[2025] SADC 22

Prosecution: R Counsel: MR M FOUNDAS WITH MS A HEDGER - Counsel: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (SA) Defendant: ASHLEY JOHN MCGREGOR Counsel: MR C ALLEN - Solicitor: WILLIAMS BARRISTERS AND SOLICITORS Hearing Date/s: 14/01/2025 to 24/01/2025, 30/01/2025 to 31/01/2025, 03/02/2025 to 04/02/2025 File No/s: DCCRM-23-027310 B DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA (Criminal) DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court in which it was generated. R v MCGREGOR Criminal Trial by Judge Alone [2025] SADC 22 Reasons for the Verdicts of his Honour Judge Muscat 12 March 2025 CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - MANSLAUGHTER - CRIMINAL NEGLECT The defendant is charged with the manslaughter and criminal neglect of his 21-day-old son. The criminal neglect charge has not been laid as an alternative to the manslaughter charge. The child sustained rib fractures and serious head injuries sometime between about 12:15 pm and 4:00 pm on Wednesday 21 April 2021. During this time, only the defendant and the child's mother had the opportunity to inflict the injuries on their child. The injuries were caused by the child being shaken or thrown and subjected to rotational or angular forces to the head, causing damage to the brain. Thereafter, the child’s condition deteriorated until he died on Friday 23 April 2021. The issue on the manslaughter charge was the identity of the person who inflicted the head injuries on the child. The prosecution had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not the child's mother while also proving beyond a reasonable doubt that it was the defendant who inflicted the head injuries on their child. The child's mother had already pleaded guilty to the criminal neglect of her child and was sentenced. The prosecution called a forensic paediatrician to explain the likely mechanism involved in causing the child’s injuries and the symptoms that would be exhibited by a child following the infliction of the brain injuries. The prosecution called the child’s mother, who denied that she had harmed her child. In a number of police interviews the defendant denied that he had inflicted the injuries by shaking his child. The case against the defendant is circumstantial in nature. In relation to the criminal neglect charge, it was accepted that the child’s condition deteriorated following the infliction of the head injuries. It was also accepted by the defendant that there was an omission by him to prevent harm to his child by failing to seek medical care, which led to the child’s continuing deteriorating state. The issue on this charge was whether the steps that the defendant took -- 1 of 128 -- in purchasing and administering Panadol to his child were what is reasonably expected in the circumstances and that a criminal penalty would not be warranted. I find that the defendant inflicted the head injuries on his child by deliberately shaking him. The combined force of the inferences to be drawn from the whole of the evidence excludes any alternative hypothesis as being a reasonable possibility. I find that the defendant’s failure to seek timely medical care for his child was so serious in the circumstances that a criminal penalty is warranted. Purchasing and continuing to administer Panadol is not what is reasonably expected in the circumstances. Verdicts: Guilty of both counts. Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) ss 13B, 14, 21; Evidence Act 1929 (SA) ss 34P(1), 34P(2), 34R(1), referred to. Burns v R (2012) 246 CLR 334; R v Abdul-Rasool (2008) 18 VR 586; Wilson v R (1992) 174 CLR 313, considered. -- 2 of 128 -- R v MCGREGOR [2025] SADC 22 Overview 1 The defendant is charged with the manslaughter and criminal neglect of his baby son, Alvin, who was 21 days old when he died. 2 The defendant has elected to be tried by judge alone.1 3 The defendant and Rebecca Lea Denton were in a relationship for a number of years. Denton has another child, Blake, from a previous relationship. Blake was aged 11 years when Alvin was born. The family resided together at an address in Christie Downs. 4 Alvin was born on 2 April 2021, at the Flinders Medical Centre. He was a small baby, weighing 2.525 kg at birth. 5 Denton was discharged from hospital on 4 April 2021, while Alvin remained for some tests on his bowel following some bilious vomit. Alvin left the hospital with his parents on the morning of 5 April 2021. Thereafter the defendant and Denton were solely responsible for Alvin’s care. Alvin was bottle fed from birth. 6 There were no concerns with Alvin’s health and wellbeing after he arrived home from the hospital. The evidence revealed that Alvin was a normal, healthy baby. Photographs taken of Alvin, following his birth and up to 8:51 am on 21 April 2021, confirm this.2 7 Denton and the defendant took turns feeding Alvin at night so the other could sleep through the night and be rested. Alvin would sleep in his bassinet in the loungeroom and either Denton or the defendant (depending on whose turn it was) would sleep on the couch while the other slept in the bedroom. 8 At about 10:30 am on Wednesday 21 April 2021, Alvin was left in the sole care of the defendant, while Denton went shopping with her stepmother. 9 At 12:14 pm Denton received a call from the defendant who told her that he had tripped over the dog and accidentally knocked the bassinet on its side with Alvin inside it. The defendant said that Alvin was bleeding from a cut on his lip. The defendant was distressed during the call and crying. Denton and her stepmother immediately returned home. The defendant was sitting on the computer chair holding Alvin applying an ice pack to Alvin’s upper lip. The defendant was crying. Denton took Alvin from the defendant to comfort Alvin and check his wellbeing. 1 See Election for Trial by Judge Alone filed 17 October 2023. 2 P10; P11. -- 3 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 2 10 The defendant said to Denton and her stepmother when they returned home that Alvin had awoken and as the defendant was getting up from the couch to attend to him, the family dog got up at the same time causing him to trip over the dog. The defendant said that as he tripped over the dog, his arm swung out, knocking the bassinet and causing it to fall to its side with Alvin in it. The defendant said Alvin must have struck his face on a music box attached to the inside of the bassinet, causing a cut to Alvin’s lip. Denton said the defendant told her he was also concerned that Alvin may develop a black eye. 11 Denton said that as Alvin had settled and was already asleep, a decision was made not to seek medical assistance for Alvin at that time, but to monitor Alvin, and if his condition worsened, seek medical attention. As Alvin was asleep Denton placed him back into the bassinet. 12 Later that afternoon the defendant purchased some children’s Panadol for Alvin from a nearby chemist. 13 Alvin had a bottle feed at around 4:30 pm and was given some Panadol. 14 Photographs taken of Alvin later that evening and on Thursday 22 April 2021 show that Alvin’s condition was deteriorating, consistent with having suffered a head injury. 15 Denton said that Alvin’s feeding was not the same following the bassinet incident and that he was, for the most part, either asleep or drowsy. The photographs that were taken of Alvin during this time support this. Despite this, both Denton and the defendant said they did not notice any visible signs of harm on Alvin’s body and that he seemed normal. Neither Denton nor the defendant considered that Alvin’s condition necessitated them seeking any medical treatment for Alvin. 16 On Thursday night it was Denton’s turn to sleep in the loungeroom and attend to Alvin’s night feeds. Alvin was usually fed every four hours. Alvin was last fed at 4:30 pm and he did not want to take the bottle at 8:30 pm. Denton forgot to set the alarm for Alvin’s next feed, which was scheduled for 12:30 am on Friday 23 April 2021. Denton said she awoke at 4:30 am and checked on Alvin. She said she could hear that Alvin had ‘chesty breathing’, as if he had phlegm on his chest. Denton thought Alvin might be hot because the room was warm, so removed the blanket covering him. Denton did not feed Alvin at this time and went back to sleep. 17 At around 6:30 am Denton awoke and attended to Alvin to feed him. Denton had prepared his bottle. Denton said she found that Alvin was cold and unresponsive. She took Alvin into the bedroom where the defendant was sleeping. The defendant performed CPR on Alvin before he and Denton rushed Alvin to the Noarlunga Hospital where Alvin was sadly pronounced dead. -- 4 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 3 18 During a series of police interviews, the defendant repeated the account that he tripped over the family dog causing the bassinet to tip onto its side with Alvin in it. He said that the only injuries Alvin suffered when the bassinet tipped over, were a cut to the inside of Alvin’s top lip and a small area of discolouration to the left eye. He said that both injuries dissipated rapidly with the application of an ice pack. The defendant stated he had not taken Alvin for medical treatment after the bassinet incident because he did not consider that Alvin required any hospital treatment, although he purchased some Panadol at 3:50 pm as a precautionary measure for any pain that Alvin might have been experiencing. He said that Alvin did not display any abnormal signs following the bassinet incident that would have necessitated Alvin requiring any hospital or medical treatment. He denied doing any deliberate act that caused any injuries to Alvin. 19 The postmortem examination revealed that Alvin sustained a number of serious injuries, consistent with a non-accidental infliction of those injuries. The injuries included rib fractures, bruising to two separate parts of the scalp, subdural and subarachnoid haemorrhages over the brain, a left temporal lobe contusion, hypoxic ischaemic damage of the brain, haemorrhages to the eyes, including retinal detachment of both eyes, bruising to the back, an abrasion to the upper lip, an injury to the frenulum3 and a small bruise to the left cheek. 20 The cause of death was attributed to a head injury, specifically ‘blunt cranio-cerebral trauma’, involving rotational or angular forces of the head with or without impact. 21 The injuries noted at the postmortem examination were consistent with Alvin being held tightly around the chest and shaken or thrust about, at least once, during which Alvin’s head made contact with an uneven surface. 22 Alvin’s deteriorating state, in which he exhibited symptoms of drowsiness, sleep, and slow feeding, was consistent with a serious head injury that affected his consciousness. 23 Denton denied causing any harm to Alvin. She pleaded guilty to criminal neglect by failing to seek medical treatment for Alvin following what she understood happened in the bassinet incident described to her by the defendant. 24 The issue in the trial on the charge of manslaughter is the identity of the person who inflicted the serious head injuries on Alvin that caused his death. 25 On the evidence, only the defendant or Denton had the opportunity to inflict the fatal injuries. 26 The prosecution case on manslaughter is that the defendant’s account of the harm sustained by Alvin is false, and that he inflicted the fractures and head injuries on Alvin when Alvin was in his sole care on 21 April 2021 by shaking 3 A thin tissue that attaches the inside of the middle upper part of the lip to the gum. -- 5 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 4 him, while Denton was away from the house with her stepmother. The prosecution case is that the defendant inflicted the injuries on Alvin, as revealed in the postmortem examination, through an unlawful and dangerous act, or acts, that ultimately caused Alvin’s death. The prosecution case is that the defendant, while forcefully holding Alvin around the chest, either shook or threw Alvin, striking him against a hard, uneven surface, and, in doing so, caused the brain trauma that ultimately led to Alvin’s death. 27 The charge of criminal neglect, somewhat unusually, was not charged as an alternative to manslaughter. The prosecution case on this charge involves the defendant’s failure to seek timely medical care for Alvin, when he was aware or ought to have been aware, through Alvin’s deteriorating condition across Wednesday and Thursday, that there was an appreciable risk that Alvin’s physical and mental wellbeing was deteriorating. The prosecution case is that the defendant failed to take steps he could reasonably be expected to have taken to protect Alvin from the harm being occasioned through the defendant’s failure to seek medical care for Alvin. The prosecution case is that the failure to seek medical care for Alvin is so serious in the circumstances that a criminal penalty is warranted. 28 I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant inflicted the injuries Alvin sustained, as noted at postmortem, with the cause of those injuries, as explained by the paediatrician, being angular or rotational forces, likely through a deliberate act of shaking or throwing, with an impact onto an uneven surface. 29 In reaching this conclusion I have excluded as a reasonable possibility that Denton was responsible for inflicting the injuries Alvin sustained. 30 I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant’s failure to seek timely medical care for Alvin amounts to criminal neglect. 31 I find the defendant guilty of both the manslaughter of Alvin and the criminal neglect of Alvin. 32 I now set out the evidence in detail and explain my reasons for finding the defendant guilty of the charges. Onus and standard of proof 33 The prosecution bears the onus of proving each charge against the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. 34 The defendant is not required to prove anything. While he has given accounts explaining how Alvin was accidentally harmed, the actions taken after the accident, his observations of Alvin, and denied that he inflicted the rib fractures and head injuries, he does not have to prove his innocence of the offences. Instead, the prosecution must exclude as a reasonable possibility what the defendant has said in his accounts to the police. -- 6 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 5 35 In these reasons, whenever I have used expressions such as ‘proved’, ‘established’ or ‘satisfied’, in relation to proof of an element of the offence, I mean ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’. Elements of the offences Manslaughter 36 There are four elements of the offence of manslaughter, which the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt. They are: i. The defendant’s act, or series of acts, caused the death of Alvin. In this sense, it must be proved that the defendant’s act, or series of acts, was a substantive or significant cause of Alvin’s death; ii. The defendant’s act, or acts, in causing Alvin’s death was voluntary and deliberate; iii. The defendant’s act, or acts, was unlawful; and iv. The defendant’s unlawful act, or acts, was dangerous.4 This means that the defendant’s act, or acts, must expose Alvin to an appreciable risk5 of serious injury. This is to be assessed objectively – whether a reasonable person in the defendant’s position would have realised, that through their act or acts, they were exposing Alvin to an appreciable risk of serious injury. Whether Alvin was exposed to an appreciable risk of serious injury is qualitative and is to be decided in a commonsense manner taking into account that the enquiry concerns criminal responsibility.6 Criminal neglect 37 Given the factual basis upon which the prosecution sought to prove this offence as particularised during its closing address, it is necessary to set out the relevant provisions in the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) creating the offence. 4 Wilson v R (1992) 174 CLR 313; Burns v R (2012) 246 CLR 334. 5 An ‘appreciable risk’ means a risk that is real and not theoretical; more than a remote or mere possibility that the act might cause serious injury: R v Abdul-Rasool (2008) 18 VR 586 per Redlich JA. Although this was in the context of discussing the meaning of ‘appreciable risk’ in relation to an offence of endangering life, there is no reason to suppose the phrase should be interpreted differently in relation to its meaning in an unlawful and dangerous manslaughter and nor for that matter in relation to its meaning in the offence of criminal neglect. 6 Burns v R (2012) 246 CLR 334 at [9]. -- 7 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 6 Division 1A—Criminal neglect etc 13B—Interpretation (1) In this Division— act includes— (a) an omission; and (b) a course of conduct; child means a person under 16 years of age; cognitive impairment includes— (a) a developmental disability (including, for example, an intellectual disability, Down syndrome, cerebral palsy or an autistic spectrum disorder); (b) an acquired disability as a result of illness or injury (including, for example, dementia, a traumatic brain injury or a neurological disorder); (c) a mental illness; vulnerable adult means a person aged 16 years or above who is significantly impaired through physical disability, cognitive impairment, illness or infirmity. (2) Subject to subsection (3), in this Division the following terms and phrases have the same meaning as in Division 7A: (a) cause; (b) harm. (3) For the purposes of this Division, a reference to harm will be taken to include detriment caused to the physical, mental or emotional wellbeing or development of a child or vulnerable adult (whether temporary or permanent). (4) For the purposes of this Division, a defendant has a duty of care to a victim if the defendant is a parent or guardian of the victim or has assumed responsibility for the victim’s care. 14—Criminal neglect (1) A person (the defendant) is guilty of the offence of criminal neglect if— (a) a child or a vulnerable adult (the victim) dies or suffers harm as a result of an act; and (b) the defendant had, at the time of the act, a duty of care to the victim; and (c) the defendant was, or ought to have been, aware that there was an appreciable risk that harm would be caused to the victim by the act; and (d) the defendant failed to take steps that he or she could reasonably be expected to have taken in the circumstances to protect the victim from harm and the defendant’s failure to do so was, in the circumstances, so serious that a criminal penalty is warranted. Maximum penalty: (a) where the victim dies—imprisonment for life; or (b) in any other case—imprisonment for 15 years. (2) If a jury considering a charge of criminal neglect against a defendant finds that— (a) there is reasonable doubt as to the identity of the person who committed the act that caused the victim's death or harm; but -- 8 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 7 (b) the act can only have been the act of the defendant or some other person who, on the evidence, may have committed the act, the jury may find the defendant guilty of the charge of criminal neglect even though of the opinion that the act may have been the act of the defendant. (3) If a defendant is charged with an offence against this section in respect of a course of conduct— (a) it is not necessary to prove that the defendant was, or ought to have been, aware that there was an appreciable risk that harm would be caused to the victim by each act making up the course of conduct; and (b) the information need not— (i) allege particulars of each act with the degree of particularity that would be required if the act were charged as an offence under a different section of this or any other Act; or (ii) identify particular acts or the occasions on which, places at which or order in which acts occurred; or (iii) identify particular acts as causing, wholly or partly, particular harm to the victim. (4) A defendant may be charged with an offence against this section in respect of a course of conduct even if some of the acts making up the course of conduct occurred before the commencement of this section. Division 7A—Causing physical or mental harm 21—Interpretation In this Division— cause—a person causes harm if the person's conduct is the sole cause of the harm or substantially contributes to the harm; If a victim suffers serious harm as a result of multiple acts of harm and those acts occur in the course of the same incident, or together constitute a single course of conduct, a person who commits any of the acts causing harm is taken to cause serious harm even though the harm caused by the act might not, if considered in isolation, amount to serious harm. harm means physical or mental harm (whether temporary or permanent); … physical harm includes— (a) unconsciousness; (b) pain; (c) disfigurement; (d) infection with a disease; -- 9 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 8 38 There are five elements of the offence of criminal neglect which the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt. They are: i. That Alvin died or suffered harm as a result of an act or series of acts. In this case the prosecution has particularised the act as an omission; ii. The defendant had a duty of care to Alvin; iii. The defendant was, or ought to have been, aware that there was an appreciable risk that harm would be caused to Alvin by that act, or acts; iv. The defendant failed to take steps, he could reasonably be expected to have taken in the circumstances to protect Alvin from harm; and v. The defendant’s failure to take such steps was, in the circumstances, so serious that a criminal penalty is warranted. Evidence Background 39 Alvin Tony McGregor was born on 2 April 2021 to parents Rebecca Lea Denton and Ashley John McGregor.7 40 Denton has another child, Blake, from a different relationship. Blake was born on 16 May 2009.8 Denton separated from Blake’s father in 2015.9 Blake was 11 years old when Alvin was born and lived with Denton and the defendant at Christie Downs but was away from the house on 21 April 2021. 41 Denton had been in a relationship with the defendant for nearly four years when Alvin was born.10 This was a planned pregnancy, with Denton falling pregnant soon after she stopped her contraception.11 Drug use 42 Both Denton and the defendant were users of cannabis and methamphetamine.12 Cannabis plants were grown in the backyard of their property.13 43 Denton said she only commenced using drugs after she formed a relationship with the defendant.14 Denton admitted she had become addicted to smoking cannabis.15 7 T 63.21. 8 T 63.9. 9 T 63.7. 10 T 63.27. 11 T 152.2. 12 T 63-64. 13 P3. 14 T 156. 15 T 157. -- 10 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 9 44 Denton gave evidence that prior to pregnancy she was smoking cannabis every day16 and would generally smoke ‘between eight to 10 bongs of cannabis a day’.17 Denton said the defendant would smoke the same amount of cannabis as her.18 Smoking cannabis was an activity they would do together.19 Denton said they would smoke the cannabis in the laundry.20 45 Denton and the defendant would not use methamphetamine as often as cannabis.21 Denton said they would use methamphetamine only about every three months or more, depending on the availability of money to purchase it.22 They would consume the methamphetamine together and would smoke it through an ice pipe.23 46 When Denton discovered she was pregnant with Alvin, she altered her drug use.24 While she continued to smoke cannabis, Denton said that she decreased the frequency of her use.25 She said she ‘stopped having as many’ bongs a day but ‘didn’t stop altogether’.26 Denton was unsure about the exact number of bongs she would have per day during pregnancy,27 stating she would have a minimum of four bongs a day, ‘but it could have been more than that’.28 Denton said she knew that smoking cannabis whilst pregnant posed a risk to Alvin’s health.29 Denton said the defendant’s use of cannabis remained the same as it was prior to the pregnancy.30 47 Denton said she only used methamphetamine twice during her pregnancy.31 The first time, when she was about 12 or 13 weeks pregnant, Denton and the defendant consumed eight points32 over three to four days.33 The second time, when Denton was about four months pregnant, she and the defendant consumed eight points over about a week to a week and a half.34 48 Denton admitted she had lied to the hospital staff, after Alvin was born, but before he was discharged, by failing to mention that she smoked cannabis and 16 T 64.5. 17 T 64.7. 18 T 64.18. 19 T 64.20. 20 T 79. 21 T 64. 22 T 64. 23 T 65.3. 24 T 65. 25 T 65.22. 26 T 65.30. 27 T 66.3. 28 T 66. 29 T 156-157. 30 T 66.17. 31 T 66.23. 32 A ‘point’ of methamphetamine is 0.1 g. 33 T 66. 34 T 67. -- 11 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 10 methamphetamine during pregnancy in circumstances where the enquiry related to an issue with Alvin’s health.35 49 Denton also admitted not disclosing to the police, in an interview on 7 May 2021, when specifically asked about her drug use, that she had used methamphetamine (although she disclosed smoking cannabis). Denton said she had not disclosed her methamphetamine use to the police because she was trying to protect herself.36 50 After Alvin was born, Denton said that her use of cannabis returned to the same frequency as before she was pregnant.37 She returned to smoking between eight to 10 bongs a day.38 Denton said the reason for this was because she was no longer pregnant and not because she was struggling with Alvin.39 Denton said the defendant’s use of cannabis remained the same throughout this time.40 Denton said that she would smoke a bong of cannabis before she went to sleep (which was usually between 8:30 pm and 9:30 pm)41 and then would not smoke her next bong again until the following morning.42 51 Denton said she stopped using drugs altogether in April 2021.43 After Alvin passed away, the Department of Child Protection removed Blake from Denton’s care, and Denton was submitted to random drug testing.44 Denton said this prompted her to stop using drugs.45 52 The evidence of the defendant’s drug use and growing cannabis plants at the property reveals that the defendant engaged in discreditable conduct.46 This evidence was not adduced by the prosecution in proof of the charges. The only relevance of the defendant’s use of drugs and growing cannabis plants on the prosecution case, was said to be background or context evidence revealing how Denton and the defendant were living at the time.47 53 Insofar as the prosecution contended that the evidence could be used to determine whether the defendant was ‘caring and attentive and otherwise not a 35 T 160. 36 T 159. 37 T 79.21, 157. 38 T 79.21, 195. 39 T 157.28. 40 T 79.31. 41 T 158. 42 T 158. 43 T 244.24. 44 T 244.34-245. 45 T 244. The defence position was that the evidence was relevant as it was a significant feature of the relationship between Denton and the defendant: T 249-250. 46 Evidence Act 1929 (SA) s 34P(1). 47 Evidence Act s 34P(2)(a). -- 12 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 11 neglectful father’,48 I will not use the evidence for that purpose, as I do not consider it has the probative value suggested.49 54 I have not used the evidence to reason that because the defendant has used drugs and was growing cannabis plants at the property that he is the sort of person who is more likely to have committed either of the offences he has been charged with. The evidence is inadmissible for that purpose.50 The evidence has not been used in any adverse way against the defendant when considering whether the prosecution has proved either charge against him.51 Denton’s depression and medication 55 Denton said she has ‘suffered from depression for quite a while’.52 Denton said she was diagnosed with postnatal depression after Blake was born and prescribed Citalopram to deal with her depression. She said she used this medication for about nine years.53 At the time of Alvin’s birth, Denton said she was taking Lovan (Fluoxetine) to treat her depression.54 Denton said she suffered with depression in the period before and after Alvin was born.55 56 On 15 April 2021, clinical nurse Penelope Braddon assessed Denton using the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale.56 Denton scored zero on the scale, meaning Denton was not exhibiting any active symptoms of postnatal depression at the time.57 57 Denton denied, under cross-examination, that she was crying on a daily basis during the week before Alvin passed away.58 She also denied not coping on the morning of 21 April 2021.59 There was no evidence that Denton had been crying on a daily basis or that she was not coping on the morning of 21 April 2021. 2 April 2021 - 20 April 2021 Alvin’s birth 58 Alvin was born on 2 April 2021 at 6:00 pm, at the Flinders Medical Centre. He was two weeks overdue, so Denton had an induced labour.60 Alvin was a small baby, weighing 2.525kg at birth.61 48 T 249. 49 Evidence Act s 34P(2)(a). 50 Evidence Act s 34P(1)(a), (b). 51 Evidence Act s 34R(1). 52 T 155.14. 53 T 154. 54 T 155. 55 T 155. 56 P19 [13]. 57 P19 [13]. 58 T 155. 59 T 156. 60 T 67. 61 T 74.32. -- 13 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 12 Discharge from hospital 59 On 4 April 2021, Denton was discharged from hospital.62 Alvin was not discharged at the same time, because the doctors wanted to conduct some tests to determine whether Alvin had an obstruction of the bowel, as Alvin had a bilious vomit. When the test cleared Alvin of that possibility, he was discharged on the morning of 5 April 2021 and taken home by his parents. 60 After being discharged from hospital, apart from the bilious vomit, there was nothing medically wrong with Alvin nor were any injuries detected to his body.63 Sleeping and feeding arrangements Location of the bassinet 61 After Alvin was brought home he was often ‘swaddled’ or wrapped in blankets.64 Alvin slept in a bassinet in the loungeroom.65 The bassinet did not have a particular location where it would be positioned in the loungeroom, although later in the evidence it emerged that the bassinet was usually positioned in front of a wall heater in the loungeroom behind the couches.66 Denton said she and the defendant would roll the bassinet around to wherever was closest to them.67 When Denton would sleep in the loungeroom, she would place the bassinet at the end of the couch where her head would lie.68 Alternating feeding schedule 62 Alvin was bottle fed from birth.69 As Alvin was being bottle fed, Denton and the defendant decided to take turns feeding him.70 They arranged to take turns sleeping in the loungeroom with Alvin while the other slept in the bedroom.71 They would alternate ‘one night on, and one night off’.72 This was so they were not both tired all the time.73 Record of feeding times 63 Denton and the defendant kept a record of feeding times, quantities of milk fed to Alvin and nappy changes in an exercise book.74 Alvin was usually fed every four hours.75 An alarm was set for every four hours during the night.76 The ‘feeding 62 T 68; P19 [2]. 63 P19 [4]. 64 T 83. 65 T 69; This was the light brown couch seen in P3, photographs 23-26. 66 T 70.3. 67 T 70. 68 T 70; See P3, photographs 23-27. 69 Denton had a breast reduction surgery that prevented her from producing milk: T 70. 70 T 73. 71 T 73; See P2, bedroom 1; P3, photograph 65. 72 T 73.23. 73 T 73; P14, 23 April 2021. 74 P4; See also P8. 75 T 74. 76 T 74. -- 14 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 13 book’, as it was described in the evidence, allowed them to know when Alvin had last fed so there would be no need to wake up the other to ascertain the last feed. 64 Denton said that the entries in the feeding book with a capital ‘L’ in ‘mL’ were in her own handwriting, whereas the entries with a lowercase ‘l’ in ‘ml’ were in the defendant’s handwriting,77 although under cross-examination, Denton said that some of the entries with the capital ‘L’ in ‘mL’ were also in the defendant’s handwriting.78 Denton said that she could tell the difference between her handwriting and the defendant’s.79 Feeding book entries – Wednesday 21 April - Friday 23 April 2021 65 A schedule, created from P4 (the ‘feeding book’) for the period commencing 21 April 2021 until Alvin’s passing on 23 April 2021, reveals:80 START END AMOUNT NAPPY NOTES Wednesday 21 April 2021 1.15am 1.45am 100mLs Wet With anti-colic 5.05am 5.30am 50mLs Dry 7.55am 8.40am 80mLs Wet 11.40am 12.05pm 120mLs Wet 4.30pm 5.00pm 60mLs Dry With anti-colic 8.20pm 8.40pm 60mLs Wet/poo Thursday 22 April 2021 1.00am 1.30am 120mls Wee Panadol 0.5mls Due at 5am Panadol 5.30am 6.00am 60mls Wee/poo Had Panadol 8am 1.00pm 1.20pm 90mLs Wee Had Panadol at 1pm 4.10pm 4.30pm 90mLs Wet With Anti-colic Visits and outings following Alvin arriving home Flinders Medical Centre Maternity Outreach Service 66 On 6 April 2021, in the mid-afternoon, midwife, Kara Bull, visited Alvin at the home as part of the Flinders Medical Centre (‘FMC’) Maternity Outreach Service.81 The purpose of at-home visits by FMC is to check the welfare of newborn babies and their mothers, including by ensuring babies are feeding and gaining weight. Generally, babies are stripped naked, weighed and assessed by 77 T 77. 78 T 181-182. 79 T 181-182. 80 There were no entries made into the feeding book on Friday 23 April 2021, as Alvin did not feed again. 81 P19 [6]. -- 15 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 14 the visiting midwife or nurse.82 Bull weighed and assessed Alvin while Alvin was naked. Bull did not notice any bruising and in her assessment reported that Alvin was behaving like a normal, healthy baby.83 Due to Alvin’s small size, Bull arranged a further Maternity Outreach Service visit to the home to ensure Alvin was appropriately gaining weight.84 Check up at FMC 67 On 9 April 2021, Alvin was taken to the FMC for a check-up in relation to the earlier concern that there may have been an obstruction in his stomach.85 As a result of the bilious vomit, noted on 4 April 2021, which kept Alvin in hospital an extra day, Dr Morris, consultant neonatologist, ordered a barium swallow study of Alvin as an outpatient. The study returned a normal result. Alvin did not have any further bilious vomits and no further investigation was required.86 FMC Maternity Outreach Service 68 On the same day, 9 April 2021, midwife Nicole Sakolevas visited Alvin at home as part of the FMC Maternity Outreach Service.87 Sakolevas stripped, weighed and assessed Alvin while he was naked. Sakolevas reported no concerns about Alvin’s health, apart from some observed flaky skin. Sakolevas did not consider that any follow ups were required in relation to Alvin’s health or wellbeing. Sakolevas did not observe any injuries to Alvin.88 Child and Family Health Service visit 69 On 15 April 2021,89 at around 9:30 am, clinical nurse Penelope Braddon, of Child and Family Health Service (‘CaFHS’), visited the home to conduct a universal health check on Alvin. Alvin was stripped naked and weighed. Braddon had no concerns with Alvin’s wellbeing. She did not observe any injuries to Alvin. She noted Alvin appeared to be a healthy baby, although of a smaller size.90 Denton and Braddon discussed Alvin’s feeding routine.91 During this visit Braddon also assessed Denton using the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale and found no active symptoms of postnatal depression exhibited by Denton.92 82 P19 [7]. 83 P19 [8]. 84 P19 [9]. 85 T 75.2, 136. 86 P19 [5]. 87 P19 [10]. 88 P19 [11]. 89 Denton recalls this visit taking place on 12 April 2021: T 182-183, 229. 90 P19 [12]. 91 T 183. 92 P19 [13]. -- 16 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 15 80th birthday party 70 On 17 April 2021, Denton, the defendant and Alvin attended an 80th birthday party for the defendant’s grandmother.93 ENT examination 71 On 19 April 2021, Denton attended CaFHS Morphett Vale with Alvin for a hearing test.94 Alvin passed the hearing test. No injuries were observed on Alvin at this time; however, Alvin’s clothing was not removed for an examination of the body.95 Denton took a photograph of Alvin while at the appointment.96 No injuries to Alvin’s face are visible in the photograph. Visits by Samuel Denton and Sarah Harris 72 Denton’s father, Samuel Denton, and his partner, Sarah Harris, visited Alvin at home on two occasions. The first visit was on a weekday within 24 - 48 hours of Alvin being discharged from the hospital.97 This visit was for around one hour.98 The second visit took place on either Sunday 18 April or Monday 19 April 2021.99 At this second visit Samuel Denton held Alvin. He said Alvin appeared alert, happy and healthy.100 He did not notice anything abnormal about Alvin. Photographs taken of Alvin at this visit show Alvin as a happy and healthy baby with no visible injuries.101 Harris said that Alvin looked ‘small … but other than that seemed like a perfect, normal newborn’.102 Blake stays with his grandmother 73 On Tuesday 20 April 2021, Blake went to stay at his maternal grandmother’s house. Blake stayed there for two nights as it was the school holiday period.103 Denton collected Blake from her mother’s house on Thursday 22 April 2021, while the defendant’s parents were visiting Alvin that afternoon.104 93 T 183. 94 P19 [14]. 95 P19 [14]; See T 136, 183.3, 229. 96 T 136.27; P10, photograph 20, taken on 19 April 2021 at 08:57:14 am. 97 T 288. 98 T 288. 99 T 290, 229.34. Denton agreed under cross-examination that this visit was on 19 April 2021: T 229. 100 T 284. 101 P11. 102 T 289.35; See P11. 103 T 86. 