While there had been conflicting expert opinion about the probable cause of death of the appellant's baby, unlike in R. v Cannings (Angela) [2004] EWCA Crim 01 , [2004] 1 W.L.R. 2607 there had also been sufficient additional evidence before the jury to justify the verdict that she was guilty of his murder. The fact that the expert chosen by the defence had not given evidence at trial as well as was hoped, or that parts of his evidence were exposed as untenable, thereby undermining confidence in his evidence as a whole, did not begin to justify the calling of fresh evidence by further medical expert witnesses on appeal.

[2005] EWCA Crim 1092