Advertisement

Was It Wrong to Use Statistics in R v Clark? A Case Study of the Use of Statistical Evidence in Criminal Courts

  • Amit PundikEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Synthese Library book series (SYLI, volume 362)

Abstract

This chapter discusses the use of statistical evidence to prove the material fact of causation in criminal courts. It focuses on R v Clark, in which a mother was wrongfully convicted of murdering both her babies. In order to disprove a potential defence claim that the babies died of SIDS (aka cot death), the prosecution adduced statistics that allegedly showed that the probability of two SIDS deaths in a family similar to the Clarks was 1 in 73 million. This chapter considers the question of whether it was wrong to use such statistical evidence in Clark. Four common explanations of why it was wrong, each of which attributes the wrongful convictions to the use or misuse of the statistical evidence, are scrutinised and rejected. However, drawing on the theory of contrastive explanation, it is argued that it was still wrong in principle to use the SIDS statistics in Clark, because using them properly would require another piece of evidence which is clearly objectionable: statistical evidence on the rate of smothering among mothers who are similar to Clark. Regardless of whether the exercise of comparing probabilities of SIDS and smothering is feasible, such an exercise should not be conducted as part of criminal proceedings. This chapter thus concludes that Clark should serve as a warning against any attempt to prove the fact of causation using statistical evidence about the rate of potential exonerating causes.

