Citation

Tibballs J, Bhatia N. J. Law Med. 2024; 31(1): 151-184.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2024, Thompson - LBC Information Services)

DOI

unavailable

PMID

38761395

Abstract

Uncertainties and controversies surround "shaken baby syndrome" or infant "abusive head trauma". We explore Vinaccia v The Queen (2022) 70 VR 36; [2022] VSCA 107 and other selected cases from Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States. On expert opinion alone, a "triad" of clinical signs (severe retinal haemorrhages, subdural haematoma and encephalopathy) is dogmatically attributed diagnostically to severe deliberate shaking with or without head trauma. However, the evidence for this mechanism is of the lowest scientific level and of low to very low quality and therefore unreliable. Consequently, expert opinion should not determine legal outcomes in prosecuted cases. Expert witnesses should reveal the basis of their opinions and the uncertainties and controversies of the diagnosis. Further, the reliability of admissions of guilt while in custody should be considered cautiously. We suggest abandonment of the inherently inculpatory diagnostic terms "shaken baby syndrome" and "abusive head trauma" and their appropriate replacement with "infantile retinodural haemorrhage".

Keywords: Shaken baby syndrome; abusive head trauma, law; expert medical evidence; infants; medicine.

Language: en