104 T 129. -- 17 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 16 Wednesday 21 April 2021 Prior to Denton leaving home at 10:30 am 74 Denton gave evidence that from her perspective, up until 21 April 2021, Alvin was a happy, healthy baby.105 There were no incidents that she was aware of where Alvin had been injured.106 75 Denton agreed that Alvin was a very placid baby, that he did not cry a lot and was easy to settle.107 76 On Wednesday 21 April 2021, at around 7:55 am, the feeding book records that Denton fed Alvin.108 77 Denton took two photographs of Alvin at 8:51:39 am and 8:51:45 am,109 in which Alvin appears normal. 78 After feeding Alvin, Denton said she placed him back into the bassinet. The bassinet was in the loungeroom and positioned by the heater.110 79 Denton said she then telephoned Sheryl Bickley, who she described as being a stepmother to her.111 Denton asked Bickley what she was doing that day.112 Bickley told Denton she was going to do some shopping and Denton asked if she could come along.113 Shopping with Sheryl Bickley 80 Around 10:30 am Denton left home to pick up Bickley, who lived in Port Noarlunga South.114 They went to the Woodcroft Shopping Centre to look at clothing shops and then went to Dee Dee’s Café in Morphett Vale to have coffee.115 81 Denton left Alvin in the defendant’s care.116 105 T 81.6 106 T 80.35. 107 T 238. 108 P4, 7: The last feed before Denton left for the shops was 80 mL between 7:55 am and 8:40 am. The next entry in the feeding book is for 120 mL between 11:40 am and 12:05 am when Denton was out with Bickley. Denton’s evidence was that she fed Alvin at 10:00 am but this does not accord with the entries in the feeding book and Alvin’s usual routine of feeding every four hours: see T 97.20. 109 P10, photographs 21-22. 110 T 246. 111 Sheryl Bickley is the partner of Denton’s mother’s ex-partner. 112 T 253. 113 T 253. 114 T 85; While Denton’s and Bickley’s evidence differs slightly in the time the events occurred on Wednesday the order of the events remain the same. 115 T 87. 116 T 87. -- 18 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 17 82 Bickley said she had seen Alvin on a number of occasions before 21 April 2021 and agreed that ‘he appeared to be fine, sleeping and feeding … he was a normal, happy healthy baby’.117 83 At 10:30:35 am the defendant attempted to call Denton.118 The call was not answered. 84 At 10:31:06 am the defendant called Denton, with the call recorded as lasting nine seconds.119 85 At 11:55:22 am Denton sent a text message to the defendant:120 I’m just having a coffee with Sheryl, then I’ll drop her home and be home. She bought us a pouch and I have stuff from Trevor too. :) xxx 86 The defendant replied to this text message at 12:08:45 pm:121 Awesome baby xoxoxoxox The telephone call 87 At 12:14:28 pm Denton received a call from the defendant.122 Denton said she was still at Dee Dee’s Café having a coffee with Bickley.123 The call lasted 53 seconds.124 88 Denton said she could hear Alvin crying and screaming in the background while speaking with the defendant.125 The defendant told her there had been an incident with the bassinet tipping over and Alvin being injured. Denton said the defendant explained he got up to check on Alvin. The defendant said that the family dog, ‘Thor’, got up at the same time and that he tripped over the dog.126 Denton said the defendant told her that the only thing he could grab onto was the bassinet, and when he did, it tipped over, and knocked Alvin out of the bassinet.127 89 Denton said she asked the defendant, ‘Do we need to take him to the hospital?’, and the defendant said ‘No, we'll just see how he is when you get back’, and she said, ‘Okay, I'll be there very soon’.128 In cross-examination, Denton said she could not recall if it was her or the defendant who asked the question about 117 T 253.16. 118 P19 [19 (a)]. 119 P19 [19(b)]. 120 P19 [19 (c)]; P24 [24]. 121 P19 [19(d)]; P24 [25]. 122 P19 [19(e)]; Denton’s evidence was that it was around 12:00 pm: T 88. 123 T 88. 124 P19 [19(e)]. 125 T 88.8. 126 T 88.9. 127 T 88.11. 128 T 88. -- 19 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 18 needing to take Alvin to the hospital, but she knew that it had been mentioned during the call.129 90 Bickley said Denton was very stressed and upset when she received the call from the defendant.130 91 Denton agreed that the defendant sounded upset, and that he was crying during the call.131 Denton returns home 92 After the call ended, Denton and Bickley left Dee Dee’s Café and returned immediately home.132 The café is about a 10-minute drive from the home.133 Denton said she tried to get home as quick as possible.134 93 When Denton arrived home and entered the house, the defendant was sitting on a computer chair in the dining room. He was holding Alvin in his arms, ‘cradling him like you do with a normal newborn baby’.135 Denton said that Alvin was not crying and was asleep.136 Denton said the defendant was holding an ice pack, wrapped in a tea towel, to Alvin’s top lip.137 94 Denton did not remember where the bassinet was when she entered the house as she was not paying attention to her surroundings,138 although she said that she assumed it was upright because she would have noticed if it was tipped over.139 95 Bickley said the bassinet was in its normal position, upright, in front of the heater, and at the end of the couch, in the loungeroom.140 96 Denton said the defendant was upset, very distraught, and that he was crying.141 She agreed under cross-examination that the defendant looked hysterical and had tears flowing down his face.142 Denton said that the defendant was ‘annoyed with himself’ for what happened and told her that he wished he grabbed onto something else when he tripped over the dog.143 Denton said the defendant was blaming the dog for getting up at the same time.144 129 T 162. 130 T 254.35. 131 T 162. 132 T 89. 133 T 89. 134 T 89. 135 T 90.20; Bickley confirms this: T 256. 136 T 90.2; Bickley also confirms that Alvin was asleep in the defendant’s arms: T 256. 137 T 90.24. 138 T 90.11. 139 T 90.15. 140 T 258-260, 271. 141 T 90, 93. 142 T 164.33, 165. 143 T 90-91. 144 T 90.35. -- 20 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 19 97 Denton said the defendant repeated what he had told her over the telephone, that he and the dog got up at the same time causing him to trip over the dog and the only thing he could grab onto was the bassinet, which tipped over, and that Alvin fell out of the bassinet and hit his face on the music box in the bassinet.145 98 Denton took Alvin from the defendant’s arms and told the defendant to go outside, have a cigarette and calm down.146 99 Bickley also gave evidence that Denton was trying to calm the defendant down because he was crying and really upset.147 Bickley said the defendant was crying and saying ‘I’m sorry. I just tripped’.148 100 Denton said the defendant passed Alvin and the ice pack over to her and then he went outside.149 Denton held Alvin and kept the ice pack on his lip.150 Before keeping the ice pack positioned on Alvin’s lip, Denton removed the ice pack to have a look at Alvin and noticed ‘a little cut underneath his top lip’.151 101 Denton said that Alvin did not wake up or stir after she took him from the defendant, nor when she was placing the ice pack back onto his lip.152 Denton said that the ice pack was still cold.153 102 Bickley said that Alvin appeared to be asleep, but under cross-examination agreed she had told the police in a statement that she looked over the defendant’s shoulder and noticed that Alvin was ‘awake but drowsy, going back to sleep’.154 Bickley agreed this is what she observed.155 103 Apart from the injury on his lip, Denton did not notice any other injuries on Alvin.156 She said that Alvin’s appearance was the same as it had been earlier that morning and before she left home to go shopping with Bickley.157 Aside from what the defendant had told her happened, Denton said she did not have any other concerns about Alvin’s wellbeing at that time.158 104 Bickley said she noticed blood on Alvin’s face and on the defendant’s t-shirt.159 She said that Alvin had a cut on his lip160 but apart from that she did not 145 T 91.7. 146 T 93. 147 T 259-260. 148 T 257. 149 T 93. 150 T 93. 151 T 93-94. 152 T 94. 153 T 94. 154 T 267. 155 T 267. 156 T 94. 157 T 94.19. 158 T 97. 159 T 279.9-279.12. 160 Bickley said the cut was directly below Alvin’s nose and slightly to the left on top of lip: T 256-257. -- 21 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 20 notice any other injuries.161 Bickley said that when the defendant was holding Alvin, she did not notice anything other than Alvin as that was her focus. Bickley said that nothing was being done about the cut to Alvin’s lip when the defendant was holding Alvin.162 105 Bickley said that her partner Trevor Creek arrived at the house to pick her up about 10 to 15 minutes after she and Denton had returned.163 Bickley said she left the house after about one or two minutes of her partner arriving.164 Position of the music box in the bassinet 106 When describing the position of the music box, Denton said that she remembered that it was ‘hanging in the bassinet’.165 She described it hanging from the bar located underneath the canopy of the bassinet.166 Denton marked this position with an ‘X’ and letters ‘MB’ on photograph 27 of P3.167 107 Denton was shown photograph 104 of P5, which depicted the music box attached to the right side of the bassinet.168 Denton accepted that there could have been times when the music box was positioned in this way, however, she could not recall it being positioned in this way and ‘had always thought it was hanging off the top’.169 108 Denton said that the music box was hanging in the bassinet before she left the house on Wednesday 21 April 2021.170 Denton said that when she returned home, the music box was no longer in the bassinet.171 Denton said when she next noticed the music box it was on the computer desk.172 109 In cross-examination, it was suggested to Denton that the music box was never hung from the top of the bassinet and was either secured on the left or right side of the bassinet.173 Denton responded to this saying, ‘It could have been, yes, but from memory, I only remember it being hung’.174 She said that ‘the only thing in my memory is I thought that it was hanging from the top of it’.175 161 T 256. 162 T 527.13-527.18. 163 T 258. 164 T 261, 269. 165 T 91-93; 173-174. 166 T 91-92. 167 P3, photograph 27. 168 P5, photograph 104; T 92. 169 T 92.38-93.1. 170 T 93. 171 T 93. 172 T 93; The music box was located by police on the desk in the office: T 38. 173 T 172-173. 174 T 173.23. 175 T 174.3. -- 22 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 21 Discussion about seeking medical care 110 Denton said she had a discussion with the defendant and Bickley about seeking medical attention for Alvin.176 Denton said they thought about it and decided the injury was not as bad as they thought it was because Alvin had gone to sleep before she returned home and so decided that they would ‘wait and see’.177 Denton said, ‘That because [Alvin] had gone back to sleep and wasn’t hysterically crying anymore, we didn’t think that it was as bad as we thought’.178 111 Denton said that Alvin’s eyes were closed so she thought that he was asleep.179 112 Denton denied under cross-examination that Alvin was sobbing.180 Bickley also said that she did not remember Alvin sobbing.181 113 Denton said that she did not have any concerns for Alvin’s wellbeing after she returned home and checked him over.182 114 Denton said she placed Alvin back into the bassinet and ‘just let him sleep’.183 115 Denton said she did not check on Alvin while he was sleeping in the bassinet.184 Conversation about Alvin developing a black eye 116 A few hours after Denton returned home Denton said she had a conversation with the defendant during which he warned her about Alvin developing a black eye.185 Denton said that the defendant told her that ‘Alvin could possibly develop a black eye from falling onto the music box’.186 Denton said, however, that at no stage did she notice an actual black eye on Alvin’s face.187 117 Denton maintained this position about never seeing Alvin with a black eye throughout her evidence. Under cross-examination a portion of Denton’s police interview of 23 April 2021 was played, in which Denton told the police that Alvin had a black eye.188 Denton’s explanation for saying this to the police at that time was not that she had actually seen Alvin with a black eye, but because she was 176 T 94. 177 T 94. Bickley, however, said there was no discussion in her presence about Alvin’s welfare and specifically no discussion about whether Alvin needed to be taken to a doctor or hospital: T 257-258, 268-269. 178 T 95.10, 170, 172.6, 179 T 170.33-170.36. 180 T 170.37-171.1. 181 T 267. 182 T 97. 183 T 95.26. 184 T 95.26, 97.7. 185 T 132-133. 186 T 133. 187 T 132.30, 134.17-134.21. 188 T 219. -- 23 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 22 angry with the defendant after she was told of Alvin’s postmortem injuries and thought that the defendant had hurt Alvin and so she wanted to incriminate him.189 118 However, on 22 April 2021, Bickley sent a Facebook message to Denton at 4:02 pm:190 Your welcome love...crappy…seeing the dr in the morning…hows alvin and ash xox. [sic] 119 Denton replied to this message at 4:14 pm:191 Oh no, hopefully they can give you something better. Alvin has been very, very wingey today, it looks like he got a slight black eye. Ash is doing alright; he didn’t get a lot of sleep last night though. Alvin wouldn’t settle. [emphasis added] 120 Despite what is obviously written in this reply to Bickley’s text, Denton maintained throughout her evidence that she did not see Alvin with a black eye.192 121 This aspect of Denton’s evidence, of her saying she did not see Alvin with a black eye, is incongruous, given that the defendant himself admitted in his police interviews that Alvin had struck his eye on the music box and that there were signs of a very minor black eye, which he treated with an ice pack.193 I will return to discuss Denton’s evidence about this later in these reasons, as, naturally, this featured strongly in the defence address on assessing Denton’s credibility and reliability. Blood from the bassinet incident 122 Denton said that after returning home she did not see any blood on Alvin’s lip.194 Denton did notice the cut on Alvin’s lip because she specifically looked at Alvin’s lip, but said it was not bleeding.195 123 Denton said she ‘saw a little bit’ of blood on one of Alvin’s sheets.196 She also noticed blood on the sheet Alvin was wrapped in.197 Denton said she thought that she and the defendant put the bloodied sheet in the laundry for washing.198 Denton was shown a photograph of sheets or blankets depicted in photograph 6 of 189 T 220, 243. 190 P24 [27]. 191 P24 [27.2]. 192 Denton was recalled and gave further evidence, and this text was put to her. Denton still maintained that she did not see Alvin with a black eye saying that she did not remember sending the text to Bickley: T 579-581. 193 See both interviews on 23 April 2021: P12, P14. 194 T 148. 195 T 148. 196 T 146.9. 197 T 146.9. 198 T 146.12. -- 24 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 23 P6.199 Denton said she thought the staining on the blankets was Alvin’s blood from the day of the bassinet incident because they were Alvin’s blankets.200 124 When Denton returned home, she noticed blood on the defendant’s t-shirt when he was holding Alvin.201 Denton said that after she took Alvin from the defendant’s arms, the defendant removed his t-shirt and threw it in the bin.202 Denton said the defendant told her that it was an old t-shirt and it would be hard to wash the stains out so it would be easier to just throw the t-shirt away.203 Feeding slowing down and administering Panadol 125 Denton said that after placing Alvin into the bassinet to sleep, Alvin did not wake again until around 4:30 pm when she woke Alvin for a feed.204 Denton said that at this time she did not notice any difference in Alvin’s appearance.205 She said Alvin was awake.206 126 Denton initially said she did not notice any changes to Alvin’s feeding at the time and that there were no issues or concerns with Alvin taking his bottle.207 Later in her evidence, Denton said that Alvin’s feeding had slowed down.208 Denton said that Alvin ‘wasn’t drinking as fast as he normally would’.209 Denton said that the defendant suggested this might be because the cut on Alvin’s lip was hurting him when he took the bottle.210 Denton said because of this concern the defendant decided to go to the chemist to purchase children’s Panadol.211 Denton said the defendant was away from home for about 15 minutes getting the Panadol.212 127 It is an agreed fact that the defendant attended the Terry White chemist on Beach Road, Christies Beach, where at 3:50 pm he paid for Panadol branded paracetamol for children (1 month to 1 year).213 As is apparent from this agreed fact, this purchase occurred before the 4:30 pm feed recorded in the feeding book, and so before the time Denton said she and the defendant noticed Alvin’s feeding had slowed. 199 P6, photograph 6; T 145. 200 T 145. 201 T 146. 202 T 146-147. 203 T 146-147. 204 T 95.37, 99-100. In her evidence, Denton said she could not recall if Alvin had woken himself or she had to wake him for the 4:30 pm feed: see T 97.33. This feed is recorded in the feeding book as 60 mL: see P4; P8, 7. 205 T 100.9. 206 T 99.33. 207 T 98. 208 T 105.27. 209 T 105. 210 T 105. 211 T 105. 212 T 175. 213 P19 [22]. -- 25 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 24 128 Denton also gave evidence that the defendant returned from the chemist around 4:30 pm and gave Alvin a dose of the Panadol.214 It was suggested to Denton that because the defendant was at the chemist at 3:50 pm, it could not have been the 4:30 pm feed that led the defendant to go to the chemist.215 Denton agreed with the suggestion that it could not have been the 4:30 pm feed,216 however, maintained that it was Alvin’s trouble with feeding that was the reason behind the defendant going to the chemist to purchase Panadol.217 Frozen dinner provided by the defendant’s mother 129 At 6:57 pm, Denton sent a message to the defendant’s mother, Heather McGregor, via Facebook Messenger:218 Hey mum, thank you so much for the frozen dinner, it was absolutely delicious! Love you. 130 Denton agreed that she did call Heather McGregor ‘mum’.219 131 It was suggested to Denton that the defendant went to his mother’s home before Denton sent the 6:57 pm message in order to pick up dinner, which they ate that night.220 132 Denton said she did not remember the defendant leaving the house again after he returned from the chemist.221 Denton said that she did not remember the text message.222 Bathing Alvin at 8:55 pm 133 Around 8:20 pm another feed is recorded in the feeding book. This feed is recorded as ending at 8:40 pm.223 134 After this feed, Denton and the defendant gave Alvin a bath.224 Denton said they did not have a bathing routine for Alvin as he was still so young and just bathed Alvin whenever they thought he needed it.225 Denton said that the defendant would mostly do the bathing.226 214 T 106. Under cross-examination, after having refreshed her memory from her police affidavit of 20 February 2023, Denton accepted that she had administered the first dose of Panadol to Alvin (0.4 mL) when the defendant returned from the chemist: T 239. 215 T 175. 216 T 175.34-175.36. 217 T 176.1-176.4. 218 P24 [26]. 219 T 581. 220 T 233-234. 221 T 233. 222 T 234, 581. 223 P4, 7. This feed was for 60 mL. 224 P10, photographs 26-29; T 139. 225 T 102.22-103. 226 T 203. -- 26 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 25 135 At 8:55 pm, Denton took a series of photographs of Alvin in the baby bath in the bathroom.227 Denton said that Alvin was not awake for the bathing process.228 136 Denton said that in earlier baths Alvin was ‘generally awake’,229 meaning that each bath was different. However, Denton said that there had never been an occasion, before Wednesday night, that she could remember Alvin ever sleeping through the entire bath process.230 Denton said that during Alvin’s bath on Wednesday night he slept through the entire bathing process.231 137 In the series of photographs taken of Alvin in the bath on Wednesday night, Alvin’s eyes are closed, his head is wrapped in a white towel and propped on a purple towel and his body is covered in a blue towel.232 138 When Denton was asked why Alvin had a towel over his body, Denton said it was ‘to keep him warm’,233 but also said that the bath water was warm.234 When Denton was asked why Alvin had a towel over his head, she said, ‘That was [the defendant] that did that. I’m not sure why’.235 139 These series of photographs can be compared with a photograph of Alvin in the bath taken at an earlier date. That photograph is featured in the photo board shown in photograph 3 of P16, with the photograph reproduced separately in P24. In this earlier photograph, Alvin is pictured naked in the bath with his arms and legs up.236 He is awake.237 140 Denton said she discussed the fact that Alvin had slept through the bath with the defendant.238 Denton said the defendant told her that ‘maybe it reminded [Alvin] of being in Denton’s womb and it just made him relaxed and comfortable’.239 Despite Alvin’s appearance in the bath on Wednesday night, as revealed in the photographs, Denton said there was no discussion around the fact Alvin had fallen during the bassinet incident earlier that day or that he had been given Panadol.240 227 P10, photographs 26-29. 228 T 139.24. 229 T 139.35. 230 T 140. 231 T 139.36-139.38, 140.11-140.14. 232 P10, photographs 26-29. 233 T 140.22. 234 T 140.23. 235 T 140.26. 236 P16, photograph 3; P24. 237 P16, photograph 3; P24. 238 T140-142. 239 T 141.1. 240 T 141. -- 27 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 26 141 Denton said she did not notice any injuries or bruising to Alvin during the bath, and specifically did not notice any black eye or redness under Alvin’s left eye.241 142 Denton said she did not notice any change in Alvin’s behaviour from the time she returned home on the Wednesday afternoon until she awoke on Thursday morning. Alvin was not crying during the day or the night.242 143 The only change Denton said that she noticed at this time was that Alvin’s feeding had slowed down.243 Denton said she thought that might have been a result of the cut lip that Alvin was not latching onto the bottle properly.244 Denton said that Alvin’s feeding remained slow for the rest of his feeds.245 144 It was the defendant’s turn to sleep on the couch that night and attend to Alvin’s night feeds.246 145 Denton said she had no concerns about Alvin’s welfare when she went to sleep that night, nor had she noticed any change in Alvin.247 Thursday 22 April 2021 Alvin’s morning feed 146 On Thursday 22 April 2021, when Denton entered the loungeroom after waking up, Alvin was asleep in the bassinet and the defendant was asleep on the couch.248 Denton fed Alvin between 8:00 am and 8:30 am.249 The defendant administered a dose of Panadol to Alvin with his feed while Denton was present.250 147 Two feeds were recorded in the feeding book before this 8:00 am feed. The first is recorded as a 120 mL feed and 0.5 mL dose of Panadol between 1:00 am and 1:30 am,251 and the second is recorded as a 60 mL feed between 5:30 am and 6:00 am with a note stating that Panadol was administered at 8.00 am.252 These feeds were attended to by the defendant as it was his turn to sleep in the loungeroom with Alvin on Wednesday night. 241 T 141. 242 T 100.22-100.26. 243 T 120. 244 T 120.25. 245 T 120.36. 246 T 98. 247 T 98.35-99.3. 248 T 99. 249 T 99.13. 250 T 196.19-196.25, 119. 251 P4, page 8; This feed was for 120 mL between 1:00 am - 1:30 am with 0.5 mL of Panadol being administered. 252 P4, page 8; This feed was for 60 mL between 5:30 am - 6:00 am. -- 28 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 27 148 Denton said that she and the defendant were continuing to administer Panadol to Alvin at the recommended dose every four hours.253 149 Denton said that she smoked some cannabis a couple of hours after she woke up.254 Defendant leaves home (for 2 - 3 hours) 150 Denton said that sometime between 9:00 am or 9:30 am, the defendant left home to go to his brother’s house to do some gardening.255 Denton said he returned after two or three hours,256 and that this was ‘roughly just after lunchtime’.257 During this time, Denton was alone with Alvin.258 Denton said nothing happened to Alvin in the time the defendant was away.259 Alvin’s behaviour and appearance during the morning 151 While the defendant was away from the home, Denton said she fed Alvin once.260 She said that when she fed Alvin, he seemed normal.261 Denton said that the only change she noticed in Alvin was ‘him slowing down on his feeding’.262 By this, Denton said that Alvin was not drinking as fast as he normally would.263 152 Denton also said she noticed Alvin ‘seemed a bit extra clingy on the Thursday’.264 From mid-morning to afternoon, when Denton tried to put Alvin into his bassinet, Alvin would cry and would only stop crying once she picked him up and cuddled him in her arms.265 Denton said she had Alvin in her arms while sitting on the couch around mid-morning.266 153 Denton said she would have changed Alvin’s nappy a number of times throughout the day.267 When changing Alvin’s nappy, Denton would strip him completely naked.268 Denton said she did not observe any injuries to Alvin’s body during nappy changes,269 and, specifically, did not observe any bruising on Alvin.270 253 T 120. 254 T 99.13. 255 T 101-102. 256 T 102.9, 234. 257 T 103. 258 T 102. 259 T 102.25. 260 T 103. 261 T 103. 262 T 120. 263 T 105.27-105.35. 264 T 101. 265 T 102. 266 T 101.24. 267 T 103.2-103.4. 268 T 102-103. 269 T 103. 270 T 103.13-104. -- 29 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 28 Syringe feed 154 Denton said that after the defendant returned home, she tried to feed Alvin with the bottle, but Alvin was not latching on to it.271 155 Denton said the defendant told her that he would use a syringe to feed Alvin.272 Denton said that the defendant then fed Alvin 90 mL through a 5 mL syringe that was in the box of Panadol.273 Denton said it took the defendant around 20 minutes to feed Alvin through the syringe.274 156 Denton said this was the only time Alvin was fed using a syringe.275 157 This feed is recorded in the feeding book as a 90 mL feed taking 20 minutes between 1:00 pm and 1:20 pm.276 The feed was recorded in the feeding book but not the fact that it was through a syringe.277 158 After the feed, Denton said that the syringe was washed and put back into the Panadol box.278 159 Despite Alvin having to be fed through a syringe, Denton said there was no discussion with the defendant about Alvin needing medical attention.279 Cannabis ‘withdrawal’ discussion 160 Denton said that around 10 or 15 minutes after Alvin was fed using the syringe,280 the defendant suggested that Alvin’s feeding issues could have been due to Alvin experiencing ‘withdrawals’ from the cannabis she had been smoking while pregnant.281 161 Denton said the defendant suggested she blow cannabis smoke in Alvin’s face when she next smoked a cannabis bong. 282 Denton said she did this. She said she was in the laundry when she blew cannabis smoke in Alvin’s face while smoking through a bong.283 Denton said the defendant was holding Alvin at the time.284 271 T 103.33-104. 272 T 103.33-103.38. 273 T 103, 104.1-104.11. 274 T 104. 275 T 103, 107-108. 276 P4, 8. 277 T 104.28-104.34. 278 T 104. 279 T 107.34-108.3. 280 T 127. Under cross-examination Denton agreed that in a police interview she said this occurred half an hour after the defendant’s parents left the home: T 194. 281 T 127. 282 T 127.6, 192-194. 283 T 192. 284 T 192. -- 30 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 29 162 Denton claimed she did not have an understanding of what a ‘withdrawal’ was but blew the smoke in Alvin’s face at the defendant’s instigation.285 163 Denton said that even during this discussion about Alvin’s feeding issues there was nothing said about them needing to take Alvin to see a doctor or to the hospital.286 164 Denton denied a suggestion that was put to her in cross-examination that there was an occasion when the defendant had entered the kitchen while holding Alvin and that she was smoking cannabis through a bong and blew cannabis smoke in their direction, for which she was rebuked by the defendant.287 165 Denton’s evidence that the defendant requested that she blow cannabis smoke in Alvin’s face is evidence that the defendant engaged in discreditable conduct.288 The evidence was not objected to by the defence. The permissible use of the evidence is to infer that the defendant, being aware of Denton’s use of cannabis during pregnancy, had considered that this might be an explanation for Alvin’s feeding issues (because Alvin might be experiencing ‘withdrawals’) following the bassinet incident, which is relevant in relation to the charge of criminal neglect. I am satisfied that evidence can be used for this purpose.289 This is the only permissible use of the evidence. It cannot be used to suggest that the defendant is the sort of person who would be likely to have committed the either of the offences charged.290 Alvin’s last feed on Thursday 166 Denton said she gave Alvin a 90 mL feed, taking 20 minutes, between 4:10 pm and 4:30 pm on Thursday.291 167 Denton said Alvin did not feed again after this.292 This is consistent with this feed being the last feed entered into the feeding book.293 Heather and David McGregor’s visit 168 Denton said that in the afternoon, the defendant’s parents, Heather and David McGregor, visited the home to see Alvin.294 Denton said they held and cuddled Alvin.295 285 T 192. 286 T 127.33-128.1. 287 T 198-199. 288 Evidence Act s 34P(1). 289 Evidence Act s 34P(2)(a). 290 Evidence Act s 34R(1). 291 T 122; P4, 8. 292 T 122.28. 293 P4, 8. 294 T 128, 129.26. 295 T 129.9. -- 31 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 30 169 Denton said Alvin was asleep during the visit.296 170 Denton said the defendant’s father had noticed that Alvin could not open one of his eyes and commented about this to her.297 Denton said she thought Alvin had conjunctivitis because he ‘had a little bit of gunk in his eye’.298 Picking up Blake 171 After the defendant’s parents arrived, Denton said she left the home to pick Blake up from her mother’s house, where he had been for the previous two nights.299 On the drive home, Denton said she told Blake about the bassinet incident and warned him that Alvin may develop a black eye.300 172 Denton said the defendant’s parents left about 15 to 20 minutes after she and Blake returned home.301 Denton thought the defendant’s parents had been visiting for around one hour.302 173 Denton said that when Blake returned home, he gave Alvin a kiss and had a cuddle with him on the couch.303 Denton said that Alvin was not awake when Blake was cuddling him on the couch.304 Denton said that Blake did not comment on Alvin’s appearance.305 Attempt at feeding Alvin at 8:30 pm 174 Denton said that around 8:30 pm, she attempted to feed Alvin but ‘he didn’t seem hungry’.306 175 Denton said that she was sitting on the couch when she tried to feed Alvin by putting the bottle in his mouth.307 She said Alvin would not take the bottle and she assumed that this was because Alvin was full and not hungry.308 Denton said she thought Alvin would wake up when he next felt hungry.309 Alvin was put back in his bassinet. 176 Despite Alvin not feeding at this time, or waking up hungry, Denton said she still did not have any concerns over Alvin’s wellbeing.310 296 T 129.24, 130.18. 297 T 129.12. 298 T 129.21, 208-209. 299 T 128.22. 300 T 132.25. 301 T 132. 302 T 129.26. 303 T 132.15. 304 T 134. 305 T 134. 306 T 123.2, 158.32. 307 T 123. 308 T 123.12. 309 T 123, 209. 310 T 123.19. -- 32 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 31 177 It was Denton’s turn to sleep with Alvin in the loungeroom on Thursday night. 178 Denton said she fell asleep on the couch between 9:30 pm and 10:00 pm.311 Denton said she smoked a bong of cannabis just before she went to bed.312 179 Denton slept on the larger of the two couches in the loungeroom and her head was positioned on the side of the couch opposite the smaller two-seater couch.313 180 Blake was also sleeping in the loungeroom that night and was lying on the two-seater couch. 181 Denton said she had forgotten to set the alarm on her phone to wake her up for Alvin’s scheduled feed at 12:00 am.314 Denton said she had never forgotten to set the alarm before,315 nor had she ever slept through an alarm.316 Friday 23 April 2021 182 Denton said she awoke at 4:30 am on Friday 23 April 2021 and checked on Alvin but did not give him a feed at this time.317 183 Denton said that Alvin was sleeping. Denton said she could hear Alvin had a ‘bit of chesty breathing’, which she described as though Alvin had phlegm on his chest.318 Denton said that this was the first time she noticed a change in Alvin’s breathing, but that this did not cause her to have any concerns over his welfare.319 184 Denton said that as she felt hot in the loungeroom, she thought Alvin might have been as well and removed the top blanket covering him before going back to sleep on the couch.320 185 Denton said she next awoke at 6:30 am.321 186 Denton went to Alvin to feed him. Denton said she noticed Alvin had a ‘clear booger’ from his nose down to his chest. After she prepared his bottle and attempted to feed Alvin, the bottle ‘just sat in his mouth’.322 Denton said that when she picked Alvin up from the bassinet, he was cold.323 311 T 184. 312 T 210. 313 T 247.27; P3, photograph 23. 314 T 123.35, 183. 315 T 184. 316 T 183. 317 T 124, 211. 318 T 124.25. 319 T 124.26-124.31. 320 T 124.18, 212-214. 321 T 124. 322 T 125. 323 T 125. -- 33 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 32 187 Denton said that when she removed Alvin’s nappy and wiped him, he did not startle or wake up (as he normally would). Despite this, Denton said that she did not check on Alvin’s breathing324 nor did she think that Alvin had stopped beathing.325 188 Denton said she did not realise that Alvin was unresponsive until the bottle sat in his mouth.326 189 Denton said she then raced to the bedroom and woke the defendant, telling him that Alvin was not waking up.327 190 Denton said she did not know what was going on or what was wrong with Alvin. She said that she was scared.328 191 Denton said that when she entered the bedroom with Alvin, the defendant took him from her and placed Alvin on the bed and attempted CPR.329 When there was no response to CPR, the defendant told her to get the baby capsule and that they were going to the hospital.330 192 Together they rushed to the Noarlunga Hospital with Alvin in the baby capsule. They arrived at the hospital just after 7:00 am. Denton took Alvin into the hospital. Denton said she was in a state of shock. Denton stood at the triage and felt numb. When the defendant entered the hospital he shouted, ‘My baby’s not breathing’.331 Several hospital staff came rushing out to attend to Alvin.332 193 Nurse Taylor was the first to respond and rushed Alvin into the resuscitation room. When she stripped Alvin to place defibrillation pads on the front and back of his body, she noticed a bruise along Alvin’s spine.333 Taylor performed CPR334 but Alvin had already passed.335 Taylor gave evidence that she believed Alvin had passed a few hours earlier because the failed attempts to gain intravenous access were suggestive of there being no blood flow in Alvin’s body.336 324 T 125. 325 T 216. 326 T 214-215. 327 T 124.37-125.7, 214-215. 328 T 125.22-125.28. 329 The CPR was performed by the defendant placing two fingers across the top of each other and tapping Alvin’s chest: T 125. 330 T 125. 331 T 126, 298. 332 T 126.5. 333 T 300. 334 Using two fingers over the lower sternum: T 298-299. 335 T 301. 336 T 301. -- 34 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 33 194 Dr Coombe observed that Alvin was very pale, and his body temperature was 30.2℃, indicating that Alvin had died some time ago. She also noted the bruising on Alvin’s back.337 195 At 7:35 am Alvin was pronounced deceased.338 196 Denton said that she could not remember exactly what happened at the hospital. She said, ‘It was a traumatic event, and [her] memory is blurred. [She] was in a state of shock and was numb’.339 197 Denton and the defendant were advised by hospital staff that Alvin had passed away. 198 Denton said she thought Alvin had died from SIDS.340 199 Denton and the defendant were spoken to together by Brevet Sergeant Eaton in the resuscitation room at the hospital.341 200 Denton and the defendant were then taken to the Christies Beach Police Station and separately interviewed by the police.342 201 Denton said she was never violent to Alvin, had never inflicted any injuries upon him and was never present when Alvin was injured or harmed in any way.343 Photographs of Alvin 202 A series of photographs of Alvin were presented in evidence.344 203 The photographs taken of Alvin before the bassinet incident reveal a normal, healthy baby.345 204 The photographs taken of Alvin after the bassinet incident reveal that he was either not awake or not fully alert.346 205 In photographs 23-25 of P10 (taken at 8:13 pm on Wednesday 21 April 2021), Denton and the defendant are attempting to get Alvin to grab hold of their fingers. Denton said that these photographs were taken at the defendant’s suggestion because it would look cute.347 Denton said that Alvin was not quite 337 P17 [20]-[21]. 