
focused on the unsatisfactory nature and its alternative defence for
defendants of killing their infants.
pg. 6
OUTCOME 2: Locate and retrieve relevant information on a specific topic using
primary and secondary legal sources, in paper or electronic media
(including use of the world-wide web).
Claim:
I consider that I have achieved this outcome by locating and retrieving
relevant information on my topic, ‘Infanticide, by using primary and
secondary sources. As a primary task, as infanticide was familiar to me I
stated gained basic knowledge by searching in Smith and Hogan’s
criminal law, textbook. This gave me some knowledge over the research
topic. For further knowledge I used the searching engine ‘Google’ which
helped me to reach a comfortable zone where I can actually think to
proceed for my research with this topic.
I have mainly used Westlaw for my research because I found it as a very
extensive and powerful electronic database and excellent source of
information on cases and journals. The database is proved extremely
helpful for mine since the cases were presented in an abstract format
which helps me to find out the relevant information for my essay. For
using keyword “kai-whitewind” I found about 39 results including 2
insights, 20 cases and 16 journals. For keyword “Infanticide Act 1938” I
got 30 results having 2 insights, 9 cases and 19 journals.
Moreover, I used Lexis library to search whole report of the cases and
downloaded number of cases with full script. In case of finding relevant
information I always used key words such as “infanticide act 1938” and
“Kai-whitewind” but I did not face the trouble of narrowing results
down using additional keywords. I found all the relevant materials with
the mentioned keywords. In lexis for the word “Infanticide Act 1938” I
received 10 results all of which were Halsbury journals. I further used
“Infanticide Act with Kai-Whitweind” and only 3 results came all of
which were on enactments. Using the search term “Kai-whitewind” I
pg. 7
found 6 results mixture of journals and on search term “R v Kai-
Whitewind” I found 3 results which were all case review.
Evidence: My first aim in my work on this project was to search and
find relevant in formations by which I could make a structure on my
mind that how to form the essay. In footnotes and bibliography I have
given many primary and secondary sources which I have used in my
essay. The research diary in (Appendix B pg. 29) shows the steps that I
took while doing online research and it also shows the details of my
research techniques. I have also attached some screenshots that I had
taken during the research in (Appendix D pg. 64) which provides
evidence of my use of electronic media. The main source of information
of my research was westlaw and Lexis library, from which I took almost
all the legislation, cases (eg. R v Kai Whitewind; [2005] EWCA Crim
1092). I also found journals/Articles such as_ Mahendra, B, ‘Whither
Infanticide?’ [21 April 2006] 156 New Law Journal 664.
pg. 8
OUTCOME 3: Use sources in a critical and reflective way.
Claim:
I can use sources in a critical and reflective way as in my research essay;
I displayed the skills associated with this outcome by analysing the
criticisms explaining the position of law commission and officials
regarding the protection of mentally handicapped mothers. On the other
hand, by using case references and legislation I have tried to show the
insufficiency of laws of infanticide.
Furthermore, in Paragraph 4 page 17-18, I have tried to analyse the
comparison of different cases through the results of the decisions that
had been given and whether they had served its best purpose.
Evidence: In paragraph 6 of my essay (Appendix A pg.19) I briefly
mentioned the causes behind on the proposal of subsuming infanticide
with diminished responsibility. In paragraph no 7(pg 19-20), I tried to
analyze the difference between infanticide and diminished responsibility
with case R v Gore by showing that what issues would be faced by the
defendant is both defences subsume. Moreover, In Appendix C (pg. 34),
I have attached some highlighted out materials which show my critical
analysis of journals/articles and cases.
pg. 9
OUTCOME 4: With limited guidance, and using a range of legal resources, plan,
research and produce an original piece of legal writing some of
which should address areas of law not previously studied in depth.
