R v Klamo: an example of miscommunication and misunderstanding of expert evidence where the conviction was overturned

Abstract

The father of a 28-day-old deceased was convicted of manslaughter in the Supreme Court of Victoria and imprisoned for 5 years. The conviction was overturned by the Court of Appeal essentially because, in the view of the author, it understood the significance of the pathology evidence given at the trial. The evidence issues in this case are set in the context of problems generally in cases where the conviction is later overturned. In addition to other improvements, a specific proposal is raised to require more structure in expert forensic pathology opinions to address issues which commonly arise in cases of particular types.

Keywords:

• misunderstood expert evidence
• forensic pathology
• wrong conviction

Notes

The paper was delivered at a meeting of the Victorian Chapter of the Australian Academy of Forensic Sciences, on Wednesday 26 October, 2011 at the Sir Zelman Cowen Centre, Victoria University, Queens Street, Melbourne. Some minor enhancements have been made for this published version.