338 P17. 339 T 240. 340 T 231. 341 T 149. 342 T 150. 343 T 148.15-148.21. 344 P10; P11; P16, photographs 3, 22; P24 [28]. 345 P10, photographs 1-22; P11. 346 P10, photographs 23-40. 347 T 138.24-138.33. -- 35 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 34 grabbing on to their fingers. She thought that was because Alvin was asleep at the time.348 206 In photographs 26-29 of P10 (taken at 8:55 pm on Wednesday 21 April 2021), Alvin is in the baby bath, lying down in the water with his eyes closed. A white towel is wrapped around his head and a blue towel is placed over his body. A grey towel is positioned underneath Alvin’s head for apparent support. 207 In photographs 30-31 of P10 (taken at 10:45 am and 10:46 am on Thursday 22 April 2021) Alvin’s eyes are barely open. Alvin does not appear alert, and a small bruise is apparent on his left cheek and there is a small mark under his left eye. 208 In photographs 32-40 of P10 (taken between 12:10 pm and 12:12 pm on Thursday 22 April 2021), Alvin is lying in Denton’s arms while she is seated on the couch. Alvin is not awake, his legs are outstretched, and his mouth is gaping.349 209 The significance of Alvin’s appearance in these photographs will be discussed later in these reasons. Denton’s criminal neglect charge 210 Denton was charged with criminal neglect in relation to her care of Alvin. She pleaded guilty to the offence and was sentenced to imprisonment, which was ordered to be served under home detention.350 211 Denton said it was her understanding that the charge was brought because she ‘ought to have known to seek medical attention for Alvin because of his age’.351 212 Under cross-examination, the basis of Denton’s guilty plea to the charge was confirmed as being that she was aware of the bassinet incident; she was aware that Alvin had suffered injuries as a consequence of that incident; and that she failed to take any steps to seek medical attention for Alvin, knowing that Alvin had suffered the injuries in the bassinet incident.352 213 While Denton agreed to give evidence against the defendant, she did not do so on the understanding that she would receive a discount on her sentence if she did.353 348 T 138.8-138.10. 349 Denton said that Alvin would normally sleep with a dummy: T 143. Alvin did not have one in his mouth in these photographs. 350 T 148-149. 351 T 149. 352 T 228.22-228.33, 223. 353 T 148.32-148.28. -- 36 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 35 Postmortem examination 214 Dr Neil Langlois is a forensic pathologist at Forensic Science SA.354 Dr Langlois’ qualifications and expertise were not challenged. 215 Dr Langlois said the majority of his postmortem examinations have been conducted on adults, as infant death is relatively rare. 216 Dr Langlois performed the postmortem examination on Alvin on 24 April 2021. After this examination, Dr Langlois was contacted by Dr Edwards and provided with copies of the postmortem CT scan that suggested there were additional rib fractures that had been missed in Dr Langlois’ initial examination.355 A second postmortem examination was therefore performed on 26 May 2021.356 Cause of death 217 The cause of death Dr Langlois gave in the postmortem examination report was ‘blunt cranio-cerebral trauma’,357 which can otherwise be described as a ‘head injury’.358 218 Dr Langlois said that the head injury caused brain swelling that eventually cut off the blood supply to the brain and caused death.359 219 Dr Langlois explained that this brain swelling must have occurred from a physical insult to the brain that could have been caused by ‘shaking, impact or a combination of both’.360 Dr Langlois stated ‘to have one event or one simple explanation for that is very hard to find, particularly in a child aged 21 days who should not be mobile. So, putting it all together, it suggests that something significant has happened to this child’.361 220 Dr Langlois agreed that an incident involving acceleration and deceleration of Alvin’s head and rotational or angular forces, chest encirclement and at least two occasions of blunt force trauma, within close proximity of each other, could account for all the injuries and findings he made in his postmortem report.362 Aging the injuries 221 Throughout his evidence, Dr Langlois was asked for his opinion on aging the injuries he observed in the postmortem examinations and to provide a timeframe within which these injuries could have occurred. 354 T 346. 355 T 348-349. 356 T 348. 357 T 349.11. 358 T 349.19. Dr Langlois ruled out natural causes of death: T 349.25. 359 T 405. 360 T 404. 361 T 362.37-363.3. 362 T 413. -- 37 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 36 222 Dr Langlois explained the difficulty in aging injuries. He stated:363 [A]ging of injuries is not a precise science. We have a lack of data. Each individual injury might behave differently to another one, and each person may behave differently to another person. But by sampling multiple injuries, it becomes less likely that what I'm looking at is not right. 223 Dr Langlois explained that one of the methods he uses to age injuries is by looking for indications of the body’s healing processes.364 224 When the body is injured, a number of signals are given off by the injured area.365 225 Firstly, acute inflammatory cells called ‘neutrophils’ are called into the area.366 Dr Langlois described these cells as ‘foot soldiers who are coming in to get rid of an infection’.367 226 Once the infection is cleared, or some time has elapsed, cells called ‘macrophages’ are called to the area.368 Dr Langlois described these cells as ‘garbage cleaners’369 as they come in to remove the tissue that has been damaged and to make way for the healing process.370 227 Dr Langlois explained that, generally, a macrophage reaction places an injury within a one-to-two-day timeframe.371 228 This process, which includes the breaking down of haemoglobin, will then produce iron.372 Dr Langlois acknowledged, however, that the presence of iron is not a definitive indicator of the age of injuries in infants.373 229 After more time has passed, evidence of the healing process can be observed followed by healed tissue.374 One indicator that this healing process has begun are ‘fibroblast’ cells.375 These cells are responsible for laying down collagen in the body’s healing process.376 363 T 378. 364 T 366-367. 365 T 366. 366 T 366. 367 T 366.29. 368 T 366. 369 T 366.34. 370 T 366. 371 T 368. 372 T 374-375. 373 T 437. 374 T 367. 375 T 399. 376 T 399. -- 38 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 37 230 In cross-examination, Dr Langlois noted that the healing process may be faster in infants, however, this remains speculative as there is an absence of data outlining this process in infants.377 231 Dr Langlois also noted the limitation of the way he comments on the timeframes within which the injuries could have occurred. Dr Langlois explained that he is usually provided with a timeframe and asked whether he tends to agree or disagree with whether the timeframe is ‘in keeping with’ the evidence.378 232 Ultimately, Dr Langlois found that the injuries observed in the postmortem examinations were in keeping with being inflicted within one to two days of Alvin’s death.379 Dr Langlois stated that they most likely occurred within 42 hours of death.380 233 The timeframes provided for each significant finding are included in the relevant sections below. 15 significant findings: 234 Dr Langlois made 15 significant findings in his postmortem examination report. 1. Tense fontanelles 235 The first significant finding was the appearance of tense fontanelles.381 236 Dr Langlois explained that a fontanelle is the soft, fibrous tissue found in the area of an infant or child’s skull where there is a gap between the bones and the skull that allows the skull to grow. 382 In very young infants there is a fontanelle at the front of the skull (the anterior fontanelle) and a fontanelle at the back of the skull (the posterior fontanelle).383 237 Dr Langlois stated that tense fontanelles are a symptom of swelling of the brain.384 As the fontanelles are a relatively soft tissue, any increase of pressure in the head will cause them to feel tense because they are forced against the fibrous membrane of the skull.385 238 Dr Langlois concluded that it was likely the tense fontanelles were due to swelling from a head injury caused by blunt force trauma.386 377 T 422. 378 T 423. 379 T 419. 380 T 419. 381 T 397. 382 T 349-350. 383 T 350.3-350.5. 384 T 350.20. 385 T 350.5-350.12. 386 T 397-398. -- 39 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 38 239 Dr Langlois provided examples of the type of blunt force trauma that could cause this type of head injury.387 Dr Langlois explained that some sort of ‘physical insult’ to the brain would have occurred and that this could be caused through an impact; shaking; shaking with an impact, or potentially more than one causal event.388 240 Dr Langlois explained that the existence of the tense fontanelles on their own does not provide any guidance in ageing the injury or determining when it may have been inflicted.389 2. Intracranial bilateral acute subdural haematomas 241 The second significant finding was the intracranial bilateral acute subdural haematomas.390 242 Dr Langlois explained that a subdural haemorrhage is when there is blood between the brain and the fibrous membrane lining the skull (the dura).391 243 The subdural haemorrhages that Dr Langlois observed were bilateral, meaning that they were found on both sides of the brain, in the left and right cerebral hemispheres.392 244 In this case, the subdural haemorrhage was quite thin, which meant that the amount of blood present would not have been enough to increase the pressure in the head, although it remains an indicator of a head injury. 393 245 There was also evidence of a ‘contrecoup’,394 suggesting a deceleration force such as shaking or from a fall backwards onto a hard surface.395 246 Dr Langlois noted that there may have been one or more events that caused the subdural haemorrhages.396 247 In cross-examination, Dr Langlois agreed that the force required to cause these injuries is one that substantially exceeds that involved in normal parental handling of a child.397 Dr Langlois explained that it is accepted by many experts that shaking alone can cause thin film subdural haemorrhages (brain swelling with hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy).398 387 T 398. 388 T 398. 389 T 397.24-397.27. 390 T 350. 391 T 350, 400. 392 T 351.17-351.21. 393 T 351.6-351.13. 394 The concept of ‘contrecoup’ is explained in detail under significant finding 4. 395 T 402. 396 T 351. 397 T 440. 398 T 413. -- 40 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 39 248 Dr Langlois explained that a subdural haematoma is very difficult to age and even more so in children where there is limited data available.399 249 Dr Langlois said that he discussed the ageing of the subdural haematomas with a neuropathologist. They came to the opinion that the presence of the subdural haematomas ‘is in keeping with something having occurred around two days before death but it could have been substantially … less than that, it could [have] be more than that. But that does not exclude having occurred two days before’.400 Dr Langlois explained that it ‘would be in keeping with an injury on the 21st, but it may also be an injury on the 22nd. It could even be earlier than the 21st by a day or so, but he could not be precise’.401 3. Patchy recent subarachnoid haemorrhages over brain 250 The third significant finding was patchy recent subarachnoid haemorrhages over the brain.402 251 Dr Langlois explained that this is when patches of blood are located on the surface of the brain.403 This type of bleeding is caused when the brain is shaken or exposed to trauma that causes the blood vessels on the surface of the brain, in the subarachnoid area, to bleed.404 252 Dr Langlois noted that the primary cause of death in this case is unlikely to be due to the subarachnoid haemorrhages, as the haemorrhages observed were patchy, rather than having a thick layer of blood.405 Dr Langlois acknowledged that this was, however, still a marker that some sort of brain injury occurred.406 253 When examining the subarachnoid haemorrhages, Dr Langlois discovered evidence of a cell response including fibroblasts.407 Dr Langlois explained that fibroblasts are cells that lay down collagen in the body’s healing process.408 Dr Langlois explained that the fibroblast reaction signifies an interval between the injury and time of death.409 Based on previous experience, Dr Langlois said one could expect an interval of ‘probably a couple of days’ from the causative event.410 Dr Langlois went further and said that ‘this favours the 21st rather than the 22nd, but I can’t be definitive about that’.411 399 T 400, 438-439. 400 T 438. 401 T 399-400. Dr Langlois adopted this position about not being precise when providing an age for each injury. 402 T 351. 403 T 352. 404 T 352. 405 T 352. 406 T 398-399. 407 T 399. 408 T 399. 409 T 399. 410 T 399. 411 T 399, 439. -- 41 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 40 4. Left temporal lobe contusion 254 The fourth significant finding was a left temporal lobe contusion.412 255 Dr Langlois explained that this refers to bruising of the left temporal lobe, which is located in the cerebral hemisphere on the left side of a person’s head, above the ear.413 256 Dr Langlois noted a possible cause of this contusion as being correlated to the bruises to the scalp in significant finding 12.414 257 The concept behind this correlation is known as ‘contrecoup’.415 Dr Langlois explained that if someone is hit at the front of their head, they are generally expected to bruise on the front of their head.416 However, if that person were to fall, or if their head and brain moved together, and their head impacted on a hard surface bringing about a sudden stop, the brain would continue to move in the skull until it also came to a stop.417 This movement could cause bruising to the back of the head on the opposite point to where the impact occurred.418 258 Dr Langlois acknowledged that this type of injury would be consistent with being caused by a shaking mechanism but equally through a fall backwards onto a hard surface.419 259 In cross-examination, Dr Langlois agreed that he could not say one way or another whether this was a contrecoup injury, however, there existed a possibility that it was.420 260 Dr Langlois reaffirmed that one possible cause of a contrecoup injury is Alvin being dropped and striking his head on the ground.421 Dr Langlois described this movement as a ‘deceleration or acceleration type injury where there’s also some movement of the head, rather than just a fixed blow to a static point’.422 261 Dr Langlois examined the temporal lobe contusion under the microscope and confirmed that there was an injury to the brain but did not see any inflammatory cell reaction.423 Although the absence of inflammation tends to suggest the injury 412 T 352. 413 T 352.3. 414 T 401. 415 T 401. 416 T 401-402. 417 T 401-402. 418 T 401-402. 419 T 402. 420 T 435-436. 421 T 436. 422 T 435. 423 T 402. -- 42 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 41 is more recent, Dr Langlois explained that the absence of inflammation in itself ‘tells us nothing about the age of the injury’.424 262 Dr Langlois said that in terms of the timing of this injury he would favour the 21 April 2021 over 22 April 2021.425 5. Recent hypoxic ischaemic damage of the brain 263 The fifth significant finding was the recent hypoxic ischaemic damage of the brain.426 264 Dr Langlois explained that this means the brain showed changes associated with irreversible damage of nerve cells.427 This type of damage is caused due to lack of blood circulation and oxygen to the brain.428 265 Dr Langlois noted that this type of injury can be caused by brain swelling as a result of a head injury.429 Dr Langlois explained this damage to the brain ‘is an intrinsic part of the process as a consequence of the head injury, swelling, reducing the blood flow, causing more damage [and] causing more swelling’.430 Dr Langlois said that this type of injury is consistent with shaking, some sort of impact or a combination of both actions.431 266 Dr Langlois said that it was difficult to age this type of injury, as the criteria to base its age off can vary as swelling can be quite rapid, however, may not be instantaneously fatal.432 Dr Langlois said, ‘there could be an event of hypoxic- ischaemic encephalopathy either on the 21st or the 22nd with death then occurring later on’.433 6. Recent axonal precursor protein (APP) positive axonal changes of the brain 267 The sixth significant finding was recent axonal precursor protein (APP) positive axonal changes of the brain.434 268 Dr Langlois explained that this indicates that the axon process has been damaged and that there has been a period to allow for the protein to accumulate.435 424 T 402. 425 T 402. 426 T 353. 427 T 353-354. 428 T 353-354. 429 T 403-404. 430 T 404. 431 T 404. 432 T 405-406. 433 T 406. 434 T 354. 435 T 355. -- 43 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 42 269 APP is a protein produced in the nerve cell bodies.436 It travels down the axon of the nerve to the synapse.437 Dr Langlois explained that when neuropathologists examine the brain using a staining technique, APP is not visible as it is constantly moving, meaning that there is not enough of it in one place.438 270 If a nerve cell process is damaged, APP can no longer travel on the nerve cell so APP accumulates in the body.439 Dr Langlois used the analogy of a motorway and an earthquake.440 Before an earthquake, you might see an occasional car on the motorway.441 When an earthquake damages the road, cars can no longer travel on the motorway so they start piling up where the road is damaged.442 This is the same concept for APP.443 271 Dr Langlois stated that it takes a minimum of 30 to 35 minutes for APP to accumulate to the point that it is visible.444 As part of the healing process, the brain will start to remove APP and it will disappear over time.445 Dr Langlois was unsure how long the accumulation of APP would last but said that it would certainly be more than a short interval and could be several days or weeks after an injury before it would disappear.446 272 Dr Langlois could not identify the exact cause of the build-up in APP, as it could be caused by a range of damage, including loss of blood supply, low blood sugar or stroke.447 However, Dr Langlois concluded that the APP increase ‘is in keeping with this general brain swelling and injury due to failure of the circulation’.448 7. Haemorrhage left and right optic nerves 273 The seventh significant finding was the haemorrhage at the left and right optic nerves.449 274 Dr Langlois explained that the brain is connected to the eyes through the optic nerve and blood. 450 The observation of a haemorrhage means that Dr Langlois observed blood around the optic nerves of both eyes.451 436 T 354. 437 T 354. 438 T 354. 439 T 354. 440 T 354. 441 T 355. 442 T 355. 443 T 355. 444 T 355.29-355.32. 445 T 355.29-355.32. 446 T 355.29-355.32. 447 T 356. 448 T 404. 449 T 356. 450 T 356. 451 T 356. -- 44 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 43 8. Right eye confluent retinal haemorrhages and retinal detachment 275 The eighth significant finding was the right eye confluent retinal haemorrhages and retinal detachment.452 276 Dr Langlois observed a haemorrhage in the right eye at the retina at the back that was confluent, meaning that it had no break in it.453 The retina is normally fixed to the back of the eye.454 In some areas, Dr Langlois observed the right retina detached from the back of the eye.455 277 When asked to comment on the cause of the retinal detachments, Dr Langlois stated that he would sooner not speak to the cause as he was not an expert in eyes.456 9. Left eye patchy but focally confluent retinal haemorrhages and occasional retinal detachment 278 The ninth significant finding was that the left eye had ‘patchy but focally confluent retinal haemorrhages and occasional retinal detachment’.457 279 Dr Langlois explained that he observed some retinal detachment of the left eye, however, not as much as he observed in the right eye.458 280 As noted above, when asked to comment on the cause of the retinal detachments, Dr Langlois repeated that this was outside of his expertise.459 10. Apparent bruise, scabbed abrasion, upper lip, right side 281 The tenth significant finding was the apparent bruise, scabbed abrasion to the upper lip, right side.460 282 Dr Langlois explained that the abrasion was located on the upper lip, on the right side and inside the lip on the mucosal surface.461 Dr Langlois agreed that the injury may not have been noticeable unless the lip was curled up.462 283 Dr Langlois explained that abrasions are the type of injury that either do not bleed or bleed very little.463 452 T 356. 453 T 356. 454 T 356. 455 T 356. 456 T 363. 457 T 356-357. 458 T 357. 459 T 363. 460 T 357. 461 T 357. 462 T 357. 463 T 393. -- 45 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 44 284 Dr Langlois took a sample of the inside of the lip and examined it under the microscope.464 This revealed some bleeding in the tissue and a possible inflammatory reaction.465 285 Dr Langlois said that the lip injury he observed would be in keeping with the injury occurring on the afternoon of 21 April 2021.466 286 Dr Langlois explained that if the injury occurred on the evening of 22 April 2021, he would expect more blood, some neutrophils and very few macrophages, as the injury would be within 12 hours of death.467 However, there remained some uncertainty because of the difficulty with aging injuries, especially in infants, where there is a lack of data. In an adult he would expect to notice the signs of healing present in this case to be in keeping with one to two days.468 Dr Langlois ultimately concluded that ‘it is far less in keeping with the evening of the 22nd than it is on the day of the 21st’.469 287 During Dr Langlois’ initial examination, he did not observe any injury to the frenulum, the small tissue that connects the upper lip to the gum.470 Dr Langlois conceded that he may have missed this injury as he was distracted by his observation of the abrasion to the right side of the upper lip.471 He explained that the postmortem photographs appear to show an abnormality of the frenulum that could suggest an injury that had healed by the time of the postmortem examination.472 Dr Langlois said that this complete healing made the frenulum injury more likely to have occurred on 21 April 2021 than 22 April 2021.473 288 In cross-examination, Dr Langlois agreed that the injury to the frenulum is potentially consistent with the bassinet tipping over and Alvin striking the music box.474 11. Apparent bruise on the left cheek 289 The eleventh significant finding was the apparent bruise to the left cheek.475 290 Dr Langlois explained that the bruise was only ‘apparent’, as it had the appearance of a bruise, but he did not sample it to confirm because the bruise was on Alvin’s face. In other cases, Dr Langlois would have cut through the skin to examine for signs of bruising.476 However, due to the location of the bruise on 464 T 366. 465 T 366. 466 T 368.30-368.31. 467 T 368. 468 T 367. 469 T 369.3-369.4. 470 T 364-365. 471 T 366. 472 T 394. 473 T 394. 474 T 447. 475 T 357. 476 T 358. -- 46 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 45 Alvin’s face, Dr Langlois decided not to do this to preserve the appearance of Alvin’s face.477 291 The bruise was located on the left side of Alvin’s face, away from the outer side of the left angle of the mouth.478 292 Dr Langlois explained that it is difficult to determine the age of the bruise on the cheek, due to Alvin’s young age. Therefore, Dr Langlois said he would not comment on it.479 293 In cross-examination, Dr Langlois agreed that the bruise on the left cheek is potentially consistent with the bassinet tipping over and Alvin striking the music box.480 12. Bruises to the scalp 294 The twelfth significant finding was the bruises to the scalp.481 295 Dr Langlois identified two bruises on Alvin’s scalp.482 The first bruise (measuring around 0.5 cm) was located to the right of the vertex, or top, of the head.483 The second bruise (also measuring around 0.5 cm) was located slightly to the right side of the lambdoid suture, or the back of the head.484 Dr Langlois explained that the two bruises were close to each other but also separated by the curved surface of the head.485 296 Dr Langlois said that when looking at Alvin he did not see any visible sign of these bruises.486 He said there was a lot of hair on the scalp, and he elected not to shave the hair (in order to preserve Alvin’s appearance) as he knew that he would be able to detect bruises when the scalp was deflected from the skull.487 297 The positioning of the bruises suggested two separate incidents of blunt force trauma.488 298 Dr Langlois was asked whether an incident involving a baby falling and striking it’s face on a toy to cause lip injuries could also account for the two scalp injuries.489 Dr Langlois said that it could not account for all those injuries as there is clearly ‘an injury on the front of a curved surface and an injury on the back of a 477 T 357-358. 478 T 357. 479 T 369. 480 T 446-447. 481 T 358. 482 T 358. 483 T 358. 484 T 358. 485 T 358. 486 T 395. 487 T 395. 488 T 396. 489 T 396-397. -- 47 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 46 curved surface [the head]. That [injury] would not be explained by one action’.490 Dr Langlois said that this injury was unlikely to be caused from impact with a flat surface but rather an irregular surface.491 299 The presence of macrophages and iron suggested that this injury could be older than the rib fractures.492 However, Dr Langlois said that he could not be definite about this, and they could have also occurred at the same time, but that if he had to have a preference, he would say that they were ‘half a day to a day older’.493 13. Bruising to the back 300 The thirteenth significant finding was bruising to the back.494 301 Dr Langlois observed three areas of bruising on Alvin’s back to the left of the spine. The first was in an area in the lower half of the chest, the second was further down and the third further down again and to the left of the lumbar spine.495 302 Dr Langlois said he also found that there was deep bruising within the muscle of the back, around the side of the left shoulder blade.496 303 Dr Langlois observed yellow areas of skin and conducted a deeper examination of the tissue which confirmed the bruising to the left of the spine and a small area of bleeding around the inner edge of the left shoulder blade.497 304 Dr Langlois said that the bruises to the back indicated some form of blunt force trauma.498 Dr Langlois said this could be caused by falling onto a hard surface, being gripped or by some other mechanism.499 Dr Langlois agreed that one possible explanation for the cause of the bruises on the back was that Alvin was held in someone’s hands and squeezed tightly.500 305 In cross-examination, Dr Langlois agreed that he could not determine whether the blunt force trauma that caused the bruises to appear was caused accidently or deliberately.501 Dr Langlois agreed that there were many other scenarios that could have caused the bruises, such as Alvin striking something or being dropped and landing on his back.502 490 T 397. 491 T 358-359. 492 T 396. 493 T 395-396. 494 T 359. 495 T 359. 496 T 359. 497 T 359-360. 498 T 371.29. 499 T 371. 500 T 372. 501 T 428-429. 502 T 430. -- 48 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 47 306 Dr Langlois said that the bruising to the back and the shoulder blade was in keeping with the injuries having occurred around midday on 21 April 2021.503 He said that it is far less likely to be on 22 April 2021.504 However, in cross- examination, Dr Langlois highlighted the uncertainty around ageing bruises particularly when samples are taken from the skin. Dr Langlois said ‘we know that if you miss the correct area the bruise actually may appear younger than it really is.’505 307 Dr Langlois conceded that it was possible these bruises could have been inflicted any time from 12:00 am to 11:59 pm on Wednesday, 21 April 2021.506 14. Fractures to the left sixth and seventh ribs laterally 308 The fourteenth significant finding was the fractures to the left sixth and seventh ribs laterally.507 A lateral fracture refers to a break in the rib that occurs on the side.508 15. Fractures posterior left second and fourth ribs 309 The fifteenth significant finding is the fractured posterior left second and fourth ribs.509 Summary of rib examination 310 After viewing the CT scan taken by the radiologist, Dr Linke, that suggested there were additional rib fractures, Dr Langlois conducted his second postmortem examination.510 At the second examination, Dr Langlois said he was not convinced of the presence of fractures when examining the ribs with the naked eye, so he examined them under the microscope.511 a. Right-side ribs 311 Dr Langlois did not identify any definite fractures in the right-side ribs. 312 Dr Langlois was told that the CT scans showed a fracture to the first, second and third right ribs.512 Upon examination under the microscope, Dr Langlois could only see some blood around the right first rib, which is suggestive of a fracture having occurred, however, he could not identify a definite fracture.513 503 T 375. 504 T 376. 505 T 426. 506 T 424.24-425.2. 507 T 361. 508 T 361. 509 T 361. 510 T 348-349. 511 T 379. 512 T 380-381. 513 T 380-381. -- 49 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 48 313 Dr Langlois said that the fourth to the twelfth right ribs were not sampled.514 Dr Langlois could see no evidence of fracture with the naked eye and the CT scan did not reveal that any of these right ribs had been fractured.515 b. Left-side ribs 314 Dr Langlois sampled the first left rib and although there did appear to be some break in the tissue, he was not able to identify a fracture.516 315 When examining the second left rib, Dr Langlois found blood in the tissue with fibrin that suggested an injury during life, but he could not identify a fracture.517 Dr Langlois noted that there was no inflammatory reaction observed, which may suggest the injury was more recent than the others. However, Dr Langlois cautioned that the absence of an inflammatory reaction is not conclusive and may have merely been missed in the sample taken.518 316 Dr Langlois sampled the third right rib and found evidence of disruption but not bleeding and could not identify a fracture.519 317 Dr Langlois sampled the fourth right rib and found irregularity of the outer layer of the bone, blood in the tissue and indicators of the healing process.520 Dr Langlois concluded that this was in keeping with a recent fracture of the posterior end of the rib.521 Dr Langlois found that this was more in keeping with the event occurring on 21 April 2021 than on 22 April 2021.522 Dr Langlois agreed that the rib fracture was in keeping with having occurred at the same time as the bruising to the back and could have been caused by the same event.523 318 Dr Langlois sampled the fifth left rib and found blood over the rib but did not identify a fracture.524 319 Dr Langlois identified a lateral fracture to the sixth left rib in the inner and outer parts of the rib. Blood was also observed at the front of the rib.525 Dr Langlois found that it was more in keeping with the event occurring on 21 April 2021 than on 22 April 2021.526 This was the same timing provided for the fracture to the fourth rib.527 514 T 382. 515 T 382. 516 T 385. 517 T 385. 518 T 400, 441-442. 519 T 386. 520 T 386.26. 521 T 386.26. 522 T 387. 523 T 386-387. 524 T 387. 525 T 392. 526 T 387. 527 T 387. -- 50 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 49 320 Dr Langlois identified a lateral fracture to the seventh left rib. Dr Langlois found that this was more in keeping with the event occurring on 21 April 2021 than on 22 April 2021.528 During Dr Langlois’ second examination, he observed a ‘small buckle or fold’ in the rib indicating that part of the rib had been damaged but not actually broken.529 Dr Langlois explained that a buckle or fold (kink) in the rib, while not a complete break, is still considered to be a discontinuity in the rib and is classed as a fracture. He said that this type of buckle fracture is not uncommon in infants, as the ribs are quite soft.530 Dr Langlois agreed that this could have been caused by squeezing.531 Dr Langlois agreed that one plausible mechanism could be encirclement and squeezing of the ribs.532 Dr Langlois explained that compression of the chest would be one plausible mechanism causing buckling to the ribs.533 321 As for the difference between the CT scan and the postmortem examination of the ribs, Dr Langlois said it was not so much a case of him disagreeing with what the CT scan revealed, rather, he could not agree with the report as to the number of fractures.534 Other findings Cervical and thoracic spinal cord 322 Dr Langlois examined the neck and the area around the thoracic spinal cord. There did not appear to be any apparent injuries to the ligaments of the spine, however, there was an epidural haemorrhage, meaning there was blood around the cord.535 Dr Langlois said he was not sure what the significance of this injury was.536 Bruise to the left eye 323 During Dr Langlois’ examination, he did not observe any bruising to Alvin’s left eye.537 He did not sample the skin and could not say whether there was any evidence of bruising under the skin.538 Dr Langlois agreed that there could have been an incident on 21 April 2021 that caused a bruise to the left eye that had healed by the time of the postmortem examination.539 528 T 388. 529 T 388. 530 T 688. 531 T 387. 532 T 388. 533 T 388, 390. 534 T 383. 535 T 406. 536 T 406. 537 T 410. 538 T 410. 539 T 410. -- 51 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 50 324 In cross-examination, Dr Langlois agreed that a bruise to the left eye is potentially consistent with the bassinet tipping over and Alvin striking his face on the music box.540 Police interviews with the defendant 325 The defendant was interviewed by the police on three occasions. 326 The defendant and Denton were first interviewed together at the Noarlunga Hospital at 9:14 am on 23 April 2021.541 This was an informal interview with Alvin’s parents that is common in these circumstances. At this time, the police did not have any information about any injuries sustained by Alvin or his cause of death. 327 The defendant was next interviewed at 11:48 am that same day at the Christies Beach Police Station.542 At this time, the police had only limited information about the harm sustained by Alvin, which related to a line of bruising observed on Alvin’s back during the hospital resuscitation procedure and a small bruise to Alvin’s left cheek. 328 The defendant was interviewed for a third time at the Christies Beach Police Station at 11:33 am on Friday 7 May 2021.543 At this time, the police had received some details of Alvin’s injuries noted at the postmortem examination. First police interview – Noarlunga Hospital 23 April 2021 at 9:14 am544 329 During the joint interview conducted by police with Denton and the defendant, shortly after Alvin was pronounced deceased, the defendant said the following: • Alvin had a little fall in the bassinet.545 • He and the family dog and the bassinet all tripped over.546 • As he got up from the couch the dog got up at the same time and he tripped over it. He and the dog knocked the bassinet over.547 • There was a plastic music box in the bassinet. Alvin must have hit his face on it because Alvin had started bleeding straight away. The music box was hanging off the side of the bassinet.548 He then pulled Alvin out and called Denton immediately asking her to come home. When 540 T 446-447. 541 P12. 542 P14, 23 April 2021. 543 P14, 7 May 2021. 544 P12 (Transcript MF1-P12A). 545 MFI-P12A [241]. 546 MFI-P12A [245]. 547 MFI-P12A [280]. 548 MFI-P12A [305]. -- 52 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 51 Denton returned home, they had a look to see if Alvin was alright and Alvin only had a little cut on his lip. Alvin whinged for a little bit and then he was fine after that. It was just that night that Alvin was a little bit whingy, and he had been fine all day.549 • He had picked up Alvin straight away and unwrapped him to see if he was okay. Alvin was just bleeding from his top lip.550 There was only a little cut under the lip.551 It didn’t bleed a lot. It was like the smallest cut.552 • He put ice on the lip to take the swelling down, ‘a minute here and there’, just for the eye. Alvin had a little bit of a black left eye. It wasn’t like a black eye – ‘it was very minor … purple’.553 • The black eye was visible only the one day because he had put some ice on it, for 30 seconds and then off and let it cool down a little bit … three times and it pretty much went away. By the next day it was just like the slight little … slight purple. It was not so much under the eye but towards the corner. It wasn’t puffy at all, and the lip did calm down – that wasn’t puffy at all either.554 • When Denton and her stepmother returned home, he passed Alvin over to Denton for her to look at Alvin.555 • He agreed with Denton that Alvin had stopped bleeding by the time she and her stepmother returned home.556 • Denton and her stepmother changed Alvin and changed his nappy. They went over Alvin, and Alvin had pretty much settled.557 • Alvin had fallen asleep, and he was put back in the bassinet to sleep.558 • Alvin woke up two hours later for a feed.559 • After they fed Alvin, they gave him some Panadol and Alvin went back to sleep.560 549 MFI-P12A [250]. 