Claim: As I have discussed in outcome 2 earlier, I completed my research essay
by using both primary and secondary sources. I maintained a research
diary to note down all my progress. As part of the planning process I
made a skeleton for proceeding to essay writing which I showed to my
facilitator in a paper format and received their approval. I claim that my
work has gone beyond my LLB Hon’s Criminal Law syllabus. In my
research essay I briefly discussed the arguments for diminished
responsibility, the procedure and advantages of the partial defence in
comparison to the current infanticide law and the criticisms of law
commission for failing to amend the existing laws.
Evidence: The research essay in Appendix A is evidence of this
outcome whereby I was able to successfully answer my essay question. I
certify that this is my original work produced with limited guidance. The
evidence of research diary in Appendix B (pg. 25), conceptual diagram,
essay structure and highlighting in Appendix C (pg. 34) shows that I
achieved this outcome.
pg. 10
OUTCOME 5: Make an accurate assessment of your progress and the quality of
your work and, using feedback, identify areas for improvement.
Claim: I believe that I was able to select the most relevant materials
(highlighted materials) and avoided materials that were irrelevant to my
research topic. I always maintained a research diary to note down about
my progress. In this diary I maintained research route and also to-do-list
at a same time so that I could proceed further in an organised manner. I
also used to attend the individual feedback sessions with my facilitators
where I could discuss or ask questions about my further progress. I
found it really helpful as it helps me to plan about my future
progression. However, another great help for me to complete my
research essay was receiving feedbacks from my facilitators and friends
by emails. This helped me to include some important issues in my essay.
I claim that the work presented is absolutely done by me. It enabled me
to think critically and do any research in a comprehensive way.
Evidence: My research work provides evidence that I have achieved this
outcome.
In (Appendix E pg. 83), I have provided evidence of my email
correspondence with my facilitators and friends. As the evidence I also
provide my research diary where I maintained the conceptual diagram in
(Appendix B), essay skeleton, research route, to-do-list, list of issues and
also the IFS feedbacks. Moreover, I provided the highlighted sentences
in Appendix C soft documents to show it as evidence which I have
successfully done in case of selecting relevant information.
pg. 11
OUTCOME 6: Produce a word-processed portfolio, with footnotes, using
appropriate formatting tools, and communicate and exchange
documents by email.
Claim: I certify that the entire portfolio I have submitted was processed by me.
For preparing the entire work, I used the Microsoft Word 2007 version
and the Times New Roman fonts. I used Heading of the essay with font
size 22. I used footnote using times new roman in 10 font size. I also
made use of italic option for legislations and cases. I used numbering
and line spacing of 1.5 to make it easier for the reader to read. I sought
help from one of my tutor about creating bibliography. Further I was
also given advice in case of producing footnote which was really very
helpful for my essay writing. I also used the spellchecker and grammar
checker to check my work. During my research I felt that without the
use of the internet to access online legal databases and the online library,
doing research would have been much harder for me. I found email
exchanges the easiest way of communicating and a simple way to send
the latest draft of my text as an attachment to the email as used to
correspond with my peers exchanging ideas about the portfolio and the
research essay.
Evidence:
My entire portfolio is evidence that I have achieved these outcomes. The
research essay in Appendix A, itself is the evidence of my above claim. I
have also given my email correspondence screen shots in Appendix E.
pg. 12
OUTCOME 7: Briefly and accurately present and discuss, orally in English, legal
information from standard textbooks, leading cases or statutes in a
way that responds relevantly to the question asked or topic set and
is understood by the audience.
Claim: I can briefly and accurately present and discuss orally in English, legal
information from standard textbook, leading cases or statutes, subject
guide, in a way that responds relevantly to the question asked or topic
set and is understood by the audience.
I made an oral presentation on 8th
March 2014 at London College of
Legal Studies (South) at 4:30 pm local time. Barrister Suhan Khan,
facilitator of UOL law skills portfolio under University of London,
LCLS South was also present there.
