By Lucy Caulkett-
The Crown Prosecution Service has explained why two adults convicted after a 12-week-old baby suffered catastrophic injuries were not prosecuted for directly causing those injuries, and why the couple ultimately left Chester Crown Court with suspended prison sentences rather than being taken into custody.
The case has provoked obvious public anger because the injuries suffered by the infant were so severe, the judge told the two defendants that they had lied, and yet the court was unable to establish which of them had actually inflicted the violence that left the child fighting for his life. Amy Lamb, 30, and Alex Goodwin, 35, 9both pictured)were convicted at Chester Crown Court of causing or allowing a child to suffer serious physical harm after a trial concerning injuries sustained by an infant at a property in Middlewich between November 28 and December 31, 2021.
AD: Capeesh Restaurant
The child, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was eventually taken to hospital suffering from breathing difficulties, where doctors discovered that he had sustained a fractured skull, broken ribs, three broken limbs, damage to ligaments in his spine and extensive bruising to his face and body. The court heard that the infant subsequently suffered a seizure during treatment and was at one stage fighting for his life, although he ultimately made a significant recovery following treatment at Leighton Hospital in Crewe and Alder Hey Children’s Hospital in Liverpool.
Medical evidence presented during the trial indicated that the injuries were consistent with a baby having been shaken with “extreme force”, although the prosecution case also allowed for the possibility that the child had been punched or thrown against a wall. despite this conclusion, both defendants walked out of court free simply because the evidence could not establish which of the two adults had actually caused those injuries. That distinction is central to understanding why a case which involved such serious harm did not result in either defendant being convicted of personally inflicting the injuries and why both ultimately received suspended sentences.
During sentencing, His Honour Judge Steven Everett made clear that he believed the defendants knew what had happened to the child but had refused to reveal it, telling them that “only the two of you know what happened” and that “the reality is you both lied”. The judge went on to say that he believed each defendant knew the answers to the questions surrounding the baby’s injuries but had chosen not to provide them, while also making clear that, having heard all of the evidence, he could not safely determine which of the two was the person who had caused the injuries.
AD: Oysterian Sea Food Restaurant And Bar
That left the prosecution with a fundamental evidential problem because a criminal court cannot convict a defendant of personally inflicting serious injuries merely because that person was present in the household, because another adult must also have been present, or because the circumstances create a strong suspicion that one of them must have been responsible. The prosecution must establish the defendant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and the Crown Prosecution Service has said that the evidence in this case was not sufficient to establish whether Lamb or Goodwin was the individual who inflicted the physical injuries. Following the sentencing, members of the public questioned why the couple could not both have been prosecuted for the more serious offence of causing the baby’s injuries, particularly when neither defendant had provided an explanation identifying the person responsible.
The CPS has now said that such an approach would have created a serious risk that the prosecution would fail altogether because there was insufficient evidence pointing directly to either defendant as the person who inflicted the injuries. There was also a question over whether the concept commonly described as “joint enterprise” could have been used to secure convictions against both defendants, but that was not considered a straightforward solution because the prosecution would have needed to prove the necessary elements of joint criminal responsibility, including the required intention.
According to the CPS, the available evidence did not establish beyond reasonable doubt that both defendants intended the infant to be harmed, meaning that a joint-enterprise prosecution could not simply be used to bridge the gap created by the absence of evidence identifying the person who actually inflicted the injuries. The prosecution instead relied on the offence of causing or allowing serious physical harm to a child, a provision specifically intended to deal with circumstances in which a child suffers serious injury within a household but the evidence does not establish which adult was responsible for causing it.
The CPS said that, on the evidence available in the Cheshire case, this was the most reliable route to securing convictions against both defendants. That explanation is important because it changes the way the outcome should be understood: Lamb and Goodwin were not acquitted of involvement in the circumstances surrounding the child’s injuries, nor were they found not guilty because the prosecution had failed to establish that serious harm had occurred. They were convicted of the offence with which they were charged, but the court was unable to establish which of them was the person who physically caused the injuries.
There is a striking parallel in a 2026 Court of Appeal judgment involving another severely injured baby, although the facts and outcome of that case were not identical to the Cheshire prosecution.
In R v CGA and ZFX, the Court of Appeal considered the convictions of two parents after their three-month-old daughter suffered multiple serious injuries, including a skull fracture, fractures to other parts of her body and extensive bruising. The prosecution had not been able to establish which parent had inflicted the individual injuries, and the case had not been advanced on the basis that the parents had acted together to cause them. Despite that evidential difficulty, both defendants were convicted of causing grievous bodily harm with intent in relation to a number of the injuries. The Court of Appeal subsequently quashed those convictions, concluding that the jury could not rationally have found both defendants guilty of causing the injuries when there was no evidence establishing which defendant had caused them and no proper evidential basis for concluding that they had acted jointly.