550 MFI-P12A [361]. 551 MFI-P12A [370]. 552 MFI-P12A [426]. 553 MFI-P12A [370]-[387]. 554 MFI-P12A [909]-[958]. 555 MFI-P12A [400]. 556 MFI-P12A [420]-[422]. 557 MFI-P12A [405]-[410]. 558 MFI-P12A [453]. 559 MFI-P12A [456]-[460]. 560 MFI-P12A [460]-[468], [515], [526]. -- 53 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 52 • Alvin woke up again at 4:30 pm for a bottle (90 mL) and he gave Alvin some more Panadol.561 • He agreed with Denton that Alvin was feeding six times a day, every four hours.562 • Everything is written down in a book.563 • The next day Alvin seemed fine.564 • He and Denton were wondering whether they should take Alvin to the hospital but decided to wait and see if he got any worse or showed any signs of anything, like if his eyes were in the back of his head or anything like that, or if he throws up his bottle, but he just seemed fine.565 • Between Wednesday and Friday morning Alvin was a ‘perfect, amazing baby’.566 • Nothing else happened. If Alvin wasn’t taking his bottle or something just didn’t seem right, they were going to take him to the hospital, but he just seemed normal.567 • Alvin seemed perfectly normal, taking his bottle, going back to sleep, fine. Alvin was not bloody whinging that there’s anything wrong, otherwise he would have taken him to the hospital.568 • This morning Denton brought Alvin into the bedroom. Alvin was cold, pale/white and his eyes were purple. There was no saliva.569 • He placed his finger in Alvin’s mouth to see if there was a reaction but there was nothing.570 • He performed CPR by tapping his fingers on Alvin’s chest.571 • There was ‘nothing, no squirm, no spit, nothing’.572 561 MFI-P12A [538], [542]. 562 MFI-P12A [804]-[816]. 563 MFI-P12A [476]-[492]. 564 MFI-P12A [865]. 565 MFI-P12A [857]-[865]. 566 MFI-P12A [789]-[794]. 567 MFI-P12A [834]-[838]. 568 MFI-P12A [842]; [847]. 569 MFI-P12A [1005], [1040], [1214]-[1218]. 570 MFI-P12A [1044], [1057]-[1066]. 571 MFI-P12A [1107], [1128], [1159]. 572 MFI-P12A [1159]. -- 54 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 53 • He thought Alvin might have already been dead because Alvin was ‘cold, freezing cold’ and it was purple all around the eyes.573 • They drove straight to the hospital.574 Second police interview – Christies Beach Police Station 23 April 2021 at 11:48 am575 330 In this interview the defendant said the following: • On the Wednesday his partner just whipped out with her stepmother to have a coffee, and he was looking after Alvin. Alvin just had his bottle, and he put him down to sleep when he began to cry. He went to get up to go to Alvin through the small gap between the couches and as he did the dog also got up and he tripped over it and they both knocked the bassinet over. He and the dog both got up in a hurry. The bassinet tipped over to the left. Alvin did not fall out of the bassinet. He grabbed Alvin straight out of the bassinet. He did not lift up the bassinet after it tipped, just grabbed him straight out of the bassinet. When he pulled Alvin out of the bassinet Alvin was bleeding on the top lip. It was a really little cut. He unwrapped Alvin and checked him to see what the problem was and then got a cloth and some ice and placed it on Alvin’s lip and while he was doing that he checked to see if the lip was actually cut and if Alvin needed any stitches. He then called his partner telling her what happened and to come home.576 • As he was getting the ice pack and putting it on Alvin, he had his phone right there and he called his partner to let her know straight away what happened.577 • Alvin had screamed and cried. Alvin was scared.578 • Alvin was only crying for about 10 minutes.579 • After he grabbed Alvin, he unwrapped him in his arms. He could see blood as soon as he picked Alvin up.580 • He then got some ice and placed it on Alvin’s lip.581 573 MFI-P12A [1248]. 574 MFI-P12A [1084]. 575 P14 (Transcript MFI-P14A). 576 MFI-P14A [45]-[160], [162]-[169], [184], [314], [326]-[333], [442]-[448], [498], [552], [820]-[825], [3630]. 577 MFI-P14A [2053]. 578 MFI-P14A [514]. 579 MFI-P14A [601]-[604], [629]. 580 MFI-P14A [539]-[48]. 581 MFI-P14A [63]. -- 55 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 54 • The bleeding stopped within the time it took for his partner and her stepmother to return home.582 • The bassinet had been positioned between the couches and the heater.583 • As he and the dog both got up, he accidentally struck/slapped the bassinet with his hand as he has tripped over.584 The dog was underneath the bassinet and that is why he fell over. He landed on the dog.585 • The brakes on the bassinet were not on. If the brakes were on the bassinet would probably not have tipped over.586 • If the dog wasn’t there the bassinet would have just rolled out instead of falling over.587 The bassinet hitting the dog caused it to tip over.588 • There was a plastic lullaby (music box) strapped to the inside left side of the bassinet that had only been in place for two days. It was a gift from his brother.589 • The music box was pretty heavy because it contained batteries.590 • It was positioned next to where Alvin’s head would be lying in the bassinet.591 • The bassinet fell over so fast that Alvin went straight into the music box.592 He heard Alvin hit the music box.593 Alvin hit the music box pretty hard.594 Alvin struck the music box causing the bloodied lip.595 • Alvin did not fall out of the bassinet. The hood of the bassinet prevented it from completely upturning.596 • The first cry Alvin made was hysterical597 but after that once the ice was applied it was just a sooky cry.598 582 MFI-P14A [68], [629]. 583 MFI-P14A [82]. 584 MFI-P14A [142]-[152], [344]-[349], [383]-[393], [413]-[414], [434]-[439]. 585 MFI-P14A [298], [314]. 586 MFI-P14A [283]. 587 MFI-P14A [298]. 588 MFI-P14A [309]-[314], [349]-[354]. 589 MFI-P14A [200]. 590 MFI-P14A [1050], [1231]. 591 MFI-P14A [1072]-[1074]. 592 MFI-P14A [1141], [1160], [1244]. 593 MFI-P14A [855]. 594 MFI-P14A [1154]. 595 MFI-P14A [209]. 596 MFI-P14A [242]-[257]. 597 MFI-P14A [612]. 598 MFI-P14A [616]. -- 56 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 55 • The ice settled Alvin because he was fine after that, just a little sooky.599 • He wet a blue Chux cloth and placed ice into it before applying that to Alvin’s lip.600 • He applied the ice to Alvin’s lip because he thought Alvin probably had a fat lip or something.601 There was a little cut so he thought the least he could do was put some ice on it until his partner got home and they worked out what to do from there.602 • When his partner came home Alvin was a little bit sooky and stuff but not like crying … he wasn’t really crying.603 Alvin was awake but sooky when his partner came home.604 • He told his partner that he had tripped over the dog. He said that he was really sorry and did not mean to trip over.605 • His partner was worried about Alvin but said that accidents happen.606 • His partner was crying.607 It was a worried cry, a stressed cry from her.608 • He said that they took it in turns to sleep in the loungeroom with Alvin to give the other a good night’s sleep. Both of them looked after Alvin during the day.609 • Alvin had been the most perfect baby since birth. Couldn’t have asked for a better baby. Amazing you know. Very quiet. He slept good.610 • Alvin would always sleep between three and a half to four hours. For the first two weeks you wouldn’t have even known Alvin’s there. He was so quiet.611 • During the next few hours after the bassinet incident Alvin was really good but he thought if Alvin doesn’t want to take his bottle, then there’s something wrong.612 599 MFI-P14A [619]-[621]. 600 MFI-P14A [636]-[670]. 601 MFI-P14A [670]. 602 MFI-P14A [674]-[679]. 603 MFI-P14A [697]-[702]. 604 MFI-P14A [1325]-[1331]. 605 MFI-P14A [706]. 606 MFI-P14A [716]. 607 MFI-P14A [1319]. 608 MFI-P14A [409]-[417]. 609 MFI-P14A [782]. 610 MFI-P14A [991]-[1002]. 611 MFI-P14A [1010]. 612 MFI-P14A [1439]-[1445]. -- 57 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 56 • The fact that Alvin was taking his bottle made him think ‘okay he’s alright’ because if there was something wrong, he wouldn’t take the bottle.613 So, the fact Alvin was taking it and sleeping fine and everything we were ‘like okay we’ll just monitor him, just keep an eye on it’.614 On Wednesday, Alvin was just a bit whingey as he’s drinking his bottle because of his lip … not like heaps.615 • Alvin took everything fine. It was like it never happened, like he was himself, he’s back to quiet and all and that is why it was so confusing when this happened this morning.616 • He just had a little black eye but that didn’t come ‘til like after.617 We checked him all over and he had no other markings.618 • The bruise didn’t come up straight away. It came up about an hour later. It wasn’t like a big fat eye. It was just a little mark, like his eye wasn’t puffy, his cheek wasn’t puffed up or anything.619 He thought that if that comes as a bruise he probably should go and get it checked out just to make sure620 because he always stresses.621 He’s a stress head.622 When it comes to a baby like, you know, someone says there is a reason why they’re crying.623 • When Alvin had the fall in the bassinet, he did a full body examination of Alvin and there were no other bruises or anything like that. Alvin only had a heat rash on his back.624 • He personally checked Alvin, and he was fine, so he wrapped him up again and put the ice pack on him.625 • When they bathed Alvin that Wednesday night there was no bruise on the eye. They didn’t notice anything.626 The next day it wasn’t even there. It was gone.627 • When the eye started to blacken, he did not think it was serious because as soon as he placed ice on, it pretty much went down – it went away. 613 MFI-P14A [1449]. 614 MFI-P14A [1455]. 615 MFI-P14A [1465]. 616 MFI-P14A [1894]. 617 MFI-P14A [1910]. 618 MFI-P14A [1987]. 619 MFI-P14A [2099]-[115]. 620 MFI-P14A [2119]-[2124]. 621 MFI-P14A [2128]. 622 MFI-P14A [2128]. 623 MFI-P14A [2132]. 624 MFI-P14A [1999]-[2024]. 625 MFI-P14A [2024]. 626 MFI-P14A [2278]-[2285]. 627 MFI-P14A [2085]-[2089]. -- 58 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 57 It was only just a slight little purple. If it was puffed, he would have taken Alvin to the hospital.628 • The bruise on Alvin’s left cheek would have been from Alvin hitting the music box;629 similarly with the black eye.630 You could see that he had a little black eye an hour after the bassinet fell.631 Whenever Alvin’s eyes were open, they were of normal appearance.632 • He agreed that nothing else stood out.633 • Alvin had a bath that night.634 He bathed Alvin and Denton dressed Alvin.635 • When Alvin has a bath, he is propped up, held up, head and ears are always out of the water and just a cloth and always hold his head.636 Alvin loved the bath; he would literally be falling asleep. His partner still has a picture with a little towel on his stomach and he’s splashing out, he was out cold.637 • Maybe they should have taken Alvin to the hospital, but they had double checked and had called his parents and checked with them. We should have been more cautious.638 We have children, so you pretty well know the signs of what’s wrong, like if he’s whinging. We were worried but we’ve had other children before that like had fallen and hit their stuff and were fine.639 But he didn’t really cry much after that or anything. He didn’t whinge a lot. He took his bottle fine and everything.640 • When his partner got home, she checked Alvin. She changed his nappy, and he was fine after that, settled and everything. If Alvin was not going to settle, they would take him to the hospital, but he was settled and fine.641 They decided that if he was any worse or just whingey, like really whingey, and didn’t want to go back to sleep that they would take him straight to hospital.642 They were going to keep an eye on him and 628 MFI-P14A [3930]-[3946]. 629 MFI-P14A [3885]-[3892]. 630 MFI-P14A [3896]. 631 MFI-P14A [3910]. 632 MFI-P14A [3925]-[3928], [3998]. 633 MFI-P14A [1480]. 634 MFI-P14A [1930]. 635 MFI-P14A [2079]. 636 MFI-P14A [1944]. 637 MFI-P14A [1930]-[1962]. 638 MFI-P14A [261]. 639 MFI-P14A [1294]-[1296]. 640 MFI-P14A [267]. 641 MFI-P14A [588]-[595]. 642 MFI-P14A [1271]. -- 59 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 58 any fuss, or any signs and they were going to take him straight to the hospital.643 • When his partner and her stepmother (Sheryl Bickley) returned home Bickley checked Alvin out as well.644 • When asked who was involved in the conversation about taking Alvin to the hospital he said ‘… between all of us pretty much but you know even [Bickley] said that if you notice anything just take him in [to the hospital]’.645 • They just spent the rest of Wednesday cuddling Alvin, just normal day things, cuddling him, have some play time. He slept fine, everything normal. That’s what confused us. Alvin’s been like back to normal after that, like we didn’t notice anything, no signs or anything.646 • On the Wednesday both he and his partner stayed up to 2:00 am, just to make sure Alvin was okay.647 Alvin had a normal sleep.648 • They use a book to record Alvin’s feed times, nappy changes, Panadol, anticol and poos and wees.649 • He did not document the fall in the book because so much was going through his head. The last thing he was thinking was writing it down650 and anyway he told everyone, so they knew the story and what happened.651 • After they gave Alvin his bottle he had some Panadol.652 • He went to the chemist to purchase Panadol for Alvin.653 This would have been within three hours of the bassinet incident.654 He decided to get Panadol because he thought Alvin was probably in pain.655 He gave Alvin the dose of Panadol.656 He gave Alvin 0.4 mL of Panadol.657 643 MFI-P14A [1364]. 644 MFI-P14A [1348]-[1356]. 645 MFI-P14A [1362]-[1393]. 646 MFI-P14A [1748]-[1754]. 647 MFI-P14A [1522], [3258]. 648 MFI-P14A [1535]. 649 MFI-P14A [2301]-[2342]. 650 MFI-P14A [1573]-[1578]. 651 MFI-P14A [2351]. 652 MFI-P14A [1607]. 653 MFI-P14A [1611]. 654 MFI-P14A [2361]. 655 MFI-P14A [2376]. 656 MFI-P14A [2459]-[2565]. 657 MFI-P14A [2435]. -- 60 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 59 • Throughout the Thursday he gave Alvin more Panadol.658 • On Thursday his parents came over between 3:00 pm and 4:00 pm. They had a cuddle with Alvin and checked him as well.659 • Since Alvin’s birth there have been no instances where he has been harmed. He’s been the most perfect child, amazing, no signs, nothing.660 A midwife visited and checked Alvin, and everything was really good.661 • Alvin had only been out of the house twice – to his grandmother’s 80th birthday and to his parents’ house. They were cautious because of the corona virus and Alvin getting sick.662 • On the Thursday they stayed up until 9:30 pm to 10:00 pm and he then went to bed with the dog in the room.663 • Alvin had last fed at 8:30 pm.664 He said good night to Alvin and then went to bed around 9:30 pm to 10:00 pm. • On the Friday his partner woke him up and brought Alvin into the bedroom. Alvin was ice cold.665 His partner said that Alvin was either not breathing or not responsive.666 • He grabbed Alvin and unwrapped him. He placed his finger in Alvin’s throat to see if he would gag but there was no reaction. He did a couple of taps on Alvin’s chest and nothing and then they went straight to the hospital.667 • Alvin looked completely white, cold, purple eyes (both eyes); the mouth was dry – there was no saliva.668 He thought Alvin might be dead. • They discussed that if they thought Alvin hurt his eye, was whinging differently or if he wasn’t sleeping well, they would go and get him checked out.669 658 MFI-P14A [2954]. 659 MFI-P14A [1785]-[1798], [2290]. 660 MFI-P14A [1806]-[1821], [2504]. 661 MFI-P14A [2775]-[2790]. 662 MFI-P14A [1855]-[1865]. 663 MFI-P14A [3254], [3286]-[3296]. 664 MFI-P14A [3384], [3411]. 665 MFI-P14A [3300]-[3304]. 666 MFI-P14A [3335], [3709]. 667 MFI-P14A [3340], [3369]-[3573]. 668 MFI-P14A [3588], [3593], [3763]. 669 MFI-P14A [3942]-[3967]. -- 61 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 60 • He never noticed any long bruise to Alvin’s back along the spine.670 • He cannot think of any reason Alvin would have had a bruise on his back like that.671 • Thinking about it today, like I’m not a doctor so I don’t know, maybe have had a concussion and we didn’t see it, didn’t make any sign of it.672 Third police interview – Christies Beach Police Station 7 May 2021 at 11:33 am673 331 This interview was conducted after the postmortem examination. The defendant said the following: • When the defendant was told of the injuries noted at the postmortem examination not being consistent with Alvin falling in the bassinet and if he wanted to say anything about that, the defendant said ‘I think I’ve said everything. I’ve told you about everything’.674 • He said that he thought Alvin may have had a dummy in his mouth when the bassinet tipped over but was only 51% sure about that.675 • When it was put to him that the brain injuries were consistent with Alvin being shaken, he said ‘I don’t know. I’ve told you guys everything that I know that’s happened.676 I went over and over with you guys’.677 • He denied that he had shaken Alvin.678 • When told that Alvin had broken ribs the defendant groaned and replied ‘What?’ and then the defendant cried, saying ‘poor boy’.679 • He said that after he had wiped blood off Alvin and had applied ice to Alvin, that Alvin settled pretty much straight away. Alvin was settled by the time his partner and her stepmother got back and Alvin was handed over and they unwrapped him and checked him.680 He said Alvin seemed fine.681 670 MFI-P14A [4001]-[4024]. 671 MFI-P14A [4054]-[4057], [4096]-[4116]. 672 MFI-P14A [1487]. 673 P14 (Transcript MFI-P14B). 674 MFI-P14B [98]-[104]. 675 MFI-P14B [134]-[159]. 676 MFI-P14B [170]. 677 MFI-P14B [175]. 678 MFI-P14B [1793]-[1795]. 679 MFI-P14B [195]-[203]. 680 MFI-P14B [256]. 681 MFI-P14B [262]. -- 62 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 61 • In response to being told that Alvin’s condition would have deteriorated and that he could have been in and out of consciousness, he said Alvin did appear drowsy, sleepy, very quiet after that, but Alvin was a very quiet baby, and he barely cried so they didn’t think that was anything out of the ordinary.682 • Alvin was pretty tired anyway because he had just had a feed, and he believed Alvin was probably worked up as well. He said ‘I don’t know, he was still pretty sleepy. So, I don’t know if drowsy is the thing but pretty sleepy’.683 • He said in response to the questioning, ‘I don’t know what to say because I’ve told them everything and right down to the detail over and over’.684 • He said that Alvin had been a ‘little angel’.685 • He said that his partner used to get pretty stressed and that he used to take over from her.686 He said she would just be crying with Alvin sometimes for no reason and that he used to take over.687 • His partner found it really hard.688 • Even when Alvin was born his partner needed a lot of support. He didn’t know whether she was tired, sleepy, or depressed or not but that sometimes it just got hard on her.689 When he would ask her what was wrong, she would say ‘I’m just tired’.690 • There were times during the day when his partner could not emotionally look after Alvin. She would say that it was because of sleep but she would cry. After Alvin was born, his partner seemed a lot more emotional – crying and that.691 • When his partner was looking after Alvin, he was out the back or the front a lot of the time, so he didn’t know if anything happened or not.692 He said that if something happened when he was not around then he 682 MFI-P14B [275]-[294]. 683 MFI-P14B [299]-[304]. 684 MFI-P14B [410]. 685 MFI-P14B [581]. 686 MFI-P14B [583]-[585]. 687 MFI-P14B [589]. 688 MFI-P14B [1074]. 689 MFI-P14B [1229]. 690 MFI-P14B [1251]. 691 MFI-P14B [1426]-[1433]. 692 MFI-P14B [1146]. -- 63 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 62 wouldn’t know. He said that he used to go out the back for hours at a time.693 • He said that he didn’t really look after Alvin a lot during the day.694 He said that most of the time he just comes inside to help where he can or give a bottle whenever he can or take over whenever he can.695 • He denied that he had become frustrated with Alvin when he fell.696 • He repeated what he said in the second interview, that Alvin was hysterical following the bassinet tipping over, for between 5 to 10 minutes, but that Alvin then calmed down after he placed some ice over Alvin’s lip.697 He said that as soon as he saw blood on Alvin’s face that he freaked out and got a cloth and ice and immediately called his partner.698 • He said that there were never any incidents before the Wednesday when the bassinet tipped over.699 Biomechanical opinion as to the bassinet tipping over in the circumstances described by the defendant 332 Dr Claire Jones, a biomechanical engineer, conducted a series of experiments to determine if the bassinet could have tipped over onto its side, in the circumstances as described by the defendant. 333 A report was presented to the court setting out the testing that was conducted during the experiments and the conclusions reached.700 334 Given the limitations involved in attempting to replicate the scenario described by the defendant, the experiments could not exclude that the bassinet tipped over in the circumstances described by the defendant. 335 With the brakes off, and with a low to medium height obstacle adjacent to the left wheels (intending to replicate the presence of a dog), it is possible to tip the bassinet to its left side. 336 It is possible that the bassinet was tipped onto the left side by a force applied to the right upper rail in a situation similar to that described by the defendant in his police interview. 693 MFI-P14B [1871]. 694 MFI-P14B [1171]. 695 MFI-P14B [1180]-[1819]. 696 MFI-P14B [667]-[677]. 697 MFI-P14B [687]-[704]. 698 MFI-P14B [721]. 699 MFI-P14B [729]-[732]. 700 P18. -- 64 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 63 337 Forces of a sufficient magnitude, with the appropriate direction to tip the bassinet, could be created by the arm or the hand, as a result of stumbling or falling, as the defendant described happening in his police interview. Paediatric opinions 338 Dr Jane Edwards is the head of the Paediatric Forensic Medical Service at the Women’s and Children’s Hospital. Her qualifications and expertise were not challenged. Alvin’s injuries Injuries to Alvin’s lip 339 Dr Edwards said that a re-enactment of the defendant’s description of the bassinet incident was performed. The injuries to Alvin’s lip could be accounted for if the incident happened as the defendant described it, but not Alvin’s other injuries.701 340 Dr Edwards observed the frenulum injury in the postmortem photographs and contacted Dr Langlois, as it had not been included in his postmortem report. While a tear of the frenulum will cause bleeding it could resolve in less than 10 minutes.702 If the frenulum is injured the lip may also swell if there has been an injury to the lip at the same time.703 Ice may assist in reducing any swelling to the lip.704 341 Because of the location of the frenulum under the upper lip, Dr Edwards said there would need to be either a direct impact between the gum and the upper lip – some object introduced to cause direct trauma to the frenulum – or through indirect trauma, such as if the child has fallen on something causing the lip to be pushed rapidly away from the gum so that the frenulum will shear or tear.705 Shaking alone would not cause the frenulum to tear without there also being an impact during that action.706 Bruise to Alvin’s cheek 342 Dr Edwards observed that there appeared to be a bruise to Alvin’s left cheek when she viewed the digital image on the computer of photograph 22 in P10 (taken at 8:51 am on 21 April 2021).707 This meant that the bruise must have been caused before midday on 21 April 2021. A bruise is caused by an impact leading to a compression of blood vessels that then bleeds into the skin.708 701 T 464, 474.2-474.6 702 T 472, 551. 703 T 472. 704 T 472.35. 705 T 473.3. 706 T 473.22. 707 T 475-476. 708 T 474. -- 65 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 64 Red mark under Alvin’s left eye 343 Dr Edwards noted that in the photographs contained in P10 there appeared to be a small red mark just underneath the left eye in the area in the middle of the cheekbone.709 The colour was very symmetrical and diffuse so it could have been caused by an impact elsewhere such as the forehead or bridge of the nose.710 The small red dots in photograph 30 of P10 appeared to be a petechial haemorrhage – the bursting of very small blood vessels in the dermis that has been caused by direct impact.711 Dr Edwards said that these may disappear within two days.712 Rib fractures 344 Dr Edwards explained in some detail the rib fractures or abnormalities, noted either on the postmortem CT scan or at the postmortem examination conducted by Dr Langlois. The bones of babies are quite porous and so they can buckle or bend rather than completely fracture through and through.713 As such, in babies, rib fractures will include any evidence of abnormality of the bone.714 If there is any disruption to the continuity of the bone in a baby that will be classified as a fracture by the paediatric radiologist.715 345 In babies, the ribs are very close together because of the child’s small size and it is therefore common to see multiple rib fractures lining up next to each other in a forensic situation.716 346 Alvin was found to have sustained a number of fractures to both sides. 347 On the right-side there was a buckle fracture of the first and second ribs and a fracture to the third right rib, all at the back and which were detected on the CT scan but not reported in Dr Langlois’ postmortem report. The fourth to ninth right ribs, as reported by the paediatric radiologist, revealed ‘highly suspicious’, ‘irregular’ or ‘subtle’ evidence, but this is not conclusive enough to confirm a fracture had occurred in those ribs.717 348 On the left-side there was a fracture at the first rib at the costochondral junction; the second rib was fractured; there was another fracture of the third rib at the costovertebral junction and a possible fracture on the posterior surface of the head of the rib; the fourth and fifth ribs had fractures at the costochondral junction; the sixth rib had a fracture at the costovertebral junction, costochondral junction and laterally (this fracture was a ‘through and through’ fracture, meaning that there was a clean break of the rib); the seventh rib was also found to have a complete 709 T 477. 710 T 477. 711 T 480.17-480.24, 553-554. 712 T 554.22. 713 T 481. 714 T 481. 715 T 483.24. 716 T 483-484. 717 T 482-485. -- 66 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 65 fracture (‘through and through’) and the eighth and ninth ribs did not appear to have been fractured on the CT scan.718 349 Most of the fractures were at the back of the ribs (posterior paravertebral rib fractures). 350 Dr Edwards was of the opinion that the entirety of the rib fractures could be explained by chest encirclement and compression (squeezing of the chest), causing leverage of the posterior ribs over the spine.719 In babies, it is common to see quite a lot of fractures caused through the mechanism of squeezing.720 351 Dr Edwards said that it is very difficult to opine how much force would be required to fracture the ribs of a neonate, other than it would obviously need to be more than normal handling by a parent or caregiver.721 Bruising to Alvin’s back 352 Dr Edwards said the cause of the bruising noted on Alvin’s back is associated with the same mechanism of encircling the chest and is associated with the fingers applying pressure to the skin, which is then compressed over the vertebral column.722 Dr Edwards said that it is her opinion, after taking into account that the bruising to the back and the number of fractures were approximately in the same region (lower chest wall), that bruising or injury was noted to the intercostal muscles (those muscles between the ribs which allow the ribs to separate to enable breathing), the haemorrhage on the pleura (lining of the lung) corresponding to the left fifth to eighth ribs and the presence of deep bruises underneath the left shoulder blade, that the bruising occurred though the same mechanism of squeezing.723 Expected behaviour of a baby with these injuries 353 Dr Edwards said that a baby who suffered these injuries would experience pain, which would be expressed through crying. If the baby was already crying when the injuries were sustained, then it may not be evident that the child had sustained rib fractures. Further, if a baby is lying on its back and simply breathing, without much movement in the ribs, it could be quite difficult to tell that the ribs have been fractured. 354 Dr Edwards said that if the baby has a head injury that alters its consciousness, then there would be less ability for the baby to express pain.724 718 T 485-491. A direct blow would not account for the fractures seen in this case, nor could they have been caused during the bassinet tipping over or through the two finger CPR technique that the defendant admitted performing on Alvin: T 493-495. 719 T 492. 720 T 493.33. 721 T 556-558. 722 T 496. 723 T 496-497. 724 T 498-499. -- 67 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 66 Bruises to the scalp 355 Dr Edwards noted the bruises to the scalp in the positions identified by Dr Langlois. Dr Edwards said the bruises were the result of direct impact onto a surface compressing the skin on the scalp against the underlying skull bone.725 Dr Edwards said that it is difficult to determine if the bruises were the result of a single impact, as this would be dependent on the nature of the surface the head was impacted upon, as Dr Langlois also stated in his evidence. Dr Edwards observed that the force involved was not sufficient to fracture the skull.726 356 Dr Edwards stated that the bruising to the scalp could not have been caused during the tipping over of the bassinet. The re-construction undertaken of the bassinet incident described by the defendant excluded the head, in the area where the bruises were noted, contacting the music box.727 Tense fontanelles 357 Dr Edwards stated that the appearance of tense fontanelles, noted at the postmortem examination, were indicators of an increase in pressure in the skull, caused by either there being a large volume of fluid or the brain itself becoming enlarged.728 In this case, the postmortem examination revealed that Alvin’s brain had swelled (as there was not a large volume of blood observed in the skull) and therefore, the appearance of the tense fontanelles would be attributable to the swelling of the brain.729 Subarachnoid and subdural haemorrhages 358 Dr Edwards noted the presence of both subarachnoid and subdural haemorrhages and explained that where a shearing force730 is applied, such as in a head injury caused through rotational forces, the blood vessels that run along the middle between the brain and the skull can be sheared and torn resulting in blood leaking into the dura. 359 Dr Edwards said that when there is a subdural haemorrhage in an infant, caused through a rotational head injury, there is usually also an accompanying subarachnoid haemorrhage, as both are consistent with a shearing force.731 Dr Edwards explained that a rotational force of the head is anything that sets the head in motion while the head is unsupported. Shaking is one such mechanism of a rotational force, but there are others, including a blow to the head, such as when 725 T 500. 726 T 560. 727 T 500, 588. 728 T 503-504. 729 T 504.3. 730 Dr Edwards described a shearing force as a stretching and tearing of the blood vessels caused through a rotational force: T 506.13. Shearing forces were also the explanation for retinal hemorrhages in this case. 731 T 504-505. -- 68 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 67 a boxer is punched, causing the head to rotate, or where a child is thrown and then lands, causing a similar motion to occur to the head.732 360 Dr Edwards said that when an infant’s brain is subjected to rotational forces, if the force is sufficient and there has been enough brain movement within the skull, there can be damage to the nerves of the brain, which becomes the primary head injury. When nerve cells are damaged there is an influx of fluid (an increase in the water content of the brain), which can lead to swelling of the brain.733 361 Dr Edwards said the symptoms of such a head injury would typically result in an initial concussion (loss of consciousness) for a variable time, followed by some recovery before the secondary processes applying to the brain leading to a deterioration over time – from hours to days. A very young baby does not have a large repertoire of behaviours and, so, to the untrained eye, the injured baby might appear to be sleeping, and it would be difficult to recognise whether there was anything wrong (and there might even be a return to a degree of consciousness). Generally, however, there would not be a recovery back to a normal state.734 The initial concussion may vary from a few seconds to a few minutes. The slow deterioration may then last from a few hours to days. The traditional understanding of brain swelling is that it usually maximises between 24 - 48 hours.735 Damage to the optic nerve 362 In relation to the damage to the optic nerves, Dr Edwards relied upon Dr Sophie Otto’s report736 when giving evidence. Dr Edwards stated that it is more likely that the retinal haemorrhages were related to shearing forces that the eyes were subjected to and can be the result of rotational forces.737 Mechanisms that could have caused the injuries 363 Dr Edwards explained the various mechanisms that can cause a head injury. 364 The first is through the application of static force where the head is not moving, such as a crush injury or an impact to the head when a person is lying down. In such an event a skull fracture or bruise may result. 365 The second cause of a head injury is through a dynamic or impulsive load, which refers to the head being set in motion, through linear acceleration forces in which the head does not rotate significantly and so moves in a straight line. This is most commonly seen in falls where the head and the body align. Generally, in this situation there is no brain injury as the brain is very tolerant to linear forces.738 732 T 506.20. 733 T 509. 734 T 509-510. 735 T 510.26-510.30. 736 Dr Otto is another pathologist who worked on this case. 737 T 511-512. 738 T 514-516. -- 69 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 68 366 The third mechanism for a head injury is through rotational or angular forces. The brain is very vulnerable to such forces, particularly babies because their heads are large and heavy, and they have very weak neck muscles. In addition to this there is a higher water content in a baby’s brain and larger spaces around the brain allowing more room for the brain to move within the skull. In a situation where an unrestrained head rotates in one of three axes (forwards, backwards, and sideways), the brain and the skull do not move at the same rate, such that the brain ‘jiggles around within the skull’. Dr Edwards said this is when the shearing forces of the blood vessels and the brain occur. In this situation, there will be diffuse injuries, ‘bleeding all the way around the head’, the subdural haemorrhages and retinal haemorrhages and a primary brain injury. Dr Edwards was of the opinion that this is what Alvin had suffered.739 367 Dr Edwards agreed that a baby being held or squeezed tightly and then shaken (or thrown) is an example of the type of angular or rotational forces that may cause the injuries to the brain noted in this case.740 368 Dr Edwards stated that it is common experience in young children who have sustained these types of head injuries to also have rib fractures because of the association with the child being grasped tightly around the chest and then shaken or thrown.741 369 Dr Edwards agreed that a single event may account for the brain injuries, retinal haemorrhages and the rib fractures suffered by Alvin.742 The scalp bruises are indicative of impact and could be the initiating point of the forces or the ending of the forces.743 As there were no skull fractures, the impact or impact that caused the bruising, was not very forceful.744 370 Dr Edwards agreed that the injuries to the brain, the bruising to the scalp and the retinal haemorrhages could all have been caused in a scenario where Alvin had been removed from the bassinet, squeezed and then thrown into the bassinet striking the rim of the bassinet or the toy (music box) strapped to the bassinet. Dr Edwards discounted the brain injuries and retinal haemorrhages being caused by the bassinet tipping onto its side.745 Symptoms of a brain injury 371 Dr Edwards was asked to explain the symptoms Alvin would have presented with following the infliction of the brain injuries. 739 T 516. 740 T 517. 741 T 517, 563. 742 T 518. 743 T 518. 744 T 519. 