Evidence: I got feedback after finishing my oral presentation by the facilitators of
UOL that my presentation was good but in my first 3 or 4 slides I spoke
quickly. But they also said that it was good that later I managed to speak
slowly. I have provided my power point slides in Appendix F page 87
and oral presentation certificate in Appendix G as evidence.
pg. 13
OUTCOME 8: Work as an active and effective member of a team contributing
productively to the group’s task.
Claim: I consider that I can work as an active and effective member of a team
and contribute productively to the group’s task. During my research I
had actively participated in group sessions hosted by our facilitator
where we got the basics of starting with the research area. I had three or
two sessions with my facilitators where we discussed my progress and
tried to solve my problem areas. During the process of my research, with
some of my friends, I participated in corresponding Emails, where I used
to study their materials such as any legislation, cases, articles / journals
and gave comments regarding their work and they had given about mine.
This helped me a lot to think critically, using knowledge and skills in
case of essay writings.
Evidence:
I provided evidence of my email correspondence with facilitators and
friends in Appendix E and I have provided the small group session in
Appendix B page 33.
pg. 14
Reflective Statement: I had an experience of doing research before but this task was really
harder than before as it was also a risky topic to work on. It
required me worked harder and critically thinking as I had to first clear
my basic concepts and also collect enough relevant information
regarding my essay writing. Furthermore, this whole task was very
helpful for me as it has made me learn exploring new things and also
able to gain understanding and capability to do any research work in
future.
pg. 15
Appendix A: Research Essay
pg. 16
“Infanticide Act 1938”
Is the current law on infanticide outdated and need
reforms?
An objective analysis of Infanticide Act 1938 with the
alternative defence of diminished responsibility.
Infanticide is considered as one of the most serious crimes in United Kingdom; evoking
particular horror. It meant that the mother had faced difficulties and it is inevitable that child
killing occurred due to socio-economic pressures which is not uncommon even today. The
Infanticide Act 1922 had been developed, as a lesser offence, changing the Victorian era
sentence of capital punishment; sympathising the defendant who was forced to kill her child.1
Although the 1922 Act had been repealed and replaced by Infanticide Act 1938, criticism of this
formulation was not long in coming, accelerating after diminished responsibility had come in.2
According to the current law, Infanticide Act 1938 requires a mother killing her child less than
12 months and during that period her mind was disturbed due to the effects of child birth/effect
of lactation. Therefore the mother would be convicted of an offence equivalent to manslaughter.3
1 B Mahendra, ‘Whither Infanticide?’ [21 April 2006] 156 New Law Journal 664;
2 S.2 Homicide Act 1957 as amended by s.52 of Coroners and Justice Act 2009 providing A person (“D”) who kills
or is a party to the killing of another is not to be convicted of murder if D was suffering from an abnormality of
mental functioning which—(a)arose from a recognised medical condition, (b)substantially impaired D's ability to do
one or more of the things mentioned in subsection (1A), and (c)provides an explanation for D's acts and omissions in
doing or being a party to the killing.; 3 Infanticide Act 1938, s 1(1) as amended by s.57 of Coroners and Justice Act 2009 providing: Where a woman by
any wilful act or omission causes the death of her child being a child under the age of twelve months, but at the time
of her act or omission the balance of her mind was disturbed by reason of her not having fully recovered from the
effect of giving birth to the child or by reason of the effect of lactation consequent upon the birth of the child, then,
if the circumstances were such that but for this Act the offence would have amounted to murder or manslaughter,
she shall be guilty of felony, to wit of infanticide, and may for such offence be dealt with and punished as if she had
been guilty of the offence of manslaughter of the child;
pg. 17
Infanticide can be used as a defence by mother/defendant and the punishment is maximum life
sentence.4 However in most cases the conviction results in non custodial sentence; showing that
defendants are treated more leniently.