Crucially, the Court of Appeal also explained why the offence of causing or allowing serious physical harm to a child exists. The court said the provision enables both defendants in the same household to be convicted where a jury cannot be sure which of them inflicted serious injury on a child, provided the statutory requirements are established against each defendant, including the relevant knowledge or awareness of the risk and a failure to take reasonable steps to protect the child. The judgment described the provision as being enacted precisely for this kind of situation, where a child has clearly suffered serious harm but the prosecution cannot prove which of two household members was responsible for causing it.
The Court of Appeal ultimately ordered that one of the defendants in that case be retried on the causing-or-allowing offence, while refusing to order a retrial on the more serious offences because the available evidence could not safely establish responsibility for inflicting the injuries. The comparison therefore provides a useful explanation of the legal dilemma confronting prosecutors in the Cheshire case: the fact that one of two adults must have caused the injuries does not, by itself, establish which adult committed the offence, and a jury cannot be invited simply to fill that gap with assumption.
The offence used in cases such as these was created because of the particular difficulty prosecutors face when serious child abuse takes place within a household and the adults who may know what happened either cannot be distinguished by the available evidence or refuse to provide an explanation.
As the Court of Appeal explained in the 2026 judgment, section 5 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004, as amended in 2012, covers circumstances in which a person causes serious physical harm to a child or, where another member of the household is responsible, knows or ought to have known of a significant risk of such harm and fails to take reasonable steps to protect the child.That is why the distinction between causing and allowing is so important in the Cheshire case. The prosecution did not have sufficient evidence to establish which defendant was the person who physically assaulted the baby, but it was able to secure convictions for the offence which recognises that an adult can bear criminal responsibility for serious harm suffered by a child without necessarily being the person who delivered the physical assault.
The result is legally very different from an acquittal, even though the suspended sentences mean that neither defendant was immediately imprisoned. The answer lies partly in the offence of conviction and partly in the judge’s sentencing decision. Lamb and Goodwin had faced the possibility of substantially longer prison terms, but Judge Everett ultimately imposed two-year sentences which were suspended for two years.
His sentencing remarks made clear that the court regarded the circumstances as extremely serious, but the judge also had to sentence the defendants for the offences of which they had actually been convicted and on the basis of the evidence that had been established at trial. The judge said that he was “genuinely unable to reach a conclusion” as to which defendant was the “causer” and therefore treated both as “allowers”.
That finding is crucial because it explains why the public perception of the case — that two adults had been convicted after a baby was violently injured but simply walked out of court — does not fully describe what happened in legal terms. The couple were convicted, but the convictions did not establish that either defendant was the person who physically inflicted the injuries. At the same time, the court did not accept that the lack of identification of the attacker meant there was no criminal responsibility at all. The legal conclusion was that both defendants had been guilty of the offence of causing or allowing the child to suffer serious physical harm, while the evidence did not permit the court to say which of them had actually inflicted the physical injuries.
For all the legal explanation, there remains a profoundly troubling question at the centre of the Cheshire case, because the child suffered a fractured skull, broken ribs, three broken limbs, spinal ligament damage and widespread bruising while in the care of adults who, according to the sentencing judge, know what happened but have never provided the answer. Judge Everett told Lamb and Goodwin that the jury had heard “truly awful evidence”, but he acknowledged that cases of this nature inevitably leave questions which cannot be answered.
The CPS’s explanation makes clear why prosecutors could not simply charge both adults with the physical assault and rely on the fact that one of them must have been responsible, because criminal convictions require evidence capable of satisfying the court beyond reasonable doubt, rather than a conclusion based on probability or suspicion. The recent Court of Appeal judgment in R v CGA and ZFX reinforces that point by demonstrating that even where it is obvious that a child must have been injured by one or other of two adults, convictions for personally causing those injuries cannot safely stand unless the evidence establishes who was responsible or provides a legally sustainable basis for holding both responsible.
In the Cheshire case, the prosecution says it therefore took the route that offered the strongest prospect of securing convictions against both adults rather than pursuing charges that might have resulted in both defendants being acquitted. That may explain how two adults could be convicted in connection with catastrophic injuries to a baby without either being convicted of actually carrying out the assault, but it does not resolve the question that has haunted the case from the beginning. The child survived, despite injuries that doctors said were consistent with extreme violence, but the court was never able to establish which of the two adults actually inflicted those injuries, and the people who may know the answer have never provided it. yet, the convicted pair received suspended sentences, despite being convicted.
That is the legal and human contradiction at the heart of the case. The criminal justice system secured convictions because the law provides a way of holding adults accountable when a child is seriously harmed in a household, while the same requirement to prove an individual’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt meant that the court could not identify the person who actually carried out the violence.
AD: Heritage And Restaurant Lounge Bar