Rex v Hedges [2025] EWCA Crim 1051

Court of Appeal (criminal division) 

On appeal from Crown Court at Maidstone , Mr Justice Cavanagh 

The parties: 

Respondent: Rex 

Applicant : Hedges 

Judgment : 1st August 2025 

Previous ruling: 

13/11/2023 at the Crown Court in Maidstone applicants Sian Hedges and Jack Benham were convicted of murder of the child Alfie Phillips.

02/07/2025 renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction by the applicant. An essential issue was the admissibility of expert forensic odontological evidence as to bite marks.  

Facts of the case: 

• 27/11/2020 Alfie was last seen alive by other people in the early evening. 

• 28/11/2020 at 11:30 am the applicant and Benham left the caravan carrying Alfie, he was dead. 

• The paramedics arrived at the scene 10 minutes later - Alfie had rigor mortis , hypostasis and postmortem staining. 

• The doctor who saw Alfie's body in hospital had noted he had multiple bruises in his face and deformity. There were fractures to my left wrist and right forearm. 

• Medical investigation revealed Alfie had sustained numerous and significant injuries leading to his death. He had abrasions and bruises to his face and head, some of these injuries were caused by fingernails. 

• There was evidence of blunt force trauma to the mouth, a result of compressive injury consistent with face smothered. Nursing to the front of the neck and perennial haemorrhages to the left eye. 

• The pathologists determine fractures occurred within 12 hours of Alfie's death. Evidence of present cocaine and metabolite cocaine in Alfie’s blood and urine. This could be a result from passive inhalation of the drug or touching a surface contaminated with it. (6) 

• The pathologists concluded two injuries (right forearm and back) were ‘probable’ bite marks. (9) the marks were determined by the scale under British Association of Forensic Odontologists.  There is a scale with four descriptions for a suspected bite mark. Exclusion (injury is not a bite mark) , possible (patterning of the injury may be caused by teeth) , probable (patterning of injury is strongly suggestive to be caused by teeth) and definite (no reasonable doubt that the mark was left by teeth). 

Bite mark evidence and its significance: 

The prosecution explained to the jury that each defendant must have been aware of such activity as the caravan was a confined space. They must have supported and encouraged one another to act against Alfie. The responsibility of the bite mark fell on either applicant as they were the only ones in contact with Alfie to his death. 

October 2020 text message exchanged: 

Hedges “the little shit bit my arm this morning. It fucking hurt” 

Benham “lol, bite him back, babes, just not as hard”

Forensic Odontology evidence at trial: 

Bentham had supported the evidence outlined by Dr Marsden as the injuries inflicted would point towards the applicant. He was not scientifically linked to any biting of the child.

Dr Marsden : “He could exclude Jack Bentham from having caused the injury to Alfie’s back because his dentition would not have permitted him to have left that mark”  

Professor Iain Pretty : “there was no sufficiently strong scientific basis for ever admitting evidence of bite mark identification and bite mark comparison at trial” .  This was evidence which was relied upon by the applicant in challenging expert forensic deontology evidence on bite marks. 

Applicant submissions: Application for leave

Admissibility of forensic odontological evidence is not regulated or tested to be admitted at a criminal trial. 

1. It is not regulated by the forensic science regulator

2. It is not the subject matter of Crown Prosecution Service guidance  

3. No primer has been produced on the subject 

Respondent submissions: 

1. Dr Marsden was an experienced forensic odontologist. He examined photographs of alleged bite marks or impressions taken from applicant and Benham.

2. Context of evidence was important. 

3. The reports that Professor Pretty relied upon were limited, especially to the American jurisdiction. 

Judgement: 

• Test of admissibility of expert opinion evidence is outlined in Criminal Practice Direction 7.1.1 “expert opinion evi

• dence

• is admissible in criminal proceedings, if in summary: it is relevant to a matter in issue in the proceedings, it is needed to provide the court with information likely to be relevant outside the courts own knowledge and experience, the witness is competent to give that opinion, and the expert opinion is sufficiently reliable to be admitted”

• Further CPD 7.1.2 sets out factors which the court takes into account for determining the reliability of expert opinions. In particular there is relevance to (a) to © and (h) to (i).  

• R v Dlugosz “it is essential to recall the principle which is applicable, namely, in determining the issue of admissibility, the court must be satisfied that there is a sufficiently reliable scientific base for the evidence to be admitted”

Ratio Decidendi: 

• Sufficient reliability 

  • It is the duty of any expert to draw the courts attention to research that is in contradiction to the experts forming views. The court is able to have concluded views against contemporary academic research and opinions.  

  • Dr Marsden's evidence was “notably careful and cautious and wholly in line with modern practice”.

• Competence 

  • Dr Marsden evidence was “sufficiently robust” to be placed before a jury.

  • The totality of evidence proves that the applicant was either responsible for some or all of the violence, or acted to assist or encourage the person who inflicted it. 

Bibliography

British Association of Forensic Odontologists ‘Guideline for Good Practice in Bite Mark Identification and Analysis’ (2010)  Rex v Hedges [2025] EWCA Crim 1051

R v Duplugosz [2013] EWCA Crim 2 Criminal Practice Direction 7.1.1