There were 5 recorded offences of infanticide during 2006/7; showing the little need for
infanticide.5 There were 49 infanticide convictions from 1990 to 2003 which was studied by
Professor R D Mackay to show that cases dealt under infanticide were actually limited.6
The first ever case to point out the unsatisfactory nature of Infanticide Act 1938 was Kai-
Whitewind.7 The 12 weeks old Bidziil had been found dead in his home with blood stains on his
nose; the prosecution alleged that she had suffocated Bidziil, frustrated at his refusal to
breastfeed. The mother/defendant was charged of murder due to her lack of cooperation. The
unsatisfactory factor was the procedural dilemma which is the defendant’s/mother’s
unwillingness to admit the killing. The mother, in the case, did deny admission and according to
the court of appeal, her denial maybe a symptom of that very disorder that prompted the killing;
thus without her cooperation, it may be impossible to adduce evidence under the adversarial
system. Therefore the jury had not been convinced due to her denial and convicted her of
murder.8 This issue was dealt under the fresh evidence provision under Criminal Appeal Act
1968.9 Fresh evidence is any evidence not adduced in the proceedings; the court of appeal can
receive any evidence not adduced in proceedings, if it is deemed necessary in the interests of
4Infanticide Act 1938, s 1(2) provides: Where upon the trial of a woman for the murder of her child, being child
under the age of twelve months, the jury are of the opinion that she by any wilful act or omission caused its death,
but that at the time of the act or omission the balance of her mind was disturbed by reason of her not having fully
recovered from the effect of giving birth to the child or by reason of the effect of lactation consequent upon the birth
of the child, then the jury may, if the circumstances were such that but for the provisions of this Act they might have
returned a verdict of murder or manslaughter, return in lieu thereof a verdict of infanticide;
5 Nicholas et al, HO statistical bulletin: crime 06/07, table 2.04;
6 Law Commission, Murder, Manslaughter and Infanticide (Law Com No. 304, 2006) page 170 Para 8.20;
7 [2005] EWCA Crim 1092;
8 Ibid. Footnote 6, page 177 para [8.44];
9 S.23 Criminal Appeal Act 1968 as amended by Criminal Appeal Act 1995;
pg. 18
justice.10
In Kai-Whitewind, the so called fresh evidence did not advance the appellant’s case
because it could not make the slightest difference. The judges found nothing to doubt the safety
of the conviction.11
The defendant appealed that the conviction was unsafe based on three stage
test found in R v Cannings (Angela).12
In Cannings, the defendant was convicted of murdering
three of her infants however she appealed against murder conviction and her appeal was allowed.
Kai-Whitewind was distinguished with Cannings on the three stages which included firstly that
there was a serious disagreement between experts about the cause of death; secondly the expert
opinion suggesting natural death, could not be excluded as a reasonable possibility and lastly
there were no strong evidence contrary to expert opinion that suggested that the child had been
harmed. However her appeal was dismissed because in Cannings there were no evidences
beyond the inferences based on coincidences; experts’ opinions were different about the
inferences and thus the need for additional strong evidence. The logical conclusion of the
Cannings argument was that where there was a conflict of opinion of experts, the expert
evidence called by prosecution was neutralised. There were findings in Kai-Whitewind that took
the evidence beyond mere proof that the child has died whilst in mother’s care.13
The decision of
Kai-Whitewind had been applied to R v Henderson, Butler and Oyediran.14
Similar issue of
“unsafe conviction” arose in R v Anthony (Donna)15
where the defendant had appealed against
her conviction of murder and her appeal was allowed on the basis of Cannings on limited reasons
of unexplained death. Her conviction was quashed after she had served six and a half years for
murder conviction of her two children and it was considered as a tragic event.16
Due to unsafe
convictions like these the “Infanticide Act 1938 had been considered outdated and the appeal in
Kai-Whitewind demonstrated the need for a thorough re-examination.”17
10
