Murder appeal hears medical evidence will clear babysitter

NEW medical evidence in the case of a babysitter convicted of murdering her neighbour’s two-year-old son by repeatedly banging his head against a wooden banister demonstrated she was the victim of a “serious miscarriage of justice”, the Court of Appeal in London heard yesterday.

A barrister representing Suzanne Holdsworth, 37, submitted that on the strength of that fresh evidence “no jury properly directed could safely convict”.

The mother-of-two was present in the dock of the courtroom as Henry Blaxland QC presented her case before three judges at the start of proceedings expected to last four days.

Holdsworth was accused of having snapped while minding Kyle Fisher at her home in Millpool Close, Hartlepool, while the child’s 19-year-old single mother was having a night out.

Holdsworth consistently denied injuring the child and claimed he had suffered a fit as they sat watching television, but a jury at Teesside Crown Court found her guilty of murder in 2005.

She was jailed for life and told she must serve at least 10 years before she can apply for release on parole.

Kyle, of nearby Troutpool Close, was rushed to hospital after the incident in August 2004, but died two days later from severe brain swelling.

Mr Blaxland told Lord Justice Toulson, Mr Justice Aikens and Judge Michael Baker QC, that the doctors who gave evidence at the trial “got it wrong” and “collectively failed to diagnose” that the child had a “highly unusual brain”, with abnormalities which predisposed him to epilepsy.

Mr Blaxland said the prosecution’s case at trial “was based on expert medical opinion evidence that the child died from fatal brain swelling or oedema which was caused by a blow or blows of significant force”.

The expert evidence was that the fatal blow leading to death was “caused within a very short time of the child’s collapse and therefore it must have been the appellant who inflicted the blow”.

Counsel said that in fact Kyle had three abnormalities of the brain, two of which in particular predisposed him to epilepsy.

“We submit that, had this new evidence been called at trial, the trial would have taken a very different form and that in itself is sufficient for the court to conclude this conviction is unsafe.”

The QC said it would be argued, if the court finds the conviction unsafe, that there should not be a new trial.

The fresh evidence also “undermines the Crown’s expert evidence at trial that the swelling was caused solely by severe trauma”.

The Crown is opposing the appeal.

Mr Blaxland said the question for the court in determining the safety of the conviction was whether the jury acting reasonably may have returned a different verdict had the new evidence been called at trial.

But he added: “We submit that, on the strength of the new evidence, no jury properly directed could safely convict.

The hearing was adjourned until today.