745 T 520. -- 70 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 69 I will set out her evidence about this, given the importance of it to the case:746 [W]hat we know from our own experience of talking to lots of caregivers regarding this and from the literature is that, as I said previously, we expect there to have been a concussion episode where the baby went very quiet and looked like they were asleep pretty soon, if not immediately after the incident, followed by either a continual deterioration where an ambulance is called, or some apparent recovery where the child becomes less obtunded and may well feed and appear to not be too badly hurt. However, over - if there has been a primary injury to the brain and then the secondary processes which lead to poor oxygen supply and ongoing damage to the brain, we expect symptoms in a young baby to be sort of lack of alertness but also lack of arousal, so when a baby would normally be aroused, like being undressed, or in a bath, or having a nappy changed, when the baby would normally wake up and cry, that they don’t do that as per usual, they don’t wake up for their feeds as often as they, if they were always waking up every two or three hours, they don’t do that. They may still be able to suck their feeds, but it would be a less effective suck, the feed would take longer, they would take less milk and they might fall asleep during the feed and the parent might have to sort of arouse them. Then, often a baby will start vomiting, or having seizures, or have periods where their breathing is abnormal that is described to us over, as I said, a period of time. That can really vary from a few hours to, you know, two or three days. 372 Dr Edwards said that if a child is not arousing as they normally would or sleeping for longer periods than expected, this would indicate that a traumatic incident had occurred just prior to their change in behaviour.747 The fact that an ice pack applied to Alvin’s lip and being bathed did not rouse or produce a response or reaction from Alvin, is an indicator that he was experiencing an altered level of consciousness at that point in time.748 373 Dr Edwards said that it would be very unlikely that a baby would cry hysterically if they had been subjected to angular or rotational forces. In such a situation, one would expect a bit of whimpering and a very quiet baby because their level of consciousness would be altered through the injury. A loud, vigorous response to painful stimuli would be indicative of a normal level of consciousness.749 If a baby is crying, that is usually a sign that there was no injury to the brain at that point in time and therefore the brain injury must have occurred after that crying event or during it.750 374 Dr Edwards said that in her forensic experience, and reflected in the literature, a crying baby is a common trigger for frustration, followed by an action resulting in harm to the baby.751 Dr Edwards agreed with a scenario where a baby is crying hysterically causing the caregiver to shake the baby to quieten it down. The baby then quiets down and appears to fall asleep but in reality, is concussed.752 746 T 521.14-522.2. 747 T 522.15, 565-566. 748 T 522-523. 749 T 252.21-252.26, 564-566. 750 T 523.27-523.35, 524. 751 T 524.4. 752 T 523-524. -- 71 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 70 375 Dr Edwards agreed that Alvin could have sustained the brain injuries within 10 minutes of Alvin being heard screaming or crying hysterically.753 376 Dr Edwards agreed that the causative event could occur in a very short space of time.754 377 Dr Edwards said that in a scenario where Alvin appeared to sleep a lot after he was heard to be crying at 12:14 pm, and although he exhibited periods of consciousness, Alvin did not regain a full level of consciousness (he did not open his eyes again and had difficulty latching on to his bottle during feeds) would all be symptoms consistent with the progression of brain swelling from that point forward.755 378 During cross-examination, Dr Edwards agreed that babies who become very distressed can become quiet and then sleep after expending their energy crying and that Alvin’s being tired or sleeping might have been attributable to an incident occurring 10 minutes earlier (I extrapolate that this is the bassinet incident).756 However, Dr Edwards added that a baby with a normal level of consciousness (one not suffering from a head injury) would be expected to react or respond to the application of ice to the face by opening their eyes, possibly whimpering, or showing some signs of movement.757 379 Dr Edwards was asked to comment on Alvin being fed through a syringe and stated that, if this had occurred, it would reveal a significant head injury had been sustained because the ability to latch and suck has been lost. This would be a symptom of the progression of the swelling of the brain.758 Dr Edwards said that a baby’s reduced feeding and the volume of the feeds is similarly consistent with a brain injury. When a baby has a reduced level of consciousness they will have to be constantly aroused or stimulated to keep sucking during a feed.759 380 If Alvin failed to wake from his last feed at 4:30 pm on 22 April 2021 this would be a clear indicator of the brain swelling and reduced level of consciousness.760 381 Dr Edwards agreed that it was more likely that Alvin’s brain injury was sustained sometime after midday on 21 April 2021.761 382 Dr Edwards said that early medical intervention may have prevented Alvin from dying.762 Dr Edwards also said that a baby who is described as having 753 T 525.4. 754 T 570. 755 T 525.12-525.25. 756 T 566. 757 T 567. 758 T 526.26-526.34. 759 T 527. 760 T 528. 761 T 529. 762 T 538-539. -- 72 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 71 difficulty breathing (‘chesty breathing’ being an example), could indicate that there is a brain injury. Dr Edwards said that by this time, however, in an unconscious baby, the baby’s condition has moved to the very terminal life phase, where medical intervention would not save the baby’s life.763 383 Dr Edwards said that the presence of lung fluid observed on Alvin by Denton at 6:30 am on Wednesday 23 April 2021, would have been extruded through the nose and is a common feature in deceased babies. This is because fluid passively extrudes through the nose or mouth through gravity.764 384 Earlier in her evidence, Dr Edwards said that babies of Alvin’s very young age have a limited repertoire of behaviours – sucking, feeding, sleeping, waking when hungry, some random but not purposeful movements of limbs and some ability to focus on objects close to their face. They tend to stay in quite a flexed position for the first one to two months following their birth, where the arms and legs are in a curled position (this being related to their position in utero) and they have different muscle strengths and tensions.765 In a child of Alvin’s age, who was experiencing neurological difficulties, one would expect symptoms of the baby being very floppy (like a dead weight), with their arms and legs quite extended and in an open posture.766 385 Dr Edwards was asked to comment on the photographs taken of Alvin after the bassinet incident contained in P10.767 386 In relation to the photographs of Alvin in the baby bathtub,768 that were taken at 8:55 pm on Wednesday 21 April 2021, Alvin has a white towel wrapped over his head, a grey towel is underneath his head and a blue towel is covering his body, while he is immersed in the bathtub and his eyes are closed. 387 Dr Edwards said that Alvin’s hips and knees are not in the flexed position in the bathtub. Alvin’s legs are quite straight out, which is unusual. Dr Edwards was also struck by the fact Alvin appears to be asleep. Most babies of that age do not like being undressed and being cold and this would cause them to rouse. Dr Edwards said that it is very unusual for a baby to sleep through a bath. This fact, and Alvin’s straight position in the bathtub, are indicative of a reduced level of consciousness and of a brain injury having already occurred. Dr Edwards contrasted Alvin’s appearance in the bathtub on 21 April 2021 with a photograph of Alvin in the bathtub 7 April 2021,769 where Alvin is fully naked, his eyes are open, and his arms and legs are flexed. Dr Edwards said this was the position and 763 T 539-540. 764 T 465. 765 T 467. 766 T 468. 767 P10, photographs 23-40. 768 P10, photographs 26-29. 769 P24 [38]. -- 73 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 72 behaviour she would expect from a baby with a normal level of consciousness to present.770 388 Photographs 23-25 were taken at 8:13 pm on 21 April 2021. Alvin appears to be in the bassinet. Denton and the defendant have placed their respective finger in each of Alvin’s hands. Dr Edwards said that babies have a palmar reflex for the first few months of life, where, if pressure is applied to the palm, there will be an automatic reflex where the baby will grip onto the object. Dr Edwards said that in the absence of a video recording it is very difficult to be certain if what is depicted was Alvin’s palmar reflex functioning or not.771 389 Photographs 32-40 are a series of photographs of Alvin lying across Denton’s arms while she is seated on the couch. They were taken by Denton between 12:10 pm and 12:12 pm on Thursday 22 April 2021. In the photographs, Alvin has his eyes closed and his mouth is open. Dr Edwards said that she noted there appeared to be a loss of muscle tone in Alvin’s lower face – his mouth was ‘hanging open’. Dr Edwards said that this is yet another symptom that Alvin had a brain injury.772 Alvin’s legs also appeared floppy, and he appeared pale.773 Dr Edwards said that even with the limitation of photographs, compared to a video recording, she would be concerned about Alvin’s appearance in these series of photographs.774 The defendant elected not to give or call evidence 390 The defendant did not give or call any evidence in the trial. No adverse inference against the defendant is drawn from his decision not to give or call evidence. Consistent with the burden of proof in a criminal trial resting solely upon the prosecution to prove an offence charged against a defendant beyond a reasonable doubt, a defendant is not required to prove anything. His decision not to give or call evidence cannot be used as a makeweight for the prosecution’s evidence nor does it strengthen the inferences to be drawn from the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution. Consideration Evidence opened on by the prosecution not taken into consideration 391 During the prosecution opening address, it was outlined that discreditable conduct evidence would be adduced from the defendant’s former partner, Tiffany Day, the mother of the defendant’s other children. Day would give evidence of a number of separate incidents where the defendant acted violently towards, or in the presence of his children, when they were infants.775 770 T 532-533. 771 T 535. 772 T 536. 773 T 537. 774 T 537. 775 T 19. -- 74 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 73 392 The evidence outlined, included an incident of punching a wardrobe while Day was holding one of their young children and violently snatching the child from Day’s hands; threats of violence directed towards the child following an assault on Day, in that child's presence; an incident where Day witnessed forceful rocking or shaking of the second of their children in a moment of frustration by the defendant, when this child was an infant; an incident of pushing Day against a wall and choking her in the course of an argument while she was holding their first child; and a final incident where the defendant was alleged to have kicked a baby gate in a moment of anger, which was in the presence of their second child and which almost struck the child.776 393 The prosecution submitted that the evidence was admissible for both propensity and non-propensity uses.777 The non-propensity use was that it demonstrated that the defendant does not have a strong, protective, paternal instinct and, in this way, it rebuts the natural inference or any suggestion that might arise that a father would not do anything to deliberately hurt their child, therefore, making it less likely that the defendant committed the offences. 394 The propensity use was that the evidence demonstrated that, in moments of high stress, frustration or anger, the defendant has a tendency to lose his temper and act out physically in disregard for the welfare of his infant children, making it more likely that the defendant was responsible for inflicting the fatal injuries on Alvin.778 395 The prosecution ultimately decided not to present this evidence.779 396 I have dismissed what the prosecution said about this evidence and did not take it into account in consideration of the case against the defendant. Issues in dispute 397 The issues in the trial were significantly narrowed during the defence closing address, such that the case falls to be determined on a confined basis. 398 I have set out in some detail the evidence of Dr Langlois and Dr Edwards. I accept the evidence and the opinions each of them has given. Indeed, their evidence was not challenged by the defence. 399 I accept the evidence given by Dr Edwards that these injuries were not caused by the bassinet tipping over with Alvin in it.780 776 T 19-20. 777 Evidence Act ss 34P(2)(a), (b). 778 T 20-22. 779 T 570. This proposed evidence was not objected to by the defence: T 26-27. The admissibility of the evidence for the purposes contended for by the prosecution was questioned by the court during the course of the trial: T 315-317. Defence counsel then indicated, through email correspondence, on 20 January 2025, that there would be an objection to the evidence: T 542. 780 T 520.24-38. -- 75 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 74 400 It is not disputed that the rib fractures and head injuries suffered by Alvin were caused by a deliberate act and were non-accidental.781 401 I accept the evidence of Dr Langlois that the cause of Alvin’s death was from a deliberate act resulting in the infliction of a head injury. I accept the evidence of Dr Langlois and Dr Edwards that the injuries noted by Dr Langlois during the postmortem examination – the injuries to the ribs, scalp, brain and retinas – were consistent with having been caused by Alvin being held tightly around the chest, squeezed and then deliberately shaken or thrown, possibly striking a surface.782 402 It is not disputed that the injuries were inflicted on Wednesday 21 April 2021 and not Thursday 22 April 2021.783 403 There is no dispute that Alvin died sometime after 4:30 am on Friday 23 April 2021, when Denton attended to Alvin and noted his ‘chesty breathing’, and 6:30 am when Denton found Alvin unresponsive. 404 The issue in relation to the charge of manslaughter, is the identity of the person who inflicted the head injuries that caused Alvin’s death. It is accepted that it can only have been either the defendant or Denton. In the circumstances of this case the prosecution must exclude as a reasonable possibility that the head injuries were not inflicted by Denton, while also proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant inflicted the head injuries. 405 The critical fact in dispute on this charge is the timing of the head injuries sustained by Alvin and the opportunities for the defendant or Denton to have caused the injuries on Wednesday 21 April 2021. 406 The prosecution case against the defendant having inflicted the head injuries on Alvin is entirely circumstantial. This means the inference to be drawn from the circumstantial evidence, said to prove that the defendant inflicted the injuries on Alvin, must be the only rational inference open on the evidence. Put another way, if, upon considering the entirety of the circumstantial evidence, there exists a reasonable possibility or hypothesis that is inconsistent with the defendant inflicting the injuries on Alvin, then it would follow that there would be a reasonable doubt that he did inflict the injuries, and he must be found not guilty. 407 The defence submitted that there were only two windows of opportunity for when the fatal head injuries inflicted on Alvin could have occurred. The first was immediately after the bassinet incident and before Denton returned home, and the second was when the defendant was out purchasing Panadol. It was submitted that these two opportunities, for either the defendant or Denton to have inflicted the fatal injuries, could not be differentiated and are effectively the same. 784 781 Defence closing address: T 735. 782 See defence closing address T 730, 735. 783 See defence closing address T 730. 784 T 767-768. -- 76 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 75 408 The defence submitted that the court must not speculate as to the reason Denton, or the defendant would inflict the injuries on Alvin. It was submitted the fact that Alvin was crying after the bassinet incident should not lead to the conclusion that the defendant had become frustrated and acted on that frustration by taking hold of Alvin and shaking him. It was submitted that such behaviour, on his part, would be inconsistent with him calling Denton immediately after the bassinet incident, being upset and crying, and then purchasing Panadol. It was further submitted that it would also be inconsistent with the defendant’s reaction when Alvin was brought into the bedroom unresponsive. The defence submitted that the court cannot speculate that Alvin was not crying during the time the defendant was purchasing Panadol and Denton was alone with Alvin. It was submitted that as the court could not distinguish between Alvin being injured during either of the two available opportunities a reasonable doubt must exist that the defendant inflicted the fatal injuries.785 409 In relation to the charge of criminal neglect, the prosecution has particularised the act causing harm to Alvin as an omission. It is the prosecution case that the defendant’s failure to obtain timely medical care for Alvin resulted in the continued deterioration of Alvin’s physical wellbeing. 410 There are three issues in relation to this charge. First, whether the defendant was, or ought to have been, aware that there was an appreciable risk of harm to Alvin in failing to obtain timely medical care. Secondly, whether the defendant failed to take steps he could reasonably be expected to have taken in the circumstances to protect Alvin from that harm. Finally, whether that failure was so serious in the circumstances to warrant a criminal penalty.786 411 The disputed elements of the offence will be established if it is found that the defendant inflicted the head injuries on Alvin. This was not challenged. 412 If it is not established that the defendant inflicted the head injuries on Alvin, the prosecution seeks to establish this charge on the basis that given Alvin’s displayed symptoms, following the bassinet incident, the defendant was, or ought to have been, aware that there was an appreciable risk of harm to Alvin, (through the failure to obtain timely medical care), that he failed to take steps he could reasonably be expected to have taken in the circumstances to protect Alvin from that harm (by seeking or obtaining medical care) and that this failure was so serious in the circumstances to warrant a criminal penalty. A critical fact in dispute in proving the charge on this alternative basis is the defendant’s awareness of Alvin’s continued deteriorating state across Wednesday 21 and Thursday 22 April 2021. 413 During the defence closing address, the dispute on this charge was narrowed to a single issue. It was conceded by the defence that the defendant objectively 785 T 767-770. 786 It is accepted by the defence that should the court find the defendant guilty of manslaughter, given the finding would involve the defendant having inflicted the head injuries on Alvin through an unlawful and dangerous act (shaking) then it would follow the defendant would be guilty of criminal neglect. -- 77 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 76 ought to have been aware that there was an appreciable risk of harm to Alvin because of Alvin’s deteriorating state and the defendant’s failure to obtain timely medical care.787 414 The defence also conceded that the defendant failed to take steps he could reasonably be expected to have taken in the circumstances to protect Alvin from that harm.788 This is because he did not seek or obtain medical care for Alvin, such as telephoning a doctor’s surgery, a hospital, a telehealth service, CaFHS or by taking Alvin to see a doctor or taking him to a hospital. 415 These concessions were made on the basis that the defendant did not know that Alvin had sustained the head injuries through shaking (on the defence case, by Denton). 416 The defence to this charge, based on these concessions, was that the bassinet incident masked the deterioration in Alvin’s state. It is the defence case that the defendant purchased Panadol as a precaution because he thought Alvin would be in pain following the bassinet incident, that he administered the Panadol, in accordance with the instructions, and that these actions were adequate in the circumstances, such that a criminal penalty would not be warranted.789 417 Having identified the focus of dispute in relation to each charge, I now explain the reasons for my findings and verdicts. Count 1 – Manslaughter The timing of the infliction of the rib fractures and head injuries suffered by Alvin 418 I find that before Denton left home at around 10:30 am on Wednesday 21 April 2021, to go shopping with Bickley, Alvin had not sustained the rib fractures, or the head injuries, noted by Dr Langlois at the postmortem examination. 419 I base this finding on the following evidence that I have accepted: • On 6 April 2021, a midwife did a home visit, as part of the FMC Maternity Outreach Service, to check on Alvin’s welfare. Alvin was stripped, weighed and assessed. No bruises were observed, and Alvin appeared to be a normal, healthy baby. • On 9 April 2021, another midwife from FMC Maternity Outreach Service visited Alvin at home. The midwife stripped, weighed and assessed Alvin. No visible injuries were noted, nor were there any concerns about Alvin’s wellbeing, other that it being noted that Alvin had some flaky skin. No further follow ups were considered necessary. 787 T 776. 788 T 777-778. 789 T 789-793. -- 78 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 77 • A CaFHS nurse visited the home on 15 April 2021 to conduct a universal health check on Alvin, during which he was stripped and weighed. Alvin appeared healthy and no injuries were observed. • Alvin was examined during a CaFHS appointment for a hearing test on 19 April 2021. The fact that Alvin passed the hearing test confirms his cognition or consciousness was not affected at this time. A photograph of Alvin taken by Denton at this appointment also confirms that Alvin appeared unharmed.790 • Alvin was seen by Sam Denton and Sarah Harris while they were visiting Alvin on 19 April 2021. Alvin appeared alert, happy and healthy. There were no visible signs of injury. Photographs taken of Alvin during this visit confirm this.791 • Both Denton and the defendant did not have any concerns about Alvin’s health or wellbeing and did not observe any injuries before Denton went shopping with Bickley at about 10:30 am on Wednesday 21 April 2021. This is consistent with Alvin’s appearance in the photographs taken from birth through to the morning of 21 April 2021.792 • Photographs taken by Denton at 8:51 am on 21 April 2021 do not raise any concerns over Alvin’s wellbeing.793 In one of the photographs Alvin is awake.794 • The defendant telephoned Denton at 10:31 am, after she had left home on the morning of 21 April 2021. Later that morning, at 11:55 am Denton sent a text message to the defendant to inform him that she would be home soon and that Bickley and her partner, Trevor Creek, had purchased some items for Alvin. The defendant replied to this message at 12:08 pm. Throughout this time, the defendant was solely caring for Alvin and had not expressed any concerns over Alvin’s health or wellbeing during these communications. • In his second police interview, the defendant did not suggest that there was anything wrong with Alvin while he was looking after Alvin during the time that Denton had left the home and was with Bickley. The defendant said that he had given Alvin his bottle and then put him down to sleep in the bassinet, after which Alvin cried. The defendant said that when he went to attend to Alvin, he tripped, causing the bassinet to tip onto its side. This is when the defendant said that Alvin sustained injuries to his lip and eye, after he said Alvin must have struck his face 790 P10, photograph 20. 791 P11. 792 P10. 793 P10, photograph 21. 794 P10, photograph 22. -- 79 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 78 on a music box strapped to the inside of the bassinet. The defendant said he placed an ice pack over Alvin’s lip. He said that Alvin had settled by the time Denton returned home shortly after. • In his third police interview, the defendant said there were never any incidents in which Alvin was injured before the bassinet tipped over on Wednesday 21 April 2021. 420 It was not submitted by the defence that this finding was not open on the evidence. 421 I find that the rib fractures and head injuries were inflicted sometime after Denton finished speaking with the defendant in the call that ended at 12:15:21 pm on Wednesday 21 April 2021. I further find that the injuries could not have been inflicted after 8:55 pm that evening. 422 I base this finding on the following evidence that I have accepted: • The defendant said that Alvin was crying for 10 minutes after the bassinet incident.795 Denton gave evidence, which I accept, that she could hear Alvin crying in the background when the defendant called her. Dr Edwards said that a baby that had sustained the serious head injuries suffered by Alvin would be non-responsive and that vigorous crying would be indicative of a normal level of consciousness.796 • Denton described Alvin’s state after she returned home very shortly after the receiving the call from the defendant following the bassinet incident. Denton said that Alvin was being cradled in the defendant’s arms, Alvin was not crying and was asleep. Bickley also said that Alvin was asleep, although under cross-examination agreed she had told the police that she looked over the defendant’s shoulder and noticed Alvin was awake but drowsy and going back to sleep and confirmed that this is what she had observed. • Denton said the defendant was holding an ice pack to Alvin’s top lip. Denton said she took Alvin from the defendant, inspected Alvin for any injuries and, thereafter, continued to hold the ice pack to Alvin’s lip. Denton said the ice pack was cold, and that Alvin did not stir when she held the ice pack on his lip. Denton said she then placed Alvin into the bassinet, and he continued sleeping. • Dr Edwards said that the evidence of Alvin sleeping and not rousing to the ice pack being applied to his lip are symptoms consistent with a concussion. 795 P14; MF1-P14A [601]-[604], [629]; MFI-P14B [667]-[677]. 796 T 252, 523-524, 564-566, 750. -- 80 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 79 • The photographs taken of Alvin at 8:13 pm and more specifically at 8:55 pm, when Alvin was in the bathtub, clearly demonstrate that Alvin was experiencing an altered state of consciousness, consistent with having sustained a head injury, as explained by Dr Edwards. • The photographs taken of Alvin at 8:13 pm show the defendant and Denton with one of their respective fingers in Alvin’s hands.797 These photographs were taken by Denton, who said that during this time Alvin was asleep. This is consistent with what the photographs reveal of Alvin’s consciousness. Denton said that because Alvin was asleep when the photographs were taken, he was not grabbing on to their fingers. Denton was not challenged about the fact Alvin was asleep when these photographs were taken, nor that Alvin was not grabbing on to their fingers. • The palmar reflex Dr Edwards explained in her evidence is therefore not the explanation for the images in the photographs. Dr Edwards said that in the first few months of a baby’s life, they have an automatic reflex, known as the palmar reflex, where they grip onto an object if pressure is placed in their palm.798 Dr Edwards said that the loss of normal reflexes, as was Denton’s evidence and suggested in the photographs, could be an indicator of a brain injury. • Alvin was fed between 8:20 pm and 8:40 pm. • When Alvin was bathed at 8:55 pm he was also not awake. Denton said that this was the first time Alvin had slept through the entire bath process. The photographs of Alvin in the bathtub are quite revealing and clearly suggest that there was something affecting Alvin’s cognition or consciousness.799 Alvin is asleep, and his legs are positioned straight out and not in the usual flexed position for a baby of his age. The fact that Alvin did not respond to being undressed for his bath, that his legs are not in the flexed positioned, and that being stripped and bathed did not wake Alvin, demonstrates, at that point in time, the effects of the head injury had clearly manifested. 423 While I have made this finding, it should be noted that the defence case involved a concession that the injuries were inflicted in a much more confined period, being the time between the end of the defendant’s call to Denton and before the defendant returned home from purchasing Panadol at 3:50 pm. The defence concession has narrowed the issue to one of two very short time periods.800 The reasons for this will immediately become apparent. 797 P10, photographs 23-25. 798 T 534. 799 P10, photographs 26-29. 800 See defence closing address: T 732, 735-736. -- 81 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 80 The opportunities available for Denton and the defendant to have caused the rib fractures and head injuries 424 It is not disputed that neither Denton nor the defendant witnessed the other doing anything to Alvin that would have caused the rib fractures and head injuries. 425 Plainly, the injuries Alvin sustained to his ribs and head through an act of squeezing and shaking could be inflicted in the briefest of moments, indeed over a matter of seconds. 426 I find that the defendant had the opportunity to inflict the rib fractures and head injuries on Alvin during the time he was solely caring for Alvin on Wednesday 21 April 2021. This period was between Denton leaving home at about 10:30 am, to meet with Bickley, and Denton returning home at about 12:25 pm. More specifically, I find the period to fall within the time after the defendant finished speaking with Denton and before she returned home, a period of approximately 10 minutes. This has not been disputed by the defence.801 It is this 10-minute period in which the defendant had the opportunity to inflict the rib fractures and head injuries on Alvin. 427 I find that the only opportunity for Denton to have inflicted the rib fractures and head injuries on Alvin, after she had returned home at about 12:25 pm on Wednesday 21 April 2021 and before Alvin was photographed at 8:13 pm that evening, was during the period the defendant left the home to purchase Panadol at 3:50 pm. The Panadol was purchased by the defendant at 3:50 pm from a chemist very close to where they were living. This means the defendant would have been away from home for about 15 minutes, leaving Denton alone with Alvin during that time. This was not disputed by the defence.802 428 It follows that the injuries were inflicted on Alvin either by the defendant in a 10-minute window between 12:15 pm and about 12:25 pm when Denton was not home or by Denton in a similar window of opportunity when the defendant was out purchasing Panadol at 3:50 pm. This was accepted by the defence, and it is upon this basis that the defence addressed the court.803 429 Despite this concession by the defence, I base this finding on the following evidence that I have accepted: • The evidence establishes that Alvin was not unwell or injured in any way before the bassinet incident, as already outlined. • Alvin was in the defendant’s sole care after Denton left the home at about 10:30 am on Wednesday 21 April 2021 to meet with Bickley. At 12:14 pm, the defendant called Denton to let her know about the 801 See defence closing address: T 732. 802 See defence closing address: T 732. 803 See defence closing address: T 732, 735-736. -- 82 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 81 bassinet incident. The call lasted 53 seconds. Denton and Bickley returned home at about 12:25 pm. • Once Denton returned home, she did not leave the house again until Thursday afternoon to collect Blake from her mother’s house, by which time the medical evidence clearly establishes that Alvin had already suffered the head injury. • After Denton and Bickley returned home, and Alvin was inspected and placed into the bassinet to sleep, there was a discussion about whether Alvin needed any medical treatment. A decision was made to ‘wait and see’ and to monitor Alvin’s condition to determine if it deteriorated or worsened, necessitating medical treatment. Bickley left the home not long after returning with Denton. Both the defendant and Denton remained with Alvin after that time until the defendant left the home to purchase Panadol from the chemist at 3:50 pm. Denton said the defendant was away for about 15 minutes. • Denton said that Alvin was sleeping in the bassinet and did not wake again until 4:30 pm, when she woke him for a feed. The feeding book records that Alvin was fed between 4:30 pm and 5:00 pm. • While there is evidence of a text message from Denton to the defendant’s mother, at 6:57 pm on Wednesday 21 April 2021 thanking the defendant’s mother for a frozen dinner that they had eaten, there is no direct evidence of whether that frozen dinner was collected by the defendant when he went out to the chemist or at some other time, either that day or earlier.804 The defence did not contend that there were any other periods on Wednesday when the defendant was not home and Denton was alone with Alvin. • Photographs taken of Alvin at 8:13 pm show the defendant and Denton placing one of their respective fingers in Alvin’s hands.805 Denton said that Alvin was asleep, and he was not grabbing onto their fingers. Denton was not challenged about this and there is some support for this from the photographs. • The feeding book records that Alvin was fed between 8:20 pm and 8:40 pm. • Alvin was bathed at 8:55 pm. Denton said that Alvin was not awake during his bath and that this was the first time he had slept through the entire bathing process. The photographs taken of Alvin in the bathtub 804 Denton said that she did not remember the defendant leaving home again on the Wednesday and that she did not remember sending the text to his mother although when it was presented to her she accepted that she must have sent the message about the frozen dinner. 805 P10, photographs 23-25. -- 83 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 82 clearly suggest that there is something affecting his cognition or consciousness, and this was the opinion of Dr Edwards who said that the state Alvin was described as being in by Denton, and the photographs themselves, indicate that Alvin was already suffering the effects of the head injuries.806 • It is not disputed that by this time, at the latest, Alvin’s head injuries had already been inflicted upon him. The evidence established, through the observations made by Denton, that after 8:13 pm Alvin was experiencing an altered state of consciousness. Alvin was not grabbing on to Denton and the defendant’s fingers in the bassinet because Alvin was asleep, and further, Alvin slept through the entire bathing process. These observations are consistent with Alvin suffering the effects of a head injury, as Dr Edwards explained. Assessment of Denton’s evidence 430 The prosecution has relied upon Denton’s evidence to exclude, as a reasonable possibility, that she inflicted the rib fractures and head injuries upon Alvin. The prosecution has also relied upon Denton’s evidence of her observations of Alvin’s deteriorating condition, after she returned home following the call from the defendant, to establish that Alvin had sustained the rib fractures and head injures around the time of the bassinet incident. Warnings in relation to Denton’s evidence 431 Denton has pleaded guilty to the criminal neglect of Alvin. 432 The defence has clearly suggested that Denton was criminally concerned in the events that caused Alvin’s rib fractures and head injuries and further that possibility cannot reasonably be excluded. Indeed, this case has been presented and defended on the basis that either the defendant or Denton was responsible for these injuries. 433 In such circumstances it is necessary that Denton’s evidence be approached with considerable caution and closely scrutinised before relying on it. 434 It is the experience of the courts that the evidence of such witnesses may be unreliable for a number of possible reasons, including, that such a witness who was, or might have been, involved in a crime, may want to shift the blame from themselves onto others, and to justify their own conduct. In the process, the witness may construct untruthful stories, which tend to play down their own part in the crime or play up the part of another in the crime; they may make false claims as to the involvement of another, out of motives of revenge or hostility towards the other; they may be motivated to give false evidence in order to improve their position or qualify for a reduction in their sentence (although that does not appear to be the case here); and, there may be other reasons or motives why false evidence 806 P10, photographs 26-29. -- 84 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 83 has been given by such a witness. It is not for the defendant to establish what they might be. It is the prosecution that must prove the essential aspects of its case, and the defendant does not have to prove anything. 