header-logo header-logo

17 January 2019 / Dr Karen Brennan , Dr Emma Milne
Issue: 7824 / Categories: Features , Criminal
printer mail-detail

Infanticide: guarding against harshness

Dr Karen Brennan & Dr Emma Milne examine the socio-historical context behind the infanticide law

 
  • For the offence/defence of infanticide to apply, the mental disturbance suffered by the accused does not need to be solely due to the consequence of giving birth. Providing birth was an operating or substantial cause, there may also be other contributing factors, such as pre-existing mental health conditions.
  • Infanticide operates as a mechanism for lenience in instances where a woman kills her infant while experiencing a disturbance of the balance of the mind.
  • Cases of newborn child killing involve vulnerable women. This has been recognised historically in the disposal of women who kill newborn children and the Infanticide Act is still needed today to facilitate leniency in such cases.

In July 2018, the Court of Appeal ruled that a woman could rely on the Infanticide Act 1938 even in situations where the disturbance of the balance of her mind was not caused ‘solely’ by reason of the effect of childbirth (R v Tunstill

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Regional law firm expands employment team with partner and senior associate hires

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Nottinghamtrusts, estates and tax team welcomes two senior associates

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The cab-rank rule remains a bulwark of the rule of law, yet lawyers are increasingly judged by their clients’ causes. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, warns that conflating representation with endorsement is a ‘clear and present danger’
Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
back-to-top-scroll