David Wells, Fresh evidence and Criminal Cases Review Commission,
<http://www.insidetime.org.uk/articleview.asp?a=374&c=fresh_evidence_and_the_criminal_cases_review_commis
sion> accessed 1st April 2014;
11 R v Kai-Whitewind All England Official Transcripts (1997-3008) paragraph [128, 129];
12 [2004] EWCA Crim 1;
13 Ibid. Footnote 11, paragraphs [83, 84, 85];
14 [2010] EWCA Crim 1269;
15 [2005] EWCA Crim 952;
16 Mother’s murder conviction quashed
<http://www.theguardian.com/society/2005/apr/11/childrensservices.childprotection> accessed 4th
April 2014; 17
Mother loses baby murder appeal <http://www.theguardian.com/society/2005/may/03/crime.childprotection>
accessed 4th
April 2014;
pg. 19
It is considered that mental illness in Infanticide Act 1938 is no longer significant and the
relationship of incomplete recovery from the effects of childbirth is remote. Therefore, there
were various suggestions on reforms to infanticide laws such as retaining lactation, extension of
victim’s ages up to 2 years, procedural suggestions to avoid dilemma and even abolition by
some. However the most notable one was merging infanticide with diminished responsibility
suggested by Royal College of Psychiatrists. The Butler Committee thought that diminished
responsibility would cover all the cases.18
According to Royal College of Psychiatrics, infanticide should be subsumed with Diminished
Responsibility on the basis that postpartum psychiatric disorders should not be distinguished
from other kinds of disorders when determining criminal liability.19
Others, particularly J
McEwan, argued that singling out mental disorders in biological mothers for special treatment
tended to “pathologise” motherhood and reflected a tendency by lay and medical discourse to
represent women as lacking in responsibility.20
This has been an interest to feminists who think
that status on women’s crime refer the defendant as “mad” not “bad”.21
Also when the
Infanticide Act was passed, Diminished Responsibility did not exist to murder therefore the
provision is quite unnecessary; now that it does it provides the same purpose as infanticide does
and that is to make punishments more lenient towards the defendant.
In relation to subsuming, the Criminal Law Revision Committee (CLRC) disagreed with it
because if Diminished Responsibility fails to be proved, infanticide has the advantage for
avoiding the necessary charging of murder. Law commission similarly does not believe they
should be subsumed because infanticide cases are unique due to the given status of the defendant
and the victim, and the link between childbirth and psychiatric disorder. Additionally procedural
issues would arise concerning burden of proof because in Diminished Responsibility, the burden
is on the defendant to prove psychiatric disorder; therefore the mother would be put in a difficult
18
David Ormerod, Smith and Hogan: Criminal law (12th
edition Oxford university press); 19
Postpartum: a clinical depression suffered by most women; triggered by childbirth that lasts up to 6 weeks; 20
Ibid. Footnote 6,8, page 174 para [8.35]; 21
Strange case of the infanticide doctrine: Oxford Journal of legal studies (2012) 32 (4): 685;
pg. 20
position. Further, infanticide does not “pathologise” mother, rather it recognises that some
women suffer from psychiatric disorder triggered by childbirth.22
The analysis of Regina v Lisa
Therese Gore23
would clear the issue of subsuming because infanticide and Diminished
Responsibility has been distinguished by Mr. Reid QC. In this case mother’s conviction for
infanticide had been referred to the court of appeal by the Criminal cases review commission
(CCRC). Defendant had pleaded guilty to an indictment which made no reference to intention to
kill or to cause grievous bodily harm; thus Criminal Cases Review Commission argued that
infanticide should be narrowly construed so that a mother might only be guilty of infanticide
when ingredients of murder are proved. However Hallet LJ disagreed and held that mens rea of
the offence is stated in S. 1(1) of the 1938 Act: act or omission must be wilful. Mr Reid’s
analysis followed firstly that infanticide required the woman’s mind to be disturbed due to failure
of recovery from childbirth whereas Diminished Responsibility required proof of abnormality of
mind stemming from a list of causes; substantially diminishing defendant’s mental responsibility.