435 In addition to this, I direct myself that it would be dangerous to convict the defendant on Denton’s evidence alone, unless her evidence is supported or confirmed by other evidence that indicates that her evidence is true. In this respect, that other evidence must be from an independent source which tends to show not only that the crime charged was committed, but that the defendant was implicated in it in the way alleged by the prosecution. 436 If there is no relevant evidence that supports or confirms Denton’s evidence, the court may still act upon the evidence if, after taking into account the warnings I have indicated and scrutinising the evidence with great care, I am, nonetheless, satisfied that the evidence is truthful and reliable in relation to the critical aspects of the evidence relied upon by the prosecution. 437 I have approached my assessment of Denton’s evidence in the way outlined. 438 In addition, there were a number of valid criticisms of Denton’s evidence that have been made by the defence. 439 I will set out the criticisms of Denton’s evidence and why the defence has submitted that she is both an unreliable and untruthful witness such that the court should not have any confidence in acting upon her evidence, independently of the caution I have already indicated that needs to be taken when considering her evidence. 440 During the closing address the defence raised five features of Denton’s evidence that it submitted collectively impacted upon Denton’s credibility and reliability. These were shifts in her evidence, prior inconsistent statements, evidence that she gave which was unbelievable, evidence that is inexplicable, and a demonstrated willingness to lie. 441 I will now outline these criticisms and the submissions advanced and explain how I have dealt with them. Shifts in Denton’s evidence 442 The first criticism of Denton’s evidence are the various shifts identified throughout her evidence. Although some of these shifts are relatively minor, the defence submitted that when considered in combination, the shifts are concerning in relation to both Denton’s credibility and reliability as a witness. a. Position of the music box 443 The defence submitted that the first shift in Denton’s evidence was in relation to the position of the music box. -- 85 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 84 444 As I have already outlined in the above section, Denton’s evidence in examination-in-chief was that she remembered the music box hanging in the bassinet.807 When shown P5, which depicts the music box attached to the side of the bassinet, Denton accepted that the music box may have been positioned in this way, however, she could not ‘exactly remember’808 and ‘had always thought it was hanging off of the top’.809 445 In cross-examination, it was put to Denton that the music box never hung in the bassinet from the position she identified but was rather positioned on the side of the bassinet, as depicted in P5.810 Denton said, ‘It could have been, yes, but from memory, I only remember it being hung’.811 She said that ‘the only thing in my memory is I thought that it was hanging from the top’.812 446 I do not accept that this demonstrates a shift in Denton’s evidence. When asked to describe the position of the music box herself, Denton said that it was hanging from the top. When asked questions that suggested the music box was in a different position, Denton did not change her evidence but rather conceded that the other position could have been possible. Denton acknowledged that her answers were limited from her memory of the events. Denton was recalling events that happened almost four years ago. In these circumstances, I find Denton’s concession reasonable. It does, however, highlight that failing memory is an issue that needs to be considered in this case. b. Syringe feed 447 The second shift in Denton’s evidence relied upon, was her recollection of when the syringe feed occurred. 448 In examination-in-chief, Denton was first asked about a feed that occurred on Thursday 22 April 2021.813 Denton described this as the ‘syringe feed’ and said that Alvin had never been syringe fed before.814 When asked about the syringe feed a second time, Denton was asked whether she was unsure whether the syringe feed occurred on the Wednesday or Thursday and she said ‘yes’.815 Denton was later shown the feeding book and the entries on page 8 of P4. Looking through the entries on page 8 assisted Denton to determine that the syringe feed occurred on the Thursday.816 807 T 91-93, 173-174. 808 T 92.38. 809 T 92.38-93.1. 810 T 172-173. 811 T 173.23-174. 812 T 174.3. 813 T 103. 814 T 103-104. 815 T 107. 816 T 121-122. -- 86 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 85 449 In cross-examination, it was suggested to Denton that she was unsure if it was the Wednesday or Thursday that the syringe feed occurred.817 Denton replied ‘no’.818 When asked about blowing cannabis smoke in Alvin’s face, Denton said that this occurred on the same day as the syringe feed.819 She was asked whether this was on the Wednesday or Thursday and she said it happened on the Thursday.820 450 I do not consider this a shift in Denton’s evidence. Rather than a shift, Denton’s answers suggest she could not remember whether the syringe feed occurred on the Wednesday or Thursday. However, when Denton was provided with a point of reference, such as the feeding book or the event of blowing cannabis smoke in Alvin’s face, Denton could determine that the syringe feed occurred on the Thursday. c. Telephone call 451 The defence submitted that the third shift in Denton’s evidence was in relation to her evidence about the telephone call between herself and the defendant on Wednesday 21 April 2021. 452 In examination-in-chief, Denton was asked to tell the court about ‘that telephone conversation’ and about ‘what happened’.821 When describing the telephone conversation, Denton said she could hear Alvin ‘crying’ and ‘screaming’ in the background.822 She said that the defendant explained the bassinet incident to her and there was a discussion about whether they needed to take Alvin to the hospital.823 Denton was not asked to describe the defendant’s behaviour during the telephone call. 453 In cross-examination, Denton was asked what the defendant sounded like when she spoke to him on the telephone.824 Denton said, ‘He sounded upset’.825 Denton was asked whether it sounded like the defendant was crying. Denton said, ‘I can’t remember, I just remember hearing Alvin’.826 Denton was later asked whether she had the impression from the telephone call that the defendant was crying.827 Denton replied, ‘yes’.828 454 The defence submitted that there was a shift in Denton’s evidence in cross- examination as this was the first time Denton mentioned that the defendant was 817 T 189. 818 T 189. 819 T 191. 820 T 191. 821 T 88. 822 T 88. 823 T 88-9. 824 T 162. 825 T 162. 826 T 162. 827 T 162. 828 T 162. -- 87 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 86 upset during the telephone call.829 I do not accept that this is a shift in Denton’s evidence. The defendant being upset during the telephone call is an additional detail that was elicited during cross-examination due to the type of questions that were asked by the defence. Denton was not asked in examination-in-chief to describe how the defendant sounded on the telephone or whether he was crying. Denton’s evidence that the defendant sounded upset should not be considered a shift in her evidence, rather an additional detail that was elicited in cross- examination. In any event, if this can be described as a shift, it is of no significance as it is not disputed that the defendant was upset following the bassinet incident. d. Discussions about seeking medical attention 455 The defence submitted that the fourth shift in Denton’s evidence was in relation to any discussions about seeking medical attention that took place after she returned home with Bickley on Wednesday 21 April 2021. 456 In examination-in-chief, Denton was asked if there were any discussions about seeking medical care for Alvin after she and Bickley returned home.830 Initially, Denton said there was a discussion between herself, the defendant and Bickley, where they ‘thought about it, but because [Alvin had] gone back to sleep … we didn’t think it was as bad as we thought, so we just decided to wait and see’.831 Denton said that from her memory, no one raised the topic of going to a doctor or going to the hospital.832 Later in her evidence, Denton was asked what was discussed when she got home and Alvin was asleep with a cut on his upper lip.833 Denton said there was a discussion between herself and the defendant and ‘That because [Alvin] had gone back to sleep and wasn’t hysterically crying anymore, we didn’t think that it was as bad as we thought’.834 Denton said that they decided ‘we would just monitor him … if his behaviour changed, then we would take him to see a doctor or to the hospital’.835 457 In cross-examination, when asked about these discussions, Denton initially said there were two discussions and that only one involved Bickley.836 Denton was asked to clarify what the first discussion was.837 Denton said that the first discussion was the one involving Bickley, where Bickley ‘said that it mustn’t be as bad, so just monitor and see how he goes’.838 Denton was then asked about the separate conversation that occurred between herself and the defendant.839 Denton maintained that she discussed taking Alvin to either a doctor or a hospital with the 829 T 743. 830 T 94. 831 T 94. 832 T 94. 833 T 95. 834 T 95. 835 T 95. 836 T 170. 837 T 170. 838 T 170. 839 T 171. -- 88 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 87 defendant.840 Denton said, ‘I can't remember the specifics, but I know that there was something discussed about medical attention if he gets worse’.841 It was then suggested to Denton that the conversation about watching Alvin’s behaviour and taking him to the doctor or hospital was a conversation that involved herself, the defendant and Bickley and she agreed.842 Denton was asked to clarify whether there was another conversation that she had with the defendant or whether there was only ever one conversation about potentially seeking medical assistance.843 Denton said ‘I think there might have only been that one conversation. I'm just, my memory's a bit foggy because it's been such a long time’.844 Denton later accepted that there was no conversation between herself and the defendant later that afternoon.845 458 If this can be categorised as a shift in Denton’s evidence, then I am satisfied that it does not relate to a material fact, such as the topic of the discussion after Denton returned home. The shift relates to who was involved in the discussion and whether a second discussion took place. This suggests some uncertainty in Denton’s memory rather than an intentional shift. 459 Furthermore, the weight of this asserted shift has no significance on Denton’s credit or reliability, as the defendant himself told the police a number of times that there were discussions about seeking medical attention for Alvin, including discussions involving Bickley.846 This would accord with the natural expectation that there would be discussions surrounding whether a 19-day-old baby, who was injured, needed to be taken for medical attention. Indeed, it would be expected that there would be more than a single discussion about this, such would be the natural concern about the wellbeing of a very young baby who had been injured. e. Smoking cannabis on Thursday night 460 The fifth shift in Denton’s evidence relied upon was in relation to her smoking cannabis on the night of Thursday 22 April 2021. 461 In cross-examination, Denton said that she did not smoke cannabis on the Thursday night after the defendant had gone to bed or before she woke up at 4:30 am.847 462 Later in cross-examination, Denton said that she smoked a bong of cannabis on the Thursday night before she went to bed. 848 Denton accepted that this was 840 T 171. 841 T 171. 842 T 171. 843 T 172. 844 T 172. 845 T 172. 846 See MFI-P14A [1348]-[1362], [1386]-[1393]. Cf Bickley who said that there were no discussions about seeking medical attention for Alvin while she was present. 847 T 184. 848 T 201, 210. -- 89 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 88 after the defendant had gone to bed.849 Denton said that the defendant had packed a bong for her last smoke of the night.850 463 I do not consider this to be a shift in Denton’s evidence. Rather, she was intending to convey that she did not have another bong after the last one that she had before going to bed that night. In my view, Denton was referring to not smoking any more bongs of cannabis between when she went to sleep and waking at 4:30 am. Further, there would be no reason that Denton would lie about smoking cannabis after she went to bed on Thursday night, as her use of cannabis is something she had been very open about throughout her evidence. Prior inconsistent statements 464 The second criticism of Denton’s evidence said to affect her reliability and credibility as a witness was that she made prior statements that were inconsistent with her evidence. a. Knowledge of cut lip at the time of the telephone call 465 The defence submitted that Denton made an inconsistent statement by saying in evidence that she did not know about the cut to Alvin’s lip during the telephone call on Wednesday 21 April 2021. This is because Denton had previously told the police that the defendant told her about Alvin’s cut lip during the call. 466 In cross-examination, Denton was asked whether she knew Alvin had a cut lip at the time of the telephone call. Denton said, ‘Not on the phone call, no’.851 Denton was asked if she was sure and she replied, ‘I can’t remember being told’.852 It was put to Denton that when she spoke to police in February 2023, she said that during the telephone call the defendant told her that Alvin’s lip was cut and there was a lot of blood.853 Denton was asked whether she disagreed with what she told the police and she replied, ‘No, I don’t disagree’.854 Denton agreed that hearing what was said during the police interview refreshed her memory.855 Denton’s final position was that she remembered being told during the telephone call that Alvin had a cut to his lip.856 467 I do not accept this as an inconsistency in Denton’s evidence that would materially affect her credibility or reliability. Denton acknowledged that she could not remember being told about the cut lip during the telephone conversation and needed the police interview to refresh her memory. This once again highlights the limitation of Denton’s memory and recollection of events that happened almost four years ago. Additionally, whether Denton knew of the cut lip at the time of the 849 T 210. 850 T 210.26. 851 T 163. 852 T 163. 853 T 163. 854 T 163. 855 T 164. 856 T 164. -- 90 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 89 telephone call is not an important issue. It is not disputed that Alvin sustained a cut lip from the bassinet incident. b. Alvin not breathing 468 Another prior inconsistent statement against Denton surrounded her knowledge that Alvin had stopped breathing when he was taken to the hospital. 469 The defence has submitted that this demonstrates Denton’s preparedness to lie and highlights Denton’s unreliability and lack of credibility as a witness. 470 In cross-examination, it was put to Denton that she knew Alvin had stopped breathing after she tried to feed him at 6:30 am on Friday 23 April 2021.857 Denton disagreed with this.858 Denton was asked whether she thought Alvin had stopped breathing before she walked into the Noarlunga Hospital and she said ‘no’.859 471 During the police interview at the hospital, Denton was asked if there was anything she noticed about Alvin at 6:30 am. Denton said ‘Yeah, just wasn’t breathing’.860 Denton said in evidence that she did not remember that day at all.861 Denton maintained in her evidence that she had no idea that Alvin had stopped breathing.862 472 I accept that this is an inconsistent statement made by Denton. The answer she gave on the day of Alvin’s death was that she noticed Alvin was not breathing. The evidence establishes that Alvin had already passed away by the time Alvin arrived at the hospital. It does not make sense that Denton would lie and say that Alvin was breathing when they took him to the hospital. 473 I accept Denton’s evidence that she does not remember that day at all. I accept Denton’s memory would be limited when remembering events that happened almost four years ago. While this is an inconsistency it is not a particularly significant one. 474 The defence also submitted that as Denton noticed Alvin was not breathing, then her behaviour at the Noarlunga Hospital should be viewed as concerning. 475 On the CCTV footage, Denton is seen carrying Alvin in a baby capsule, walking quickly through the hospital sliding doors.863 Upon entry, Denton notices that no one is at the front desk and stands there waiting.864 857 T 216. 858 T 216. 859 T 216. 860 P12. 861 T 216. 862 T 217. 863 P9, file 2. 864 P9, file 6. -- 91 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 90 476 The defence submitted that this should be compared to the defendant’s behaviour when he entered the hospital as he immediately took Alvin and yelled for help.865 477 I accept Denton’s evidence that she could not remember exactly what happened at the hospital. She said, ‘It was a traumatic event, and my memory is blurred. I was in a state of shock and was numb’.866 478 It is reasonable for people to have different reactions during high-stress situations, and nothing could be more distressing than what happened that morning. For this reason, I do not consider there is any point to be drawn from a comparison between the conduct displayed by Denon and the defendant at the hospital. Unbelievable evidence 479 The third criticism of Denton’s evidence is that certain parts of her evidence are simply unbelievable. a. Blowing cannabis smoke in Alvin’s face 480 The defence submitted that the evidence Denton gave about blowing cannabis smoke in Alvin’s face is unbelievable, in particular, Denton’s evidence that she did not question the defendant about withdrawals and the evidence that she did not think to seek medical attention of any sort when asked to do this is incredible. 481 Denton’s evidence was that the defendant told her to blow cannabis smoke in Alvin’s face because Alvin was not feeding properly.867 The defendant suggested this could be due to Alvin experiencing withdrawals from the cannabis Denton was smoking during pregnancy.868 Denton said that she did not have an understanding about what a withdrawal was but blew the smoke in Alvin’s face at the defendant’s instigation.869 Denton said ‘I didn’t feel I had a choice’.870 When asked whether she knew what a withdrawal was, Denton said ‘No. I didn’t know what it would look like’.871 Denton was asked whether she questioned the defendant about this and she said she did not.872 482 The defence has submitted that Denton’s evidence about not questioning the defendant was unbelievable given Denton’s history of drug use.873 865 P9, file 6. 866 T 240. 867 T 127, 193. 868 T 127, 193. 869 T 192. 870 T 193. 871 T 193. 872 T 192-193. 873 T 746. -- 92 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 91 483 I do not find Denton’s evidence about not questioning the defendant unbelievable. I do not accept that Denton did not know what a withdrawal was but do accept that she did not know what it would look like. I find that she accepted the defendant’s explanation and acted upon his judgment. I do not find this unbelievable. Denton’s admission to blowing the cannabis smoke in Alvin’s face is a matter that reflects poorly on her and would be an unusual incident to have invented. 484 In both examination-in-chief and cross-examination, Denton was asked whether there was any discussion about seeking medical attention at the time they were discussing blowing cannabis smoke in Alvin’s face.874 Denton said there was no discussion about this.875 In cross-examination, Denton was asked whether she thought about contacting CaFHS or taking Alvin to the hospital and she said that at the time, she did not think to do so.876 485 The defence has submitted that this is unbelievable.877 Denton had visits from CaFHS midwives within the first week of Alvin being discharged from the hospital. Denton was aware of the types of services and supports that they offered to parents of newborn babies. 486 It might be considered surprising that Denton did not consider contacting CaFHS or seek some sort of support when Alvin was having trouble feeding. However, not seeking support is also consistent with Denton’s evidence that she was not concerned for Alvin’s wellbeing at the time. I will return to this later, as it is a matter that impacts on Denton’s credibility. b. Effect of cannabis use and medication 487 The defence submitted that it was unbelievable Denton could function while she was smoking eight to 10 bongs of cannabis a day and while she was also on medication for depression. 488 In examination-in-chief and cross-examination, Denton said she went back to smoking eight to 10 bongs of cannabis a day after giving birth to Alvin.878 Denton said she had suffered depression for years and was taking medication to treat her depression. 489 In re-examination, Denton was asked about her symptoms of depression and the effects of her medication.879 Denton said she had symptoms such as mood swings, tiredness and feelings of deflation and feeling down on herself but that her medication helped to control these symptoms.880 Denton was asked whether her 874 T 127 875 T 127, 193. 876 T 194. 877 T 127. 878 T 79, 195. 879 T 245. 880 T 245. -- 93 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 92 cannabis use had any effect on these symptoms.881 Denton said that at the time she ‘didn’t think so’, but looking back she acknowledged that ‘It impaired my judgment a lot’.882 490 I do not accept the submission that Denton’s evidence about her drug use is unbelievable. 491 Denton has been on medication for depression for many years and her cannabis use after Alvin’s birth was the same as before Alvin was born. I accept that Denton’s drug use is an important factor that impacts her reliability. If she was smoking eight to 10 bongs of cannabis every day, then she would have been affected most of the day. 492 The impact this would have on Denton’s memory and recollection of events cannot be ignored. c. Hiding of the cannabis and drug paraphernalia 493 The defence submitted that Denton’s evidence concerning hiding of the cannabis and drug paraphernalia did not make sense and was unbelievable. 494 In cross-examination, Denton was asked about where the cannabis and drug paraphernalia was being stored in the house. She said it was generally stored in the laundry, as that is where they would smoke cannabis.883 However, overnight or when people would come over, it would be stored in the kitchen cupboard.884 Denton said that they would have the front and back doors and windows open throughout the day so the house would not smell like cannabis.885 When asked whether this was the case during winter when it was cold, Denton said ‘No, not through winter’.886 495 The defence submitted that Denton’s explanation of moving the cannabis and drug paraphernalia from the laundry to the kitchen was unbelievable. I am prepared to accept Denton’s explanation. The location of the cannabis is not a material issue. d. Not questioning the defendant about Alvin’s injuries 496 The defence submitted that it is unbelievable that Denton, having thought Alvin passed away as a consequence of SIDS, did not ask the defendant anything about causing the injuries to Alvin after she was told of the injuries by the police. 497 In cross-examination, Denton was asked about her police interview on 7 May 2021.887 Denton agreed that when she was told Alvin had passed away, she thought 881 T 245. 882 T 245. 883 T 199. 884 T 199-200. 885 T 202. 886 T 202. 887 T 231. -- 94 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 93 that it was as a consequence of SIDS.888 During the police interview, Denton was told that Alvin had suffered head injuries and fractures to his ribs.889 Denton said she did not inflict these injuries.890 Denton was asked why, after hearing about the injuries, she did not question the defendant about inflicting these injuries on Alvin.891 Denton explained that she did not question the defendant as she ‘was scared to ask him’.892 Prior to this, Denton had given evidence that she was angry at the defendant during her police interview.893 498 It does seem unlikely that someone who is angry at their partner would not confront or question their partner about inflicting these types of injuries on their newborn baby, especially where the baby has died as a result of the injuries. However, I cannot accept this evidence as being unbelievable. Although Denton did not elaborate on why she was scared to ask the defendant about inflicting the injuries, I do accept that this explanation is believable. I do not accept that Denton’s failure to question the defendant about the injuries was so unbelievable as to affect her credibility as a witness. e. Not noticing any changes in Alvin’s condition 499 Although not the topic of submissions made by the defence, I have found Denton’s evidence that she did not notice anything wrong with Alvin that raised any concerns in her mind about his wellbeing, and that would have required Alvin needing medical attention, unbelievable. 500 I have already detailed Denton’s evidence of Alvin slowing in his feeding, that he was sleeping most of the time, that he slept through the bath on Wednesday night and his dramatic appearance in the photographs that were taken by Denton in the bath. This is in addition to Alvin’s appearance while Denton was holding Alvin in her arms (as photographed on the Thursday), that Alvin did not feed at 8:30 pm on Thursday (meaning his last feed was at 4:30 pm), that he did not wake for a feed after that and she did not feed Alvin at 4:30 am on Friday (which was 12 hours after his last feed), at which time she also noticed his chesty breathing, all clearly indicating that something was wrong with Alvin. 501 While I am prepared to accept that Denton may not have realised that Alvin was experiencing a head injury when she returned home following the defendant’s call, because Alvin appeared settled and had fallen asleep, I cannot accept her evidence that from at least the time Alvin was bathed on Wednesday night to when she discovered him unresponsive at 6:30 am on Friday (by which time Alvin had passed) that she did not consider there was anything wrong with Alvin. I find her evidence about this lacking in any credibility. 888 T 231. 889 T 231-232. 890 T 232. 891 T 232. 892 T 232. 893 T 220. -- 95 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 94 502 This is a matter that must and does have a serious impact on whether the rest of her evidence is credible and can be relied upon. This has been an important consideration in my assessment of her evidence. Inexplicable evidence – feeding book 503 The fourth criticism that the defence submitted is that parts of Denton’s evidence are inexplicable when considered in relation to the entries in the feeding book. The defence has not directly challenged the accuracy of the entries in the feeding book. However, they have challenged Denton’s evidence about how the entries in the feeding book should be interpreted and have submitted that this is inexplicable. 504 In examination-in-chief, Denton said the entries in the feeding book were made contemporaneously.894 Denton said she was the one who wrote the 11:40 am entry on Wednesday 21 April 2021.895 The defence submitted that this is inexplicable as Denton’s evidence is that she was at the shops with Bickley at this time. Denton could not provide an explanation for how she came to write the 11:40 am entry.896 505 I do not find that this evidence is inexplicable. Rather, I find that Denton’s evidence suggests that not all entries in the feeding book were made contemporaneously. 506 I acknowledge that Denton’s evidence about the interpretation of the feeding book was confusing and unclear in parts, in particular, her evidence about which entries were made by her and which entries were made by the defendant. Denton’s evidence was unclear on this issue as it seemed that Denton was the only person who could identify the defendant’s handwriting. For this reason, I should be cautious about relying on the feeding book as accurate evidence of who fed Alvin, although nothing much turns on this. 507 I accept that whilst the best efforts may have been made to record every entry in the feeding book, I must consider the possibility of human error and find that the feeding book may not reflect a complete account of Alvin’s feeding times. Denton’s demonstrated preparedness to tell lies 508 The fifth criticism submitted by the defence is that Denton’s evidence demonstrated her ability to tell lies to protect herself. 509 The defence submitted that Denton’s evidence that she lied to hospital staff about her drug use and that she lied to police about touching Alvin at 4:30 am on the Friday, demonstrated her ability to lie about matters that concerned Alvin’s wellbeing. 894 T 181. 895 T 111-112. 896 T 117-118. -- 96 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 95 510 In cross-examination, Denton admitted lying to the hospital staff at the Flinders Medical Centre about her drug use.897 After Alvin was born and before he was discharged, the hospital staff spoke to Denton about Alvin’s stomach issues and small size and asked Denton if she drank alcohol, smoked cannabis or took any other drugs.898 Denton told the hospital staff that she smoked cigarettes but did not tell them that she had been using cannabis and methamphetamine during her pregnancy.899 Denton admitted that she lied to the hospital staff about this.900 It was submitted that this was an important lie as it demonstrated that despite knowing that she was being asked questions that related to Alvin’s wellbeing, she was prepared to lie to protect herself. 511 In cross-examination, Denton also said she did not touch Alvin when she went to check on him at 4:30 am on Friday 23 April 2021.901 Denton said that she did not touch Alvin to feel if he was warm.902 She was then shown a video of her police interview of 4 February 2022 where she said that she put her hand on Alvin’s head to feel if he was warm.903 Denton admitted that she lied to police about this because she was scared of the consequences she could face.904 512 Denton rejected the suggestion that she is still prepared to lie, depending on the consequences for her. She said, ‘No, I've been punished already’.905 513 I accept that these two instances, lying to the hospital staff and to the police, demonstrate Denton’s ability to lie to protect herself and this is a matter that affects Denton’s credibility as a witness. Black eye 514 The defence submitted multiple criticisms in relation to Denton’s evidence about seeing Alvin with a black eye. It was submitted that the evidence consisted of inconsistent statements, was unbelievable and demonstrated Denton’s ability to tell lies. 515 In cross-examination, Denton said she did not see Alvin with a black eye.906 Denton agreed that this was the truth and maintained this position throughout her evidence.907 The defence submitted that this is unbelievable when considering the evidence establishes that Alvin did have a black eye. 897 T 160. 898 T 160. 899 T 160. 900 T 160. 901 T 220-221. 902 T 221. 903 T 222. 904 T 222. 905 T 222. 906 T 219. 907 T 219. -- 97 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 96 516 Despite this position being maintained throughout her evidence, there is evidence that Denton sent a text message to Bickley on 22 April 2021, in which she told Bickley that Alvin’s ‘got a slight black eye’.908 Denton said in evidence that she did not remember seeing or sending this text message to Bickley but accepted that she sent the message.909 Denton agreed she would not have written the message unless it was something she had observed herself but said that she could not remember what she was thinking back then.910 Denton then agreed it was possible Alvin did have a slight black eye.911 There is no reason for Denton to lie in this text message to Bickley. 517 In Denton’s police interview, on 13 May 2021, Denton told the police she noticed that Alvin’s eye got ‘pretty black’ and was not opening on the Thursday afternoon.912 In cross-examination, Denton said she that she lied in the police interview about seeing this and maintained in evidence that she did not see Alvin with a black eye.913 518 Denton explained that she lied to police because she was trying to keep herself from getting into trouble.914 She also said that she was angry at the defendant after she found out about Alvin’s injuries.915 Denton agreed that she lied to police to incriminate the defendant.916 If this explanation is accepted, there can be no doubt that this affects Denton’s credibility in a material way, as she has lied to police to incriminate the defendant in the past. However, I do not accept that Denton lied to police (as she said in evidence) about seeing Alvin with a black eye. Her text message to Bickley makes it clear that Denton did see Alvin with a black eye. In his police interviews the defendant stated that Alvin sustained a black eye in the bassinet incident. 519 Furthermore, after the bassinet incident on the Wednesday, Denton said in evidence that the defendant warned her that Alvin could possibly develop a black eye.917 When Denton picked up Blake from her mother’s house on the Thursday, Denton said that she warned Blake that Alvin could get a black eye.918 520 The evidence is clear that Denton was aware that Alvin could get a black eye. 521 In examination-in-chief, Denton was shown P10, photographs 26-28, which depict Alvin in the bathtub on Wednesday 21 April 2021.919 Denton was asked if 908 P24 [27.2]. 909 T 581. 910 T 581. 911 T 581. 912 T 219. 913 T 219. 914 T 219. 915 T 220. 916 T 220. 917 T 133. 918 T 132. 919 T 141. -- 98 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 97 she saw any darkness or redness around Alvin’s left eye in the photographs.920 Denton said ‘yes’ and agreed she could see redness in the photographs.921 However, Denton said that at the time of taking the photographs, she did not notice the redness at all.922 I find it unbelievable that Denton did not notice any discolouration to Alvin’s eye during the bath despite being aware that Alvin could develop a black eye after the bassinet incident. 522 I find that Alvin did have a black eye. Denton sent a text message to Bickley saying that Alvin had a slight black eye. Denton warned Blake that Alvin could get a black eye. Denton told police that Alvin’s eye looked black and the defendant’s own account in his police interviews was that Alvin did have a black eye. This makes Denton’s evidence that she did not see Alvin with a black eye unbelievable. 523 Denton did not give and maintain her evidence that Alvin did not have a black eye to incriminate the defendant. If she wanted to incriminate the defendant, it would make more sense for her to say that she did see Alvin with a black eye. The only explanation is that Denton did not remember seeing Alvin with a black eye or that now she does not believe that she did see Alvin with a black eye. If this is accepted, this makes her explanation about lying to police concerning as it suggests Denton fabricated the explanation about being angry at the defendant in her evidence. Denton’s lie or mistake about not seeing a black eye is concerning and significantly affects both her reliability and credibility as a witness. Syringe feed 524 The defence went on to criticise Denton’s evidence in relation to the syringe feed, as it is the defence case that the syringe feed never occurred.923 525 In examination-in-chief, Denton said that the syringe feed was through a 5 mL syringe that she thought was from the Panadol box.924 In cross-examination, Denton was asked whether she was confident that it was a 5 mL syringe.925 Denton said that is what she remembered.926 Denton admitted that she did not actually look at the syringe to see if it was a 5 mL syringe. Her evidence was based on her assumption that the syringe was the one from the Panadol box as it was the only syringe they had in the house.927 P16 shows that other syringes were located at the property in the police search.928 526 The defence submitted that the issue with Denton’s evidence was that she assumed the syringe was 5 mL and from the Panadol box, however, she did not 920 T 141. 921 T 141. 922 T 141. 923 T 762. 924 T 104-105. 925 T 188. 926 T 188. 927 T 188. 