Keywords

Statistical Evidence Reference Class Reasonable Doubt Criminal Proceeding SIDS Statistic 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Allen, R. J. (1986). A reconceptualization of civil trials. Boston University Law Review, 66, 401–437.Google Scholar
  2. Allen, R. J., & Pardo, M. S. (2007). The problematic value of mathematical models of evidence. The Journal of Legal Studies, 36(1), 107–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Allen, R. J., & Pardo, M. S. (2008). Juridical proof and the best explanation. Law and Philosophy, 27(3), 223–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Balding, D., & Donnelly, P. (1994). The prosecutor’s fallacy and DNA evidence. The Criminal Law Review, 10, 711–721.Google Scholar
  5. Barraclough, K. (2004). Stolen innocence: A mother’s fight for justice—The story of Sally Clark (book review). British Medical Journal, 329, 177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Batt, J. (2004). Stolen innocence. London: Random House.Google Scholar
  7. BBC. (2005). Cot death expert defends evidence. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4641587.stm. Accessed 22 June 2012.
  8. BBC. (2007). Alcohol killed mother Sally Clark. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/essex/7082411.stm. Accessed 22 June 2012.
  9. Blom-Cooper, L. (2006). Disciplining expert witnesses by regulatory bodies. Public Law, Spring, 3–5.Google Scholar
  10. Cohen, L. J. (1977). The probable and the provable (Clarendon library of logic and philosophy). Oxford: Clarendon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Colyvan, M., Regan, H. M., & Ferson, S. (2001). Is it a crime to belong to a reference class? The Journal of Political Philosophy, 9(2), 168–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dashash, M., Pravica, V., Hutchinson, I., Barson, A., & Drucker, D. (2006). Association of sudden infant death syndrome with VEGF and IL-6 gene polymorphisms. Human Immunology, 67(8), 627–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dawid, A. P. (2001). Expert report for Sally Clark appeal. http://www.statslab.cam.ac.uk/~apd/SallyClark_report.doc. Accessed 16 June 2012.
  14. Dawid, A. P. (2002). Bayes’s theorem and the weighing evidence by juries. Proceedings of the British Academy, 113, 71–90.Google Scholar
  15. Donnelly, P. (2005). How juries are fooled by statistics. http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/67. Accessed 22 June 2012.
  16. Dwyer, D. (2003). The duties of expert witnesses of fact and opinion: R v Clark (Sally) (Case Note). International Journal of Evidence and Proof, 7, 264–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Editorial. (2000). Conviction by mathematical error? Doctors and lawyers should get probability theory right. British Medical Journal, 320, 2–3.Google Scholar
  18. Fairley, W. B., & Finkelstein, M. O. (1970). A Bayesian approach to identification evidence. Harvard Law Review, 83(3), 489–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fairley, W. B., & Finkelstein, M. O. (1971). The continuing debate over mathematics in the law of evidence: A comment on “trial by mathematics”. Harvard Law Review, 84(8), 1801–1809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Good, I. J. (1950). Probability and the weighing of evidence. London: C Griffin.Google Scholar
  21. Heller, K. J. (2006). The cognitive psychology of circumstantial evidence. Michigan Law Review, 105, 241–305.Google Scholar
  22. Hill, R. (2004). Multiple sudden infant deaths – Coincidence or beyond coincidence? Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology, 18(5), 320–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1980). Causal schemas in judgment under uncertainty. In M. Fishbein (Ed.), Progress in social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 49–72). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  24. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1982). Evidential impact of base rates. In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, & A. Tversky (Eds.), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristic and biases (pp. 153–160). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Kaye, D. H. (1992). Proof in law and science. Jurimetrics Journal, 32, 313–322.Google Scholar
  26. Koehler, J. J. (1992). The probity/policy distinction in the statistical evidence debate. Tulane Law Review, 66, 141–150.Google Scholar
  27. Koehler, J. J. (2002). When do courts think base rate statistics are relevant? Jurimetrics Journal, 42, 373–402.Google Scholar
  28. Lipton, P. (1990). Contrastive explanation. In D. Knowles (Ed.), Explanation and its limits (pp. 247–266). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Lipton, P. (2004). Inference to the best explanation (International library of philosophy 2nd edn.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. Nesson, C. (1985). The evidence or the event? On judicial proof and the acceptability of verdicts. Harvard Law Review, 98(7), 1357–1392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nobles, R., & Schiff, D. (2005). Misleading statistics within criminal trials – The Sally Clark case. Significance, 2(1), 17–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1992). A cognitive theory of juror decision making: The story model. Cardozo Law Review, 13, 519–557.Google Scholar
  33. Pollock, J. L., & Cruz, J. (1999). Contemporary theories of knowledge (2nd edn.). Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  34. Posner, R. A. (1987). The decline of law as an autonomous discipline: 1962–1987. Harvard Law Review, 100(4), 761–780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pundik, A. (2008). Statistical evidence and individual litigants: A reconsideration of Wasserman’s argument from autonomy. International Journal of Evidence and Proof, 12, 303–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pundik, A. (2009). Statistical evidence: In a search of a principle. DPhil thesis, University of Oxford.Google Scholar
  37. R v Adams (No 1) [1996] 2 Cr App R 467.Google Scholar
  38. R v Clark (No 1) [2000] EWCA Crim 54.Google Scholar
  39. R v Clark (Crown Court Chester 9 November 1999).Google Scholar
  40. R v Clark (No 2) [2003] EWCA Crim 1020.Google Scholar
  41. R v Doheny and Adams [1997] 1 Cr App R 369.Google Scholar
  42. Roberts, P., & Zuckerman, A. A. S. (2010). Criminal evidence (2nd edn.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Robertson, B., & Vignaux, G. A. (1993). Probability—The logic of the law. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 13, 457–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. RSS. (2001). Press release on the Sally Clark case, Oct 2001. http://www.rss.org.uk/uploadedfiles/documentlibrary/348.doc. Accessed 22 June 2012.
  45. Schaffer, J. (2005). Contrastive causation. Philosophical Review, 114(3), 297–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Schaffer, J. (2010). Contrastive causation in the law. Legal Theory, 16, 259–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Schoeman, F. (1987). Statistical vs. direct evidence. Nous, 21(2), 179–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Shaikh, T. (2007). Sally Clark, mother wrongly convicted of killing her sons, found dead at home. http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2007/mar/17/childrensservices.uknews. Accessed 22 June 2012.
  49. Shaviro, D. (1989). Statistical-probability evidence and the appearance of justice. Harvard Law Review, 103(2), 530–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Summers, A. M., Summers, C. W., Drucker, D. B., Hajeer, A. H., Barson, A., & Hutchinson, I. V. (2000). Association of IL-10 genotype with sudden infant death syndrome. Human Immunology, 61(12), 1270–1273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sweeney, J., & Law, B. (2001). Gene find casts doubt on double “cot death” murders. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2001/jul/15/johnsweeney.theobserver. Accessed 22 June 2012.
  52. Telegraph. (2007). Obituary: Sally Clark. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/1545933/Sally-Clark.html. Accessed 22 June 2012.
  53. Tribe, L. H. (1971a). A further critique of mathematical proof. Harvard Law Review, 84(8), 1810–1820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Tribe, L. H. (1971b). Trial by mathematics: Precision and ritual in the legal process. Harvard Law Review, 84(6), 1329–1393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Twining, W. (2006). Narrative and generalizations in argumentation about questions of fact. In Rethinking evidence: Exploratory essays (2nd edn.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  56. United States v Veysey 334F 3d 600 (7th Cir 2003).Google Scholar
  57. van Fraassen, B. C. (1980). The scientific image (Clarendon library of logic and philosophy). Oxford: Clarendon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wansell, G. (2007, 18 March). Whatever the coroner may say, Sally Clark died of a broken heart. The Independent.Google Scholar
  59. Wilson, A. (2005). Expert testimony in the dock. Journal of Criminal Law, 69(4), 330–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Buchmann Faculty of LawTel Aviv UniversityTel AvivIsrael

Personalised recommendations