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