928 P16, photographs 1-2, 5-6, 17. -- 99 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 98 make this assumption clear in the evidence she gave.929 The syringe from the box of Panadol is 3 mL. The defence submitted that this suggests that other parts of Denton’s evidence may be based on assumptions, rather than what she knew to be true at the time. 527 The defence also highlighted that Denton did not mention the syringe feed in her police interview and that none of the feeds recorded in the feeding book indicate that Alvin was fed through a syringe. 528 In combination with the other criticisms of Denton’s evidence, I accept that this affects Denton’s credibility and reliability as a witness. 529 The defence submitted that I should reject Denton’s evidence and accept the defendant’s account in his records of interview as a reasonable possibility.930 Conclusion on Denton’s evidence 530 Despite the valid criticisms made of Denton’s evidence, some of which I have accepted affect her reliability and credibility, and taking into consideration the warnings and directions that I have given myself about the dangers of acting on Denton’s evidence, I am, nonetheless, prepared to accept Denton as truthful in relation to a number of matters that I will come to identify and most importantly on the subject that she never harmed Alvin. 531 Below I explain why I have accepted key parts of Denton’s evidence when making the findings that I have. The prosecution’s submissions on the defendant’s records of interview 532 The prosecution submitted that I should put aside the defendant’s denials in his police interviews that he was responsible for Alvin’s injuries and his denials that he noticed the deterioration of Alvin’s condition. 533 The prosecution has submitted there are various shifts, inconsistencies and pieces of unbelievable evidence in the defendant’s records of interview, which affect the credibility and reliability of his account. 534 The first submission was that the defendant’s account of sharing the responsibility of Alvin’s care with Denton shifted between his police interview on 23 April 2021931 and 7 May 2021,932 after he found out the extent of Alvin’s injuries. 535 In the 23 April 2021 interview, the defendant said he and the Denton shared the responsibility of caring for Alvin. 933 The defendant said he and Denton looked after Alvin during the day because they both get tired.934 The defendant said, ‘I 929 T 763. 930 T 756-757. 931 P14; MFI-P14A. 932 P14; MFI-P14B. 933 MFI-P14A [782]. 934 MFI-P14A [782]. -- 100 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 99 love taking [Alvin], during the day it’s like we both do it, both get to have cuddles during the day so it’s just at night we take it in turns’.935 The defendant went on to explain his involvement in bathing Alvin and said that it came naturally to him to be involved in this way.936 In the 7 May 2021 interview, after hearing about the extent of Alvin’s injuries from the police, the defendant’s account shifted to say that Denton had the main responsibility of caring for Alvin during the day.937 The defendant said that he ‘used to go out the back [outside] for hours at a time’.938 He said he would always be out in the garden and did not really look after Alvin during the day.939 536 The prosecution submitted that I should be concerned in this shift in account as it occurred after the defendant found out the extent of Alvin’s injuries and suggests that the defendant was trying to distance himself from having inflicted the injuries. 537 I do not place much weight on this, as there is no doubt that both the defendant and Denton had opportunities, when the other was not present, to have harmed Alvin. Further, as will be seen, the case was argued on the basis that the opportunities available to the defendant and Denton, to have inflicted the serious injuries upon Alvin, fell within two very short time periods on Wednesday 21 April 2021. The first opportunity being after the defendant had ended the call with Denton, in which he disclosed the bassinet incident to her, and her returning home, and the second opportunity being when Denton was alone with Alvin while the defendant was away from home purchasing Panadol. 538 The second submission was that the defendant shifted his account of the times Alvin had been left alone and specifically whether Blake was left alone with Alvin. In the 23 April 2021 interview, the defendant said that Alvin was ‘always wrapped, always watched’.940 The defendant said that Blake wouldn’t feed Alvin or be left alone with him but ‘he watched and stuff and asked questions and sat with us … and had a little hold’.941 In the 7 May 2021 interview, the defendant disclosed the reason that Blake was living with him and Denton and explained that Blake was never left alone with Alvin.942 The defendant said, ‘I can’t think of a time that [Alvin] actually was by himself so even when we went out for a smoke we’d bring the bassinet to the door’.943 The defendant said that it was odd that Blake slept in the loungeroom on Thursday 22 April 2021 as he never usually did. The defendant said, ‘I just don’t know whether something has happened that he’s woken up or 935 MFI-P14A [3312]-[3314]. 936 MFI-P14A [4134]-[4135]. 937 MFI-P14B [1079]-[1080], [1171]. 938 MFI-P14B [1871]-[1872]. 939 MFI-P14B [1079]-[1080], [1171]. 940 MFI-P14A [4057]. 941 MFI-P14A [3123]-[3128]. 942 MFI-P14B [1562]-[1580]. 943 MFI-P14B [771]-[772]. -- 101 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 100 something or I don’t know ‘cos he did for a while there like, get jealous and think that he was missing out and stuff like that’.944 539 The prosecution has submitted that these shifts suggest the defendant was trying to distance himself from having an opportunity to inflict these injuries. I do not accept this submission. In the 7 May 2021 interview, the defendant maintained his position that Blake was never left alone with Alvin, however, noted that it was possible Blake could have woken up on the Thursday night. It is reasonable, in the circumstances of finding out about Alvin’s injuries, that the defendant would be considering anyone else who could have had the opportunity to harm Alvin. 540 The prosecution also submitted that there was a shift in the defendant’s account of how Denton was coping after Alvin was born. In the 7 May 2021 interview, the defendant, for the first time, said that Denton was not coping well.945 The defendant said that Denton was pretty stressed, found it really hard, was crying for no reason and would need a lot of support that meant he would have to take over for Denton sometimes.946 541 The prosecution did not suggest that the combination of these shifts demonstrated a consciousness of guilt but did submit that they affected the defendant’s reliability because they show an inconsistency between his accounts.947 542 I do not accept that the shift in the defendant’s accounts suggests he is trying to distance himself. I find it reasonable for the defendant to have made these observations to the police on 7 May 2021, as it suggests he is trying to come to terms with what has happened and who may have had the opportunity or reason to have deliberately harmed Alvin. I agree that it certainly does not suggest that he has done so through a consciousness of guilt in having inflicted the head injuries and rib fractures on Alvin by deliberately shaking him. 543 The third submission was that there was an inconsistency in the defendant’s accounts regarding his observations about Alvin’s black eye. 544 In the interview at the Noarlunga Hospital,948 the defendant said that after the bassinet incident, he placed an ice pack on Alvin’s lip and eye. He said that Alvin had ‘a little bit of a black eye’ but it ‘was like a little very minor … purple’.949 In the 23 April 2021 police interview, the defendant said that a ‘little black eye’950 came up after the bassinet incident. He said that the bruise came up around one hour after the bassinet incident and that it was just a ‘little mark’951 and ‘slight little 944 MFI-P14B [1286]-[1290]. 945 MFI-P14B [589]-[599]. 946 MFI-P14B [589]-[599], [1074], [1229]-[1232]. 947 T 659-660. 948 P12. 949 MFI-P12A [378]-[379], [387]-[388]. 950 MFI-P12A [1903]-[1914]. 951 MFI-P12A [2099]-[2120]. -- 102 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 101 purple’952 The defendant said that the bruise had gone away the day after the bassinet incident, that ‘the next day it wasn’t even there, it was gone’.953 545 I do not accept that the defendant’s accounts regarding the black eye are inconsistent. In the hospital interview, the defendant said that Alvin had a little black eye after the bassinet incident. In the police interview, the defendant elaborated on this recollection by adding details that the black eye came up one hour after the bassinet incident and it went away by the next day. I do not find that the interviews are inconsistent with each other. 546 The prosecution submitted that the defendant’s account that he checked Alvin’s body for bruises is unbelievable considering that the postmortem examination revealed bruising to Alvin’s back. In the 23 April 2021 interview, the defendant said that during the bath on the Wednesday night, he checked Alvin’s body and did not see anything apart from heat rash.954 I do not accept that it is unbelievable that the defendant did not see bruises to Alvin’s body. The medical evidence could not indicate the time at which a bruise to the back would appear on the body. 547 However, I do find it concerning that the defendant did not observe anything to indicate that something was wrong in relation to Alvin’s general wellbeing during the bath. The photographs in P10 clearly indicate that there was an issue in relation to Alvin’s wellbeing.955 I also do not accept as credible the defendant’s assertions, that following the bassinet incident Alvin ‘seemed fine; normal; nothing stood out; didn’t notice anything; no signs nothing’. Not only is this contradicted by the objective evidence, as revealed in the photographs and Dr Edwards’ evidence, but also parts of Denton’s evidence, specifically the syringe feed and the blowing of cannabis smoke in Alvin’s face. The same criticism was made about Denton’s evidence of her not noticing or being concerned about Alvin’s condition following the bassinet incident. As with Denton’s evidence about this, I have also found the defendant’s account of not noticing or being concerned about Alvin’s condition to be equally lacking in credibility. More will be said about this later in these reasons, specifically in relation to the consideration of the criminal neglect charge. 548 Another criticism of the defendant’s account in his interviews was that in his explanation of the bassinet incident, the defendant did not include any details about how he righted the bassinet after it was tipped over.956 I do not accept that the defendant’s omission to mention righting the bassinet affects his credibility as he was not specifically asked about whether the bassinet was picked up after it had tipped over. In these types of recollections, it is reasonable to forget to include some detail and, in any event, as I have observed he was not asked about what he 952 MFI-P12A [3896]-[3942]. 953 MFI-P14A [2088]-[2089]. 954 MFI-P14A [1979]-[1983]. 955 P10, photographs 26-29. 956 T 655. -- 103 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 102 did with the bassinet. The questioning and the defendant’s focus was on Alvin and not whether he righted the bassinet after he picked Alvin up. 549 The prosecution also criticised the defendant’s account that he purchased Panadol even though it had been decided that medical attention was not required for Alvin. I do not accept this submission. I find it reasonable that a parent of a 19-day-old baby would purchase Panadol as a precaution to their baby feeling pain after an accident. 550 The prosecution submitted that the defendant’s account of being left alone with Alvin on 21 April 2021 demonstrates the unbelievability of his account. The defendant said that on the morning of the bassinet incident, ‘I was working in the garden, I went out the back and I only just took over Alvin to have his bottle and put him back in his bassinet. She wasn’t gone long, she was only gone like about half an hour’.957 It is agreed that the defendant attempted to call Denton at 10:30:25 am on 21 April 2021 and that Denton did not arrive home until after the last phone call at 12:14:28 pm, which is over half an hour.958 The prosecution submitted that I should find that this inconsistency in timing speaks to the reliability of the defendant’s account.959 However, I am not prepared to accept that the defendant was not mistaken about the length of time Denton was away from the home. I do not find that this affects the reliability of his accounts. 551 As I have already highlighted, it is not for the defendant to prove that he did not commit the offences. The defendant is not required to prove anything. The prosecution must exclude as a reasonable possibility that what the defendant has said in his accounts to the police was true. Has the prosecution excluded as a reasonable possibility that Denton did not inflict the injuries? 552 I am satisfied that the prosecution has excluded as a reasonable possibility that Denton was responsible for inflicting the rib fractures and head injuries suffered by Alvin. 553 The defence submitted that the two windows of opportunity for when the defendant and Denton could have inflicted the injuries on Alvin were effectively the same and could not be differentiated.960 I do not accept this submission. I have rejected the 3:50 pm window of opportunity as a reasonable possibility and found that it would be so improbable that Denton would inflict the injuries on Alvin at that time as to dismiss it as a reasonable possibility. 957 MFI-P14B [1788]-[1790]. 958 P19 [19]. 959 T 646-647. 960 T 767-768. -- 104 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 103 554 I have reached this conclusion on the following basis: • It is not necessary to accept everything that a witness said in evidence. The court may reject parts of the witness’ evidence, while accepting or relying on other parts of that witness’ evidence. • I observed Denton give evidence across two days and formed the impression that she was an unsophisticated witness, in the sense that she gave her evidence in a clear and straightforward manner, was not calculated in her responses and made appropriate concessions where her memory was limited. Denton also gave evidence that did not paint her in a good light or could potentially have implicated her. As the prosecutor submitted, Denton gave her evidence ‘warts and all’. I accept this as an accurate categorisation of her evidence. • I accept Denton’s evidence that she did not inflict the rib fractures and head injuries on Alvin. • I also consider it inherently improbable that Denton would have inflicted the injures on Alvin during the period when the defendant was away from the home purchasing Panadol at 3:50 pm. I base this finding on the following: o There is no dispute that when Denton left home at 10:30 am on Wednesday morning to go shopping with Bickley, that Alvin had not been injured and he was an otherwise healthy baby who was feeding appropriately. o There is no dispute that Alvin was in the sole care of the defendant while Denton was out. o There is no dispute that at 12:14:28 pm the defendant telephoned Denton and told her that Alvin had been injured when the bassinet tipped onto its side. o There is no dispute that Denton appeared very stressed and upset when she received the call from the defendant informing her that Alvin was injured. o There is no dispute that Denton could hear Alvin crying in the background during her call with the defendant. o There is no dispute that when Denton returned home about 10 minutes later the defendant was sitting on the computer chair crying while cradling Alvin in his arms. -- 105 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 104 o There is no dispute that Alvin sustained an injury to his lip (including the frenulum) that bled. o There is no dispute that the defendant was applying an ice pack to Alvin’s lip. o There is no dispute that when Denton returned home and saw Alvin, that she was crying and stressed over Alvin’s injuries. o There is no dispute that by the time Denton returned home, Alvin appeared settled and was either drowsy or had fallen asleep and then placed into the bassinet to sleep. o I accept Bickley and Denton’s evidence that when they returned to the home Alvin was not sobbing. This was not disputed. o There is no dispute that from the time that Denton returned home, Alvin was at all times asleep or drowsy. o There is no dispute that around sometime shortly before 3:50 pm the defendant left the home to purchase Panadol for Alvin, as a precaution in case Alvin was experiencing pain from the injuries to his face suffered during the bassinet incident. o There is no evidence to suggest that Alvin had displayed any concerning behaviour, was crying loudly or that he did not otherwise remain sleeping in the bassinet before the defendant left home to purchase Panadol. o I find that Alvin remained asleep in the bassinet from the time he was placed in it by Denton after she returned home following the bassinet incident, and the defendant leaving to purchase Panadol. o There is no dispute that the defendant was away from home for about 15 minutes. o There is no dispute that when he returned Alvin was also asleep. o There is no dispute that Denton was other than concerned for Alvin before the defendant left to purchase Panadol; and remained so on his return. o Denton was not crying or otherwise displaying any signs of agitation when the defendant returned home. -- 106 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 105 o The hypothesis advanced by the defence is that during this short period of time when the defendant was away, Denton was presented with the opportunity to have injured Alvin, through grabbing him around the chest, squeezing him tightly and then shaking him, thereby causing the rib fractures and brain injuries noted at the postmortem examination. o Dr Edwards said it is her forensic experience, which is also reflected in the literature, that there is usually a trigger for frustration, followed by an action, that results in harm to a baby. Some sort of trigger like this would be necessary to cause a parent to act against their natural instincts and harm their child. o In my view, it is totally unbelievable in the above circumstances, that Denton would have harmed Alvin, only about three or so hours after returning home in a distressed state to attend to Alvin, who she was told had suffered the injuries in the bassinet incident, and having herself observed the blood caused through the injury to the lip and tending to Alvin with an ice pack. In the defendant’s interview at the police station on 23 April 2021, he said that when Denton returned home and saw Alvin, she was worried and crying. o After checking Alvin over, Denton placed Alvin, who she said was already sleeping, back into the bassinet to sleep. Denton then waited for the defendant to return home from the chemist with the Panadol, knowing that the defendant went to purchase Panadol to relieve Alvin’s pain. There is no evidence that Alvin woke up again until he was awoken by Denton for a feed and to administer the Panadol at 4:30 pm, after the defendant returned home from the chemist. o Therefore, something extraordinary must have occurred with Alvin in the short period of time when the defendant left the home to purchase Panadol that caused Denton to react by removing Alvin from the bassinet, squeezing him sufficiently tight around the chest to fracture his ribs and then to have shaken or thrown him to cause the head injuries Dr Langlois gave detailed evidence about. o Alvin was described as being a very placid baby, that did not cry a lot and was easy to settle after birth. While it is accepted that one cannot speculate that Alvin was not crying in the short period the defendant was away from the home purchasing Panadol, it would seem most unlikely that in the absence of an another unfortunate event occurring like the bassinet incident, that Alvin would wake from his sleep and behave in such a way as to trigger -- 107 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 106 a violent response from Denton, necessary to have inflicted the serious injuries on Alvin. o Having done so, on the defence hypothesis, Denton must then have placed Alvin back into the bassinet, or perhaps thrown him into the bassinet, and then behaved as if nothing had happened by the time the defendant returned home from the chemist, with the defendant not noticing anything about Alvin or Denton that concerned him. Alvin was then given his bottle between 4:30 pm and 5:00 pm and given some Panadol after this feed, without the defendant noticing anything different about Alvin from the time he had settled him after the bassinet incident to the time he returned from the chemist. There is no evidence that Alvin was harmed in any way after the defendant returned home from purchasing Panadol. o I find the defence hypothesis that Denton inflicted the injuries on Alvin, in these circumstances, so improbable that it can be dismissed as a reasonable possibility. o I consider Denton’s evidence that she did not inflict the injuries is independently supported by the opinion of Dr Edwards, that the rib fractures and head injuries were likely inflicted after the bassinet incident, given the symptoms being exhibited by Alvin at immediately after that time. This will be discussed further in the next section. The fatal injuries were inflicted by the defendant sometime after he finished his telephone call with Denton at 12:15 pm and Denton returning home at about 12:25 pm on Wednesday 21 April 2021 555 Having rejected, as a reasonable possibility, that Denton was responsible for the fatal injuries, the prosecution is, nevertheless, still required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was responsible for inflicting the fatal injuries. 556 Having considered the evidence, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant inflicted the rib fractures and head injuries on Alvin in the 10-minute window of opportunity between when he finished speaking with Denton at 12:15:21 pm and when she returned home at around 12:25 pm on Wednesday 21 April 2021. 557 Earlier in these reasons, I stated that the prosecution case proving that the defendant inflicted the fatal injuries was based on circumstantial evidence. This being so, the inference to be drawn from the circumstantial evidence, said to prove that the defendant inflicted the injuries on Alvin, must be the only rational inference open on the evidence. If, upon considering the whole of the circumstantial evidence relied upon by the prosecution, there exists a reasonable -- 108 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 107 possibility or hypothesis that is inconsistent with the defendant being responsible for inflicting the injuries on Alvin, then it would follow that there would be a reasonable doubt that he did so, and he must be found not guilty. 558 I base this critical finding of fact on the combination of the inferences to be drawn from the following evidence, which satisfies me beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant inflicted the fatal injuries: • I have accepted Denton’s evidence that she did not harm Alvin, and I have rejected the defence hypothesis that there is a reasonable possibility that she did, for the reasons already outlined. • During the defendant’s telephone call to Denton at 12:14 pm, Denton said she could hear Alvin crying and screaming in the background. Denton was not challenged about this. What Denton heard is supported by the defendant’s own account to the police, that when the bassinet tipped over Alvin screamed and cried, with the first cry being described by the defendant as ‘hysterical’. This is important evidence as to Alvin’s level of consciousness at this point in time, the significance of which, in connection with the infliction of a brain injury, was explained by Dr Edwards. • Dr Edwards said that it would be very unlikely that a baby would cry hysterically if they had been subjected to angular or rotational forces caused through an episode of shaking or having been thrown. Dr Edwards said that in such a situation one would expect a bit of whimpering and a very quiet baby, because their level of consciousness would be altered through the head injury caused by those forces. Dr Edwards said that a loud, vigorous response to painful stimuli (such as a baby screaming or crying hysterically) would be indicative of a normal level of consciousness, suggesting that there was no injury to the brain operating at that point in time and, therefore, the brain injury must have occurred after that crying event or during it. • Clearly something happened to Alvin to cause him to react by screaming and crying hysterically. • The prosecution submitted that the defendant’s account of Alvin being injured in the bassinet incident should be rejected. On the evidence, I cannot reject as a reasonable possibility the defendant’s account that the bassinet, with Alvin in it, tipped over in the circumstances that he described, causing Alvin to cry. Not only did the defendant contemporaneously tell Denton in the phone call that this is what happened, and then repeated that account when Denton and Bickley returned home soon after, but the biomechanical report of Dr Jones allows for the possibility that the bassinet tipped over in the -- 109 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 108 circumstances the defendant described. Dr Edwards’ reconstruction reveals that the facial injuries suffered by Alvin – the injuries to the lip, frenulum and left eye, but not the other injuries – could have been caused through Alvin’s face coming into contact with the music box when the bassinet tipped over. Dr Langlois also accepted that the facial injuries could have been sustained like this. • The hysterical crying that Alvin displayed after the bassinet incident is consistent with the type of triggering behaviour described by Dr Edwards that would cause a parent to act against their natural instinct and harm their child, through the frustration at not being able to settle the child. • I accept Denton’s evidence that when she returned home the defendant was holding Alvin in his arms, that Alvin was not crying, and that Alvin was asleep. Bickley initially said that Alvin was asleep but then agreed in cross-examination that when she entered the house, she had looked over the defendant’s shoulder and noticed that Alvin was ‘awake but drowsy, going back to sleep’. Bickley’s observations of Alvin are still consistent with the symptoms described by Dr Edwards, of a baby who has sustained a head injury being quiet, perhaps with some whimpering. This is what the defendant also said about Alvin ‘not really crying’ after the ice pack was applied and only having a ‘little sooky cry’ by the time Denton returned home about 10 minutes later. • I accept Denton’s evidence that the defendant was holding an ice pack to Alvin’s upper lip. The defendant said that is what he did to treat the injury to the lip. He claimed that the ice pack had settled Alvin. It is not disputed that the defendant was applying the ice pack to Alvin’s lip when Denton returned home. • I accept Denton’s evidence that when she took Alvin from the defendant, that the defendant also handed her the ice pack. Again, this was not disputed. • I accept Denton’s evidence that she continued to hold the ice pack on Alvin’s lip. While Bickley said that she did not notice anything being done about Alvin’s lip, when the defendant was holding Alvin, I consider that she is mistaken about this. I prefer Denton’s evidence over Bickley’s, when Denton said that not only was the defendant applying an ice pack to Alvin’s lip when she returned home, but when the defendant handed Alvin to her, he also handed over the ice pack and that she applied it to Alvin’s lip. First, Denton was not challenged about this and secondly, the defendant said in his police interview that he was applying an ice pack to Alvin’s lip. It was not disputed that Denton applied the ice pack to Alvin after she took Alvin from the defendant. -- 110 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 109 • I accept Denton’s evidence that Alvin did not wake or stir when she took Alvin from the defendant. • I accept Denton’s evidence that her memory was that the ice pack was still cold. This was not disputed either. • I accept Denton’s evidence that apart from the injury to Alvin’s lip, she did not notice any other injuries at that time. I accept her evidence that Alvin appeared the same as he did earlier that day. This is consistent with Dr Edwards’ evidence that it may not have been apparent, at the time Denton returned home, that Alvin had sustained a head injury rather than simply being tired or sleeping. • I accept Denton’s evidence that she then placed Alvin back into the bassinet to sleep. In his first interview at the hospital, the defendant said that Alvin had fallen asleep and was placed back into the bassinet to sleep. In the defendant’s police interview on 7 May 2021, he said that after the bassinet incident Alvin was ‘drowsy, sleepy, very quiet’. • There is no reason to find that Denton was mistaken or had lied about any of these matters. Her evidence on these matters was not challenged and indeed many of them are not in dispute or supported by the defendant’s accounts. • I find that Alvin was asleep in the bassinet, and remained asleep in the bassinet, until he was fed at 4:30 pm. This feed is recorded in the feeding book. The defendant said that when he returned from the chemist, he gave Alvin some Panadol with his feed at 4:30 pm. • In the defendant’s interview at the police station, on 23 April 2021, he said that Alvin cried when the bassinet tipped over but that once he applied the ice pack it settled Alvin and that Alvin was ‘fine after that, just a little sooky’. During the interview at the hospital the defendant also said that he had applied ice to Alvin’s eye, as Alvin had ‘a little bit of a black left eye’. He said he applied the ice to the eye ‘a minute here and there’. Later in the interview, he added that the black eye was only visible the one day because he had put some ice on it ‘for 30 seconds and then off and let it cool down a bit … three times and it pretty much went away’. • The defendant also told the police that after the bassinet tipped over and Alvin began to cry, he checked Alvin and then wrapped him again and placed the ice pack on Alvin while he telephoned Denton. This suggests that the ice pack was being applied to Alvin while he was speaking to -- 111 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 110 Denton, who said that she could hear Alvin screaming in the background. I find that Alvin was crying while the defendant was applying the ice pack to Alvin’s lip and speaking to Denton on the phone.961 This suggests that Alvin was crying while the ice pack was being applied to his lip by the defendant. • The defendant said that when Denton returned home Alvin was still ‘a little sooky but he wasn’t crying’. He also said that Alvin was awake. This was a point of difference with Denton’s evidence, who said that Alvin was asleep. What is not disputed is that Alvin was placed back into the bassinet to sleep. The defendant’s account was that thereafter Alvin was ‘drowsy, sleepy, and quiet’. • The defendant also said in his interview with the police on 23 April 2021, that Alvin ‘settled pretty much straight away’ after he had applied the ice pack to Alvin’s lip. I consider it unlikely that a baby, who the defendant had described as screaming hysterically, would settle so quickly to the application of a cold ice pack to the lip and eye. It is also unlikely that Alvin would, only 10 minutes later, be observed as either drowsy and about to fall asleep (Bickley) or asleep (Denton). The fact that Denton could hear Alvin screaming over the phone suggests what the defendant said about Alvin settling quickly once the ice pack was applied is not true. I do not accept the defendant’s account that Alvin settled with the application of the ice pack. I find that Alvin did not settle as the defendant said he did but rather, Alvin was displaying symptoms of a head injury by the time Denton returned home. • Dr Edwards said that the fact that Alvin was drowsy or asleep when Denton returned home was symptomatic of a head injury, which would typically have resulted in an initial concussion for a variable time, followed by some recovery before the secondary processes applying to the brain lead to a deterioration over time. • Dr Edwards said that this initial concussion may vary from a few seconds to a few minutes. In the absence of a head injury that is immediately fatal, a slow deterioration will then occur lasting from a few hours to days. • During cross-examination, Dr Edwards agreed that babies who become very distressed can become quiet and then sleep after expending their energy crying, and Alvin’s tiredness or sleeping might have been attributable to an incident occurring 10 minutes earlier (I extrapolate that this was the bassinet incident). However, Dr Edwards added that a baby with a normal level of consciousness (one not suffering from a 961 The defence conceded that this inference could be drawn from the evidence: T 772. -- 112 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 111 head injury) would be expected to react or respond to the application of ice to the face by opening their eyes, possibly whimpering, or showing some signs of movement, and that was not how Alvin was described as being at the time the ice pack was being applied after Denton returned home. Dr Edwards said this would be an indication that Alvin was already experiencing an altered level of consciousness at that point in time, consistent with a head injury having recently been sustained. I accept Dr Edwards’ evidence on this topic. • The evidence of Denton and the account given by the defendant to the police are the same, in that after Denton returned home and attended to Alvin, he was placed into the bassinet to sleep. • Dr Edwards said that the fact that Alvin was, thereafter, either asleep or drowsy but had never regained full consciousness, is another indicator that Alvin was suffering from a head injury. • Neither the defendant, in his accounts to the police, nor Denton, in her evidence, suggested that Alvin had been crying or otherwise disturbed before the defendant left to purchase the Panadol. • Alvin did not wake himself up for the next feed, rather, Denton had to wake Alvin up for his feed after the defendant returned home from purchasing the Panadol. I accept Denton’s evidence about having to wake Alvin for this feed. • The defendant’s account that he had purchased Panadol because he thought Alvin might be in pain from the injuries Alvin had sustained in the bassinet incident is a reasonable possibility. The defendant may not have realised that Alvin had sustained such a serious head injury when he purchased the Panadol. • I find that after the bassinet tipped over, and Alvin struck his face on the music box, Alvin reacted by crying loudly, as described by the defendant and as overheard by Denton during the phone call. It is clear that the defendant was panicked and called Denton asking her to come straight home. • It is equally clear that in the short space of time that it took Denton to return home, that Alvin was no longer crying as he was and had already ‘settled’. It would be very surprising that this would occur through the application of the ice pack alone. The evidence of Alvin’s state when Denton returned home was that Alvin appeared either drowsy and about -- 113 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 112 to go to sleep962 or asleep963 and, according to the defendant, Alvin was ‘sooky’. As Dr Edwards said, these are observed symptoms that are consistent with an altered state of consciousness or concussion suggesting that by the time Denton returned home Alvin had already sustained the head injuries. • In the police interview of 7 May 2021, the defendant described Alvin’s reaction to the bassinet incident. In the earlier interview on 23 April 2021 the defendant described Alvin’s initial cry as hysterical.964 He said that Alvin was crying for 10 minutes.965 When asked in the interview on 7 May 2021 how long Alvin was hysterical, the defendant said it was between five and 10 minutes. The defendant described it as, ‘Like crying, waa, waa, waa … he was very hysterical’.966 The defendant added that because of the ‘blood and stuff he started freaking out’.967 • I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant inflicted the head injuries during the period after he finished his call to Denton and before Denton returned home. I find he did so because he was unable to deal with Alvin crying for 10 minutes (on his own account Alvin was crying hysterically for between five to 10 minutes). I find this resulted in the defendant losing control of his emotions and reacting inappropriately and instantly, through his frustration in not being able to settle Alvin’s crying, by taking hold of Alvin around the chest, deliberately squeezing him tightly and either shaking or throwing him, possibly striking a surface such as the frame of the bassinet, resulting in the combination of the rib fractures, associated bruising to the back and the head injuries and haemorrhages to the retinas as explained by Dr Langlois and Dr Edwards. This would likely have taken only a matter of seconds but that is all that was required to cause the injuries noted by Dr Langlois. • In reaching this conclusion, I have had regard to what the defendant said in his police interviews, including his denials that he inflicted the rib fractures and head injuries on Alvin by deliberately squeezing and shaking him. I remind myself again that there is no requirement on the defendant to prove his innocence. The onus remains on the prosecution, at all times, to prove the offence charged. In doing so, the prosecution must exclude as a reasonable possibility what the defendant said in his police interviews about not inflicting the injuries on Alvin. The prosecution must also exclude, as a reasonable possibility, the 962 See Bickley. 