Is there an evidentiary basis for shaken baby syndrome? The conviction of Joby Rowe

ABSTRACTA comprehensive review of the science pertaining to shaken baby syndrome (SBS), commissioned by the Swedish government and published in 2017, found ‘insufficient’, ‘very low quality’ scientific evidence for diagnosing Shaken Baby Syndrome on the basis of particular brain injuries. The review also found only ‘limited’, ‘low quality’ support for the notion that shaking causes the head injuries associated with SBS, let alone that it is the only possible cause. I review these findings and place them within the Australian judicial context by considering Joby Rowe’s 2018 conviction for child homicide. Rowe’s conviction was based solely on forensic evidence that openly and overtly lacked any scientific basis, with expert opinions based instead on confession studies. This case raises fundamental questions for forensic science in Australia, primarily: should forensic evidence be scientific? Or should it appeal to authority?