Secondly, infanticide is a partial defence/offence and Diminished Responsibility is wholly a
defence to a charge of murder. Thirdly as mentioned before the onus of infanticide is on the
prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and in Diminished Responsibility it is on the defendant on
the balance of probabilities.24
However the Law commission, in their final report, recommended that no change would be
introduced, except for procedural amendment to allow further appeal on medical evidence where
the mother denies killing. Infanticide Act 1938 was somehow, disappointingly, described as a
practicable legal solution.
Regarding this compilation, Infanticide Act 1938 is too rigid and leads to arbitrary results as was
seen in Kai-Whitewind. Lord Justice Judge, in Kai-Whitewind said that: “the particular area of
concern was that, infanticide defence was restricted to a mother being affected by actual birth
22
Ibid. Footnote 6,8,20,22, Para [8.37, 8.39]; 23
[2007] EWCA Crim 2789; 24
Regina v Lisa Therese Gore < http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2007/2789.html>, Para [20], accessed
5th
April 2014;
pg. 21
and not subsequent events such as lack of bonding. The second problem arises when the mother
is unable to admit it. This may be because she is too unwell to do so or too emotionally
disturbed. When this happens, it is difficult to produce evidence relating to the balance of the
mother’s mind.” Helena Kennedy QC, who has defended several women accused to killing their
children said “the problem in these cases is that unless a woman says that she did it, a
psychiatric defence cannot be mounted for her.”25
Regarding the discussion, Infanticide Act 1938 had failed to provide “justice” where needed.
Lawyers say that some of the most vulnerable women are still being jailed under criminal justice
system and homicide of children under one is greater than that of any other age group; it is in
fact, 4 times higher than murder rate. Psychiatric foundations have termed infanticide as
anachronistic and have no basis in medical science.26
There are advantages of subsuming infanticide with Diminished Responsibility: firstly
Diminished Responsibility is wide ranged therefore it would cover even killings of infants;
secondly even though the mother would be put in a difficult position having to prove her own
defence, reference should be made to Lord Justice Judge in Kai-Whitewind who stated: it does
not automatically follow from denial that the balance of her mind was not disturbed: in some
cases it may indeed help to confirm that it was."27
That fine line maybe enough for proving
abnormality of mind on balance in diminished responsibility. It could also have helped in
infanticide however as was seen, the jury is not easily convinced without the mother’s admission.
Lastly the subsuming would extend the causal link of infanticide which requires a causal link
between actual birth and psychiatric disorder whereas Diminished Responsibility requires causal
link between, abnormality of mind with killing.28
Thus the abnormality of mind could stem from
any event, it could stem from actual birth or other causes-even unable to bond with the infant.
25
Maxine Frith: Scrap outdated infanticide law, say judges<http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/scrap-
outdated-infanticide-law-say-judges-495016.html> accessed 6th
April 2014; 26
Ibid. footnote 6, 8, 20,l 22, para [8.24]; 27
Ibid. footnote 25, accessed 7th April 2014;
28 Ibid. footnote 6, 8, 20, 22, 26, para [8.40]: Justice and the Royal College of Psychiatrics;
pg. 22
Above that, the mental disturbance in infanticide is temporal and abnormality of mind in
Diminished Responsibility need not be permanent; thus it provides the similarities.
Other kinds of reform should be made such as the jury system. Countries such as Sweden, now
calls for a panel of doctors instead of judges and jury to try such cases.29
However as was
mentioned before that Law Commission did not even consider these. Reforms of infanticide
should be made at least to some relevant extent.