963 See Denton. 964 P14; MFI-P14A [612]. 965 P14; MFI-P14A [601]-[604], [629]. 966 P14; MFI-P14B [709]-[713]. 967 P14; MFI-P14A [617]. -- 114 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 113 arguments advanced on behalf of the defendant for why the prosecution has failed to prove the offence. • There have been parts of the defendant’s police interviews that I have accepted as either being true or a reasonable possibility. There were parts of the interviews that I did not find credible, such as the defendant’s descriptions of Alvin following the bassinet incident as appearing normal and fine and that he did not notice anything wrong with Alvin (other than the injuries Alvin had sustained to his face in the bassinet incident). I will address this latter aspect of the defendant’s accounts when considering the criminal neglect charge. • I reject the defendant’s denial that he did not become frustrated with Alvin because he was unable to settle him from crying following the bassinet incident. I also reject the defendant’s denial that he did not shake Alvin as a consequence of Alvin’s prolonged crying. I reject these denials for the reasons I have detailed in this section for finding that the defendant did inflict the injuries on Alvin. • I have also considered the defence submission that it would be unlikely that the defendant would have squeezed and shaken Alvin after he had just called Denton and told her about Alvin being injured in the bassinet incident. However, this overlooks the fact that the injuries could have been inflicted on Alvin in a matter of seconds, during a time when the defendant was attempting to deal with a hysterically crying baby, triggering a reaction from the defendant. This is not a case where it is suggested that the defendant’s actions were premeditated, rather they were the actions of someone unable to cope in a highly stressful situation. • I have considered the defence submission that inflicting the rib fractures and head injuries on Alvin would be inconsistent with the defendant’s actions and reactions. I accept that when the defendant called Denton on the Wednesday that he was upset and crying when telling her about the bassinet incident and that he was still crying when she returned home. While the defendant’s reaction was genuine, it is also consistent with him hoping that Alvin was not seriously injured in the bassinet incident and feeling responsible for that incident. His crying after Denton returned home is also consistent with the defendant shaking Alvin and then hoping that Alvin would ultimately recover. The defendant may not have realised the extent of the injuries he had inflicted on Alvin when shaking him or had regretted what he had done. This would explain the purchase of Panadol on Wednesday and his reaction on Friday morning when he was awoken by Denton and told that Alvin was unresponsive. This, in combination with the other -- 115 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 114 defence submissions, has not raised a reasonable doubt in my mind, that the defendant inflicted the injuries on Alvin. • In considering the whole of the evidence, I find the prosecution has proved the defendant inflicted the rib fractures and head injuries on Alvin through a deliberate act of squeezing and shaking him. The combined force of the inferences to be drawn from the whole of the evidence that I have set out excludes any alternative hypothesis as a being a reasonable possibility. 559 I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of each of the elements of the offence of manslaughter: i. The defendant’s act of shaking or throwing Alvin was the cause of Alvin’s brain injuries that resulted in Alvin’s death; ii. The defendant’s act was both voluntary and deliberate; iii. The defendant’s act was unlawful; and iv. The defendant’s unlawful act was dangerous in that it exposed Alvin to an appreciable risk of serious injury. Any reasonable person in the defendant’s position would have realised that shaking a 19-day-old baby would expose the baby to an appreciable risk of serious injury. 560 I find the defendant guilty of the manslaughter of Alvin. Count 2 – Criminal neglect 561 I propose to deal with this charge by addressing each of the elements of the offence in turn. 1. Alvin suffered harm as a result of an act 562 Harm is very broadly defined in relation to this offence. It includes the same definition of harm contained in Division 7A of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, which includes physical harm (whether temporary or permanent), including unconsciousness and pain.968 It also includes, and relevantly to this case, detriment caused to the physical, mental or emotional wellbeing or development of a child.969 563 The harm particularised by the prosecution is not the physical harm caused through the act of squeezing and shaking of Alvin that resulted in the serious injuries Dr Langlois gave evidence about. Rather, the harm involves Alvin’s continued suffering and deterioration from a failure to obtain timely medical care for Alvin. 968 Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 21. 969 Criminal Law Consolidation Act s 13B(3). -- 116 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 115 564 The evidence clearly establishes that Alvin sustained the significant injuries, noted by Dr Langlois at the postmortem examination, and that due to these significant injuries Alvin’s condition deteriorated across Wednesday and Thursday, culminating in his death on Friday morning. 565 Dr Edwards explained how Alvin’s condition would have progressed and deteriorated over time. This evidence was not challenged. 566 As Dr Edwards said, the symptoms of a serious head injury would typically result in an initial concussion (loss of consciousness) for a variable time, followed by some recovery before the secondary processes applying to the brain lead to a deterioration over time – this deterioration could last from hours to days. While there might be a return to a degree of consciousness, generally, there would not be a recovery back to a normal state. The initial concussion may vary from a few seconds to a few minutes. The slow deterioration may then last from a few hours to days. The traditional understanding of brain swelling is that it usually maximises between 24 - 48 hours. 567 As Dr Edwards later explained: [W]hat we know from our own experience of talking to lots of caregivers regarding this and from the literature is that, as I said previously, we expect there to have been a concussion episode where the baby went very quiet and looked like they were asleep pretty soon, if not immediately after the incident, followed by either a continual deterioration where an ambulance is called, or some apparent recovery where the child becomes less obtunded and may well feed and appear to not be too badly hurt. However, over - if there has been a primary injury to the brain and then the secondary processes which lead to poor oxygen supply and ongoing damage to the brain, we expect symptoms in a young baby to be sort of lack of alertness but also lack of arousal, so when a baby would normally be aroused, like being undressed, or in a bath, or having a nappy changed, when the baby would normally wake up and cry, that they don’t do that as per usual, they don’t wake up for their feeds as often as they, if they were always waking up every two or three hours, they don’t do that. They may still be able to suck their feeds, but it would be a less effective suck, the feed would take longer, they would take less milk and they might fall asleep during the feed and the parent might have to sort of arouse them. Then, often a baby will start vomiting, or having seizures, or have periods where their breathing is abnormal that is described to us over, as I said, a period of time. That can really vary from a few hours to, you know, two or three days.970 568 I accept Dr Edwards’ evidence. The evidence of Alvin’s deterioration across Wednesday, Thursday and into Friday has not been challenged. 569 It has not been disputed that Alvin suffered physical harm, such as pain and unconsciousness, through his continued deterioration. I am satisfied that this continued deterioration was the result of a failure to obtain timely medical care for Alvin. This element of the offence has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. 970 T 521-522. -- 117 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 116 2. The defendant had a duty of care to Alvin to protect Alvin from harm 570 As the defendant was Alvin’s father and was responsible for him at the time, this element of the offence has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Discreditable conduct evidence used to prove remaining elements 571 In relation to proving the remaining elements of the offence, the prosecution has relied upon my finding that the defendant inflicted the serious injuries on Alvin through the unlawful and dangerous act of squeezing and shaking Alvin immediately following the bassinet incident. 572 This is evidence of discreditable conduct on the part of the defendant. I am satisfied that the evidence the defendant inflicted the serious injuries on Alvin is of probative value in establishing each of the remaining elements of the offence and that this use outweighs any prejudicial effect it has on the defendant.971 The evidence is admissible in the consideration of this charge.972 The defence did not object to its use for this purpose. 573 The permissible use of this evidence will be addressed during a consideration of the remaining elements of the offence. Simply put, it directly proves the defendant’s awareness that there was an appreciable risk that harm, in the nature of Alvin’s deteriorating condition, would be caused by failing to obtain medical attention for Alvin; his failure to take steps he could reasonably be expected to have taken in the circumstances to protect Alvin from harm; and whether that failure is so serious in the circumstances to warrant a criminal penalty.973 574 The evidence is not used to reason simplistically that because the defendant inflicted the serious injuries on Alvin that he is the sort of person who is more likely to have committed the offence of criminal neglect.974 As the evidence that the defendant inflicted the serious injuries on Alvin is essential to prove the remaining elements, it must be established beyond a reasonable doubt,975 which it has been through finding the defendant guilty of manslaughter. 3. The defendant was, or ought to have been, aware that there was an appreciable risk that harm would be caused to Alvin through a failure to obtain medical assistance for Alvin 575 This element does not require proving that the defendant was aware of what was causing Alvin’s deteriorating condition. What is required is proof that the defendant was aware, or ought to have been aware, that Alvin’s condition was deteriorating, and that awareness carried with it an appreciable risk that Alvin’s 971 Evidence Act s 34P(1)(a). 972 Evidence Act s 34P. The evidence relevant to proof of the criminal neglect charge, however, is not admissible in proof of the manslaughter charge. That evidence has not been used in the determination of the manslaughter charge. 973 Evidence Act s 34R(1). 974 Evidence Act s 34R(1). 975 Evidence Act s 34R(2). -- 118 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 117 condition would continue to deteriorate unless medical assistance was obtained for Alvin. 576 An ‘appreciable risk of harm’ means a risk that is real and not theoretical; more than a remote or mere possibility that the act might cause harm.976 577 The prosecution relies on alternative pathways to prove this element of the offence. 578 The first is that the defendant was aware that there was an appreciable risk that harm would be caused to Alvin through the omission in failing to obtain medical assistance for Alvin. This is because the defendant was responsible for inflicting the serious injures by shaking Alvin and that this act was the cause or source of Alvin’s deteriorating condition across Wednesday and Thursday leading to Alvin’s death on Friday morning. 579 As I have found proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was responsible for inflicting the serious injuries on Alvin, by squeezing and shaking him, this element has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The defence accepted this element would be proved if I made this finding. 580 In light of this finding, while it is strictly unnecessary to consider the prosecution’s alternative basis of proving this element of the offence, I consider it appropriate to do so. 581 The prosecution contended that even if a finding was not made that the defendant had inflicted the serious injuries on Alvin, the defendant was nevertheless aware, or at least ought to have been aware, from observing Alvin’s condition following the bassinet incident, that Alvin was unwell and that his condition was worsening or deteriorating from that moment forward. 582 The prosecution relied on Dr Edwards’ evidence about how Alvin’s deteriorating condition would manifest, the objective evidence of Alvin’s level of consciousness that can be ascertained from the photographs, and Denton’s evidence as to Alvin’s reduced ability to feed and his level of consciousness. Aligned with this, the prosecution submitted that at the very least the defendant was aware that Alvin had suffered some physical injury to his face during the bassinet incident. 583 The defence conceded that on this evidence, the defendant ought to have been aware that there was an appreciable risk that harm would be caused to Alvin through his omission in failing to obtain medical assistance for Alvin and that this element of the offence would be proved. 584 While that concession was made by the defence, I am, nevertheless, satisfied on the evidence, that the defendant not only ought to have known that there was 976 See discussion by Redlich JA of this expression in R v Abdul-Rasool (2008) 18 VR 586. -- 119 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 118 an appreciable risk that harm would be caused to Alvin, through his omission in failing to obtain timely medical care, but that he was aware of that risk. 585 I do not accept the defendant’s continued assertions through his various police interviews that he was not aware that Alvin was unwell following the bassinet incident. As with Denton’s evidence about this, I did not find what the defendant said to be credible. 586 The defendant stated: • That after the bassinet incident Alvin whinged for a little bit and then he was fine after that. It was just that night he was a little bit whingey, and he had been fine all day.977 • The next day (Thursday) Alvin seemed fine.978 • Alvin just seemed normal.979 • Alvin seemed perfectly normal, taking his bottle, going back to sleep, fine.980 • Between Wednesday and Friday Alvin was a perfect, amazing baby.981 • Alvin took everything fine. It was like it (the bassinet incident) never happened, like he was himself.982 • When they bathed Alvin on Wednesday night, they didn’t notice anything.983 • Nothing else stood out.984 • They spent the rest of Wednesday cuddling Alvin, just normal day things, cuddling him and having some play time. He slept fine, everything normal. Alvin’s been back to normal, like we didn’t notice anything, no signs or anything.985 587 The defendant’s assertions are not supported by the objective evidence and are directly contradicted by the photographs that reveal Alvin’s concerning 977 P12; MFI-P12A [250]. 978 P12; MFI-P12A [857]. 979 P12; MFI-P12A [836]. 980 P12; MFI-P12A [842]. 981 P12; MFI-P12A [789]-[794]. 982 P14; MFI-P14A [1894]. 983 P14; MFI-P14A [2278]-[2285]. 984 P14; MFI-P14A [1480]. 985 P14; MFI-P14A [1748]-[1754]. -- 120 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 119 appearance, clearly suggesting that something was not right. The defendant’s various descriptions of Alvin’s condition are simply not credible. 588 The defendant was aware that Alvin sustained injuries in the bassinet incident. He was aware that a black eye had developed about an hour after the incident. The defendant said that he decided to purchase Panadol later that afternoon because he thought Alvin was probably in pain following the bassinet incident, with the first dose of Panadol administered to Alvin after Alvin had his 4:30 pm feed on Wednesday. The defendant said that throughout Thursday he administered more Panadol to Alvin. This suggests the defendant was aware that Alvin may be experiencing a level of pain or discomfort. 589 Denton said that when she tried to feed Alvin with the bottle, Alvin was not latching on. Denton said that the defendant suggested he would use a syringe to feed Alvin. Denton said that the defendant then fed Alvin through a 5 mL syringe that she believed was from the box of Panadol. 590 I am prepared to accept Denton’s evidence about this. The evidence revealed difficulties with Alvin feeding following the bassinet incident and so it would not be surprising that a suggestion would be made to feed Alvin through a syringe. I am satisfied that this occurred as Denton said. The fact the defendant used a syringe to feed Alvin reveals that he knew that there was an issue with Alvin’s feeding. 591 Denton said that around 10 or 15 minutes after the syringe feed, the defendant suggested to Denton that Alvin’s feeding issues could have been due to withdrawals from the cannabis she had consumed while pregnant. The defendant suggested Denton blow cannabis smoke in Alvin’s face when she next had a bong. Denton said she was in the laundry when she blew cannabis smoke in Alvin’s face while the defendant was holding Alvin. Denton denied a suggestion that was put to her in cross-examination that there was an occasion when the defendant had come into the kitchen holding Alvin and she blew cannabis smoke in their direction for which she was rebuked by the defendant. 592 As stated earlier in these reasons, the evidence that the defendant requested Denton to blow cannabis smoke in Alvin’s face is clearly evidence that the defendant engaged in discreditable conduct.986 This evidence cannot be used to suggest that the defendant is the sort of person who would more likely have committed the offences because he engaged in the conduct and is inadmissible for that purpose.987 593 The prosecution has relied on this evidence for a permissible use being evidence from which it can be inferred that the defendant was aware that Alvin’s feeding was affected, and that, from this the defendant was aware, or ought to have been aware, that there was an appreciable risk that harm would be caused to Alvin 986 Evidence Act s 34P(1). 987 Evidence Act ss 34P(1)(a), (b). -- 121 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 120 through a failure to obtain medical assistance for Alvin following the bassinet incident. There was no objection to the use of the evidence for this purpose. I am satisfied that the probative value of this evidence, for the purpose identified by the prosecution, outweighs its prejudicial effect on the defendant. The evidence was admitted for this purpose.988 I direct myself that this is the only permissible use of the evidence.989 This evidence cannot be used to reason that by requesting Denton to blow smoke into Alvin’s face that he is the sort of person who would be likely to commit the offence.990 594 I am prepared to accept Denton’s evidence that the defendant suggested Alvin’s feeding issues may be related to his withdrawals. The evidence establishes that Denton was a heavy user of cannabis. Denton was smoking between eight to 10 bongs of cannabis a day before falling pregnant. Denton said that she reduced her consumption of cannabis but was still smoking daily during her pregnancy. The defendant was aware of Denton’s heavy use of cannabis and that she had been smoking it throughout her pregnancy. 595 I do not consider that in these circumstances, Denton’s evidence that the defendant suggested she blow cannabis smoke in Alvin’s face, is so implausible that it should be rejected. As I stated earlier in these reasons it is an unusual incident to have been invented by Denton as it reflects poorly on her as a mother. 596 The defendant’s request to Denton, that she blow cannabis smoke in Alvin’s face because his feeding issues may be related to cannabis withdrawals from pregnancy, reveals that the defendant was aware that Alvin was experiencing feeding difficulties. 597 I accept Dr Edwards’ evidence that the behavioural repertoire of a newborn baby is limited. However, anyone who observed Alvin, in his position and state in the bath on Wednesday night,991 could not fail to notice that there was something wrong with Alvin’s wellbeing. 598 Alvin was stripped naked before he was put into the bath. This should have woken him if he was asleep before the bath. Bath time is an important part of a baby and their parents bonding. It is an exciting and memorable time for parents to bath their newborn child. Babies generally do not sleep through baths. The fact that Alvin remained asleep during the bath on Wednesday night should have been a matter of great concern. Alvin’s appearance in the bath in the photographs speaks to that. This can be compared with Alvin’s appearance in the bath taken on an earlier occasion992 and the contrast is stark. 599 It must also be remembered that, before the bath on Wednesday night, the defendant was aware that Alvin had sustained injuries to his face in the bassinet 988 Evidence Act s 34P(2)(b). 989 Evidence Act s 34R(1). 990 Evidence Act s 34R(1). 991 P10, photographs 26-28. 992 See P24 [28]. -- 122 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 121 incident. In those circumstances, a parent would naturally be very mindful of noticing any alteration to their baby’s condition or wellbeing. 600 Indeed, this is what the defendant asserted in his interview at the police station on 23 April 2021 when he said, ‘I always stress. Like I’m a stress head when it comes to babies’. Yet, he did not notice or consider that there was anything wrong with Alvin when Alvin was in the bathtub. I do not find this credible. 601 I accept Denton’s evidence that she discussed the fact that Alvin had slept through the bath with the defendant. Denton said the defendant response was that ‘maybe it reminded [Alvin] of being in Denton’s womb and it just made him relaxed and comfortable’.993 Given that Alvin had been injured in the bassinet incident earlier that day, the defendant was at least aware that something different occurred with Alvin’s bath from previous baths because Alvin had slept through the entire bath this night. 602 The defendant also said that on Wednesday both he and Denton stayed up until 2:00 am ‘just to make sure Alvin was okay’. It seems, despite this, he still did not notice any changes in Alvin’s overall condition, which I do not find credible. 603 The photographs taken by Denton on Thursday morning depict that Alvin barely had his eyes open.994 Alvin does not appear alert, and a small bruise is apparent on his left cheek. 604 The photographs of Alvin taken after midday depict Alvin in an even more concerning state.995 Dr Edwards commented about this. In these photographs, Alvin is not awake, his legs are outstretched, and his mouth is gaping. If the defendant was paying attention to Alvin, as he claimed he was, then he would have noticed what was obvious, namely, that Alvin’s level of consciousness was significantly altered. It cannot be said that Alvin was ‘normal and fine’, that ‘nothing stood out’ and that there were ‘no signs of anything’, as the defendant asserted in his police interviews. Alvin’s presentation speaks against what the defendant stated. 605 Further to this, the evidence establishes that Alvin was either asleep or drowsy following the bassinet incident through to when the defendant went to sleep on Thursday night: • The defendant said this to the police during his interview, on 7 May 2021, when he described Alvin as ‘drowsy, sleepy or quiet’. 993 T 141.1. 994 P10, photographs 30-31. 995 P10, photographs 32-40. -- 123 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 122 • Denton said that when she returned home on Wednesday, after the bassinet incident, that Alvin was asleep. • Bickley said Alvin was ‘awake, but drowsy, going back to sleep’. • Alvin had to be woken at 4:30 pm on Wednesday for his feed. • Alvin was asleep when the photographs were taken of Alvin at 8:13 pm on Wednesday and was not grabbing on to their fingers. • Alvin was asleep during the bath at 8:55 pm on Wednesday. • Alvin was asleep when Denton awoke on Thursday to feed him. • Alvin was extra clingy on Thursday. • The photographs of Alvin taken by Denton on Thursday between 10:45 am and 10:46 am show a close up of his face. Alvin’s eyes are puffy and barely open. There is a mark under his left eye and a bruise on his left cheek. He is wrapped in a blanket. Alvin does not appear to be well. • The photographs of Alvin taken by Denton on Thursday between 12:10 pm and 12:12 pm show Alvin lying in Denton’s arms while she is seated on the couch. Alvin is not awake, his legs are outstretched and his mouth is gaping. Dr Edwards said that she also noted from these photographs that there appeared to be a loss of muscle tone in Alvin’s lower face – his mouth was ‘hanging open’ – his legs appeared floppy, and he appeared pale. Dr Edwards said that even with the limitation of photographs, compared to a video recording, she would be concerned about Alvin’s appearance in this series of photographs. This must also have been apparent to the defendant, if, as he arrested, he was a ‘stress head when it comes to babies’. • Alvin was asleep when the defendant’s parents visited on Thursday. • Alvin was not awake when Blake was interacting with him on Thursday. • Alvin did not take his bottle at 8:30 pm on Thursday, so he was put back down to sleep. 606 I do not find the defendant’s assertions about Alvin’s appearance, or the state Alvin was in, to be credible. Alvin’s condition was deteriorating significantly across Wednesday and Thursday, consistent with the progression of the brain injuries Dr Edwards explained. I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was aware of Alvin’s continuing deterioration. The evidence about -- 124 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 123 Alvin’s deteriorating state is clear and obvious. Contrary to what the defendant has asserted, Alvin never returned to being ‘normal’ after the bassinet incident. 607 I do not accept the defence submission that the court should infer that the defendant was not aware (as opposed to having ought to have been aware) of Alvin’s deteriorating condition, because it was also Denton’s evidence that she was not aware of Alvin’s deterioration either. It was submitted that Denton’s lack of awareness was reinforced by her having taken photographs of Alvin that reveal Alvin must be unwell and that it would be nonsensical to have taken those photographs. Denton’s evidence that she did not notice any issues with Alvin’s wellbeing or deterioration is not credible either, in the light of the objective evidence and the opinions of Dr Edwards, that I have already outlined. I have already found that I cannot accept Denton’s evidence about this. 608 The defence also submitted that the defendant’s reaction when Alvin was brought into the bedroom on Friday morning, his attempts at CPR and rushing Alvin to the hospital is consistent with the defendant not having been aware of Alvin’s deterioration from the Wednesday. I accept that when Alvin was brought into the bedroom, unresponsive, that the defendant reacted as any concerned parent would. Obviously, by that stage Alvin was not breathing and was likely already deceased. I accept that it is a reasonable possibility that the defendant did not realise the extent of the head injuries Alvin had sustained or that they were even life threatening. This is consistent with his reaction, but it does not follow that the defendant was not aware that Alvin’s condition was deteriorating. 4. The defendant failed to take steps he could reasonably be expected to have taken in the circumstances to protect Alvin from harm 609 This element of the offence is objective. The word ‘reasonably’ relates to what a reasonable person in the position of the defendant would be expected to do in all the circumstances. 610 Having found the defendant was responsible for inflicting the serious injuries on Alvin, by squeezing and shaking Alvin, this element has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. In the situation where the defendant was responsible for inflicting the serious injuries on Alvin, it would have been obvious to the defendant that Alvin’s deteriorating condition was the result of him shaking Alvin. He did nothing to protect Alvin from the harm of Alvin’s deteriorating condition. He failed to seek timely medical care for Alvin. The defence accepted this element would be proved if I made this finding. 611 Alternatively, the prosecution contended that if it was not proved that the defendant inflicted the serious injuries on Alvin, then the defendant was either aware, or ought to have been aware, of Alvin’s continuing deterioration and failed to take steps that he could reasonably be expected to have taken to protect Alvin from that harm. -- 125 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 124 612 In this regard, the defendant could reasonably have been expected to have made contact with a medical professional, either by taking Alvin to a doctor, contacting a telehealth service, contacting CaFHS or taking Alvin to a hospital. 613 When considering whether it was reasonable for the defendant to have taken any of these steps, the prosecution highlighted Alvin’s very young age as being an important consideration. I accept this. It cannot be overlooked that Alvin was only aged 19 - 20 days on the Wednesday and Thursday and was only discharged from hospital 14 days earlier. Any parent faced with a situation that involved the deterioration of their baby, following an incident in which the baby was injured, would be naturally concerned about their baby’s welfare and seek medical assistance. It can be accepted that immediately following the bassinet incident the decision to ‘wait and see’ or monitor Alvin’s condition and then purchase and administer Panadol was not unreasonable. However, the situation had changed by 8:55 pm when Alvin was bathed. 614 I am satisfied, that objectively assessed, the defendant failed to take steps that he could reasonably be expected to have taken in the circumstances to protect Alvin from harm. The only step the defendant had taken was purchasing Panadol and administering it to Alvin, which, in the circumstances of Alvin’s condition as revealed by the evidence, was a totally inadequate step by the time Alvin was bathed at 8:55 pm on the Wednesday. 615 The defence conceded that the defendant failed to take steps that he could reasonably be expected to have taken in the circumstances. 616 I am satisfied that this element has been proved. 5. The defendant’s failure to take such steps was, in the circumstances, so serious that a criminal penalty is warranted 617 I have found that the defendant inflicted the serious injuries on Alvin by shaking him. Given the serious nature of Alvin’s continued deterioration, from the time the defendant inflicted the injuries on Alvin, there can be no doubt that a criminal penalty is warranted in the circumstances. This was not challenged by the defence and this element has been proved. 618 There might be some cases where a failure to take steps to protect a child might be morally reprehensible, or the parenting involved is careless, but it is not of such a serious nature that it would warrant a criminal penalty. This will be a matter of fact and degree in each case and involves an evaluative decision of whether, in the circumstances, the failure to take steps to protect a child from harm is so serious that a criminal penalty is warranted. 619 Dr Edwards said that early medical intervention may have prevented Alvin from dying.996 996 T 538-539. -- 126 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 125 620 The defence contended that on the prosecution’s alternative pathway to proof of this charge, that in the circumstances as the defendant subjectively understood Alvin’s condition to be, his failure to take steps to prevent harm to Alvin does not warrant a criminal penalty. 621 The defence argument proceeded on the basis the defendant was not aware that Alvin had sustained a serious head injury, which can be accepted. The submission was that, subjectively, the only incident the defendant was aware of where Alvin was injured was the bassinet incident. 622 The defence submitted that the defendant initially responded to this appropriately through the application of the ice pack and maintaining observations of Alvin thereafter. The submission was that the purchasing of Panadol at 3:50 pm on Wednesday was an appropriate response to the circumstances that the defendant was aware existed at that point. The Panadol was purchased by the defendant because he believed that Alvin might be in pain following the injuries sustained in the bassinet incident. 623 It was also submitted that the bassinet incident masked, from the defendant’s viewpoint, there being any other event that contributed to Alvin’s deterioration and that in the circumstances, the defendant’s failure to take other steps that he could reasonably have been expected to take does not warrant a criminal penalty. 624 I do not accept this submission. 625 The evidence is clear, in my view, that by 8:55 pm on Wednesday, when Alvin was bathed, the circumstances had dramatically changed. The defence argument has force up until that point in time. However, after that time, on any view of the evidence, Alvin never returned to his normal state, despite the defendant’s assertions in his police interviews, assertions that I have rejected. I have already stated that I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was aware (and not just that he ought to have been aware) that there was an appreciable risk of harm to Alvin through the failure to seek medical attention for Alvin. 626 The evidence objectively demonstrates that Alvin’s deteriorating state was visible and noticeable from at least 8:55 pm on the Wednesday. 627 Alvin’s condition in the bathtub signified an important turning point in Alvin’s deterioration. 628 During the bath on Wednesday night, Alvin was asleep, he did not stir after being undressed, submerged in water or having his head wrapped in a towel. His legs and arms are not in the usual flexed position that is expected in babies of that age. His eyes are closed. The photographs clearly show that Alvin was unwell. This should be alarming for any parent. Alvin’s condition further deteriorated on Thursday as the photographs also clearly demonstrate. -- 127 of 128 -- [2025] SADC 22 126 629 In these circumstances, the defendant chose to administer Panadol to Alvin. He did not telephone a doctor’s surgery, a hospital or a telehealth service or CaFHS, nor did he take Alvin to see a doctor or to a hospital. Alvin was totally reliant on his parents to protect and care for him and the defendant, in seeing Alvin in this deteriorating state, did not take any action apart from continuing to administer Panadol. Simply continuing to administer Panadol is not what would be reasonably expected in these circumstances. 630 Moreover, and importantly, the circumstances include the fact that Alvin was only 19 days to 20 days old and was a small baby. Alvin had been home for only two weeks. He was totally dependent on his parents for his wellbeing and care. The defendant knew, at the very least, that Alvin had been injured in the bassinet incident and I am satisfied that he was aware that Alvin’s condition was deteriorating from that point on and failed to take steps to protect Alvin from harm by seeking medical attention for him. As I have already stated, continuing to administer Panadol was not a reasonable response to Alvin’s progressively deteriorating condition in the circumstances, particularly when having regard to Alvin’s very young age. 631 In my view, the defendant’s failure to take steps that he could reasonably have been expected to have taken to protect Alvin from harm, from at least the time Alvin was bathed on Wednesday night, is so serious that a criminal penalty is warranted. I find this element of the offence proved. 632 I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of each element of the offence of criminal neglect on either of the pathways relied upon by the prosecution. 633 I find the defendant guilty of the criminal neglect of Alvin. Verdicts 634 1.Guilty of the manslaughter of Alvin Tony McGregor. 635 2.Guilty of the criminal neglect of Alvin Tony McGregor. Annexures included – not for publication: • Annexure A: P10, photographs 23-25 • Annexure B: P10, photographs 26-29 • Annexure C: P10, photographs 30-31 • Annexure D: P10, photographs 32-40 -- 128 of 128 --