Couple win appeal over salt overdose conviction

Click to follow
The Independent Online

A couple jailed for the "salt overdose" killing of a three-year-old boy whom they planned to adopt had their convictions quashed by the Court of Appeal today - but must now face a retrial.





The court held that, if the jury at the original trial of Ian and Angela Gay had heard fresh evidence suggesting that toddler Christian Blewitt could have died of natural causes as a result of a type of "salt diabetes", the verdict might have been different.



The Gays, who had served 15 months of their five-year jail terms for manslaughter, were released on bail pending retrial later this year.



Ian Gay, 39, and his 40-year-old wife, from Halesowen, West Midlands, were jailed in January last year following a seven-week trial at Worcester Crown Court.



Christian died in hospital four days after being found unconscious in his room on December 8 2002 at a £500,000 house where the wealthy childless couple then lived in Bromsgrove, Worcestershire.



Former engineer Mr Gay and his wife, a £200,000-a-year insurance actuary, always insisted they loved Christian and his younger brother and sister, who had been placed with them for a trial period with a view to adoption.



Defence lawyers argued in the appeal that the jurors were presented with just two options - either the couple murdered Christian by blunt force to the head or were guilty of manslaughter through feeding him salt as a punishment for naughtiness.



According to a new witness, Dr Glyn Walters, the boy was not a victim of salt poisoning and could have been suffering from a rare condition which allowed sodium levels to build up in the body to the point of overload.



The condition could explain why Christian - alleged to have been force-fed up to six teaspoons of salt, equivalent to a litre of sea water - had so much sodium in his system.



Lord Justice Richards, sitting in London with Mr Justice Penry-Davey and Judge Ann Goddard, said they had not lost sight of the fact that the medical evidence, although important, formed only part of the evidence in the case.



The couple, having recently taken on the "immense burden" of looking after three children with a view to adoption, were "in a position of considerable stress".



Difficulties they had experienced with Christian had added to that stress.



But this did not alter the possibility that the fresh evidence could have influenced the outcome of the trial.



The convictions were "unsafe", the judge said.



Arguing against a retrial, defence counsel Michael Mansfield QC said that, in such a unique and complex case, the scientific dilemma facing the medical experts could not be solved by asking a fresh jury to "grapple" with it.



"There is a very high risk of a further conviction that might be regarded as unsafe because it is a case based in the realms of speculation," he said.



But the judges ruled that a retrial should be ordered "in the interests of justice".