29
Ibid. footnote 25, 27, accessed 7th
April 2014;
pg. 23
Bibliography:
Primary sources:
Case laws:
1. R v Kai-Whitewind; [2005] EWCA Crim 1092;
2. R v Cannings (Angela); [2004] EWCA Crim 1;
3. R v Henderson, Butler and Oyediran; [2010] EWCA Crim 1269;
4. R v Anthony (Donna); [2005] EWCA Crim 952;
5. Regina v Lisa Therese Gore; [2007] EWCA 2789;
Legislations:
1. Infanticide Act 1922; 1938;
2. Criminal Appeal Act 1968; 1995;
3. Coroners and Justice Act 2009;
Secondary sources:
Textbooks:
1. Ormerod, David: Smith and Hogan, Criminal Law, (12th
edition), Oxford University
Press;
Journals/articles:
1) Mahendra, B, ‘Whither Infanticide?’ [21 April 2006] 156 New Law Journal 664;
2) Nicholas et al, HO statistical bulletin: crime 06/07, table 2.04;
pg. 24
3) Law Commission, Murder, Manslaughter and Infanticide (Law Com No. 304, 2006;
4) Strange Case of the Infanticide Doctrine: Oxford Journal of legal studies (2012) 32 (4):
685;
5) Frith, Maxine: Scrap outdated infanticide law, say judges; (Published: 4th
may 2005),
(Accessed: 6th
April 2014);
6) Press association, Society Guardian: Mother loses baby murder appeal; (Published: 03
May 2005), (Accessed: 4th
april 2014);
7) Staff and agencies, The guardian: Mother’s murder conviction quashed; (Published: 11
April 2005:), (Accessed: 4th
April 2014);
8) Wells, David: Fresh evidence and Criminal Cases Review Commission; (Published:
January 2009), (Accessed: 1st April 2014);
Resources availed:
1) Lexis®Library;
2) Westlaw;
3) Independent.co.uk
4) Baili.org
5) Theguardian.com
6) Insidetime.org.uk
pg. 25
Appendix B: Research diary:
Conceptual diagram:
pg. 26
pg. 27
pg. 28
pg. 29
Research route:
pg. 30
pg. 31
Feedback session:
pg. 32
pg. 33
pg. 34
Appendix C: Documents soft copy (bracketed out
journals/articles in screenshots)
pg. 35
a)Articles screenshot: Whiter infanticide? B
Mahendra:
pg. 36
Article name: Strange case of infanticide doctrine:
pg. 37
pg. 38
pg. 39
b)Case judgement: R v Kai-whitewind:
pg. 40
pg. 41
pg. 42
pg. 43
pg. 44
pg. 45
pg. 46
pg. 47
c)Law commission:
pg. 48
pg. 49
pg. 50
d)Newspapers and websites: insidetime.org.uk
pg. 51
pg. 52
pg. 53
Theguardian.com:
pg. 54
pg. 55
pg. 56
The guardian:
pg. 57
pg. 58
Bailii.org:
pg. 59
Independant.co.uk:
pg. 60
pg. 61
pg. 62
pg. 63
pg. 64
APPENDIX D: Screenshots:
INFANTICIDE ACT 1938
pg. 65
pg. 66
INFANTICIDE ACT WITH KAI-WHITEWIND
pg. 67
KAI-WHITEWIND
pg. 68
R V KAI-WHITEWIND
pg. 69
pg. 70
Kai-whitewind-journals:
pg. 71
pg. 72
Insight:
Cases:
pg. 73
pg. 74
Newspaper: guardian:
pg. 75
Donna:
pg. 76
Independent:
Law commission:
pg. 77
Infanticide Act 1938 insight:
pg. 78
Cases:
pg. 79
Journals:
pg. 80
pg. 81
pg. 82
Current awareness:
pg. 83
Appendix E: E-mail correspondence:
Student coordination:
1)
pg. 84
2)
pg. 85
3)
Teacher:
pg. 86
pg. 87
Appendix F: Powerpoint slides:
pg. 88
pg. 89
pg. 90
pg. 91
Appendix G: Oral presentation certificate