Goncalves Taborda & Olaiya-Imam v R: Court of Appeal upholds murder and child death convictions following expert evidence dispute

The Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) has dismissed appeals against conviction brought by Eloddie Goncalves Taborda and Muritala Olaiya-Imam, whilst reducing Olaiya-Imam's sentence from ten to seven years' imprisonment. The judgement, handed down on 20 May 2026, turned substantially on contested expert pathological evidence concerning injuries sustained by an eleven-week-old infant, Malik, who died on 19 August 2020.

Goncalves Taborda had been convicted of murder, cruelty to a person under 16, assault on an emergency worker, and perverting the course of justice at the Crown Court at Chelmsford in July 2023. She received a life sentence with a minimum term of 17 years. Olaiya-Imam, her partner, was convicted of allowing the death of a child contrary to section 5 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004, cruelty to a person under 16, and perverting the course of justice. He was sentenced to ten years.

The prosecution's case rested on evidence that Goncalves Taborda had violently shaken Malik and struck his head against a hard surface while under the influence of alcohol, and that an earlier non-accidental injury to his left wrist, sustained three to six days before his death, demonstrated a pre-existing pattern of harm which Olaiya-Imam knew or ought to have known about.

The expert dispute

The central issue on appeal was whether Malik had sustained a classic metaphyseal lesion to his left wrist in the days preceding his death. The original trial evidence came from Professor Mangham, a consultant paediatric pathologist. Following post-trial disclosure of adverse judicial comment concerning him in separate family proceedings, the Full Court directed the instruction of fresh expert evidence.

Professor Freemont, an osteoarticular pathologist with over 30 years' experience, disputed the diagnosis. He maintained that histological examination did not reveal changes diagnostic of a classic metaphyseal lesion and, in his initial report, declined to identify any fracture outside the two-to-twelve-hour timeframe of the fatal attack. He later acknowledged an older injury, which he dated to approximately 13 days before Malik's death, while continuing to resist the lesion classification.

The court was unpersuaded by Professor Freemont's evidence. Lord Justice Jeremy Baker, giving the judgement of the court, noted that Professor Freemont had shown "an unwillingness to diagnose the presence of a classic metaphyseal lesion... borne almost entirely out of its association with inflicted trauma." His position had shifted between reports, and the court found his reasoning on the mechanism of injury insufficiently credible.

In contrast, the evidence of Professor Mangham, Dr Annavarapu, and Dr Rosenberg, an American specialist in musculoskeletal pathology with over 40 years' experience, was consistent and compelling. Dr Rosenberg identified an older injury caused by torsional traction approximately four days before death, a mechanism he specifically distinguished from compression. The application to admit Professor Freemont's evidence was refused.

Sentence

On sentence, the court accepted that the ten-year term imposed on Olaiya-Imam was excessive. His awareness of the risk to Malik arose only from the earlier wrist injury, which had occurred within a relatively short window. The court held that his culpability fell within category C under the relevant sentencing guideline, with a starting point of five years, though a substantial uplift was warranted given his failure to act on the applicant's continuing alcohol consumption. A sentence of seven years was substituted.

The applicant's minimum term of 17 years was found not to be manifestly excessive and her renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused.