Lindsay Clancy trial | How would the case differ in the UK?

0:00The Lindsey Clancy trial has put the spotlight on terms we rarely discuss. Let's talk about two of them now. Phylliside and Infantoside. Phylliside is defined as a parent killing their daughter or son regardless of age. Lindsey's admitted killings of Korra and Dawson would be Phylliside. Callin's death is Infantoside. He was eight months old. That's the killing of an infant under age one. The medical journal World Psychiatry points out many countries reduce the penalty for mothers who kill their children up to one year of age based on the principle that a woman who commits Infantoside does so because the balance of her mind is disturbed by reason of her not having fully recovered from the effect of giving birth to a child. Canada and Australia are two such countries that reduce the penalty. World Psychiatry says the majority of nations that have Infantoside laws have followed the British precedent. Joining us now is Daily Mail Crime Correspondent Rachel Sharp. She's been covering the Lindsey Clancy trial in Plymouth for audiences in the UK primarily.

1:05So Rachel, about 24 countries around the world have Infantoside acts. Of course, the US is not one of them. But the UK is since 1938 and is considered the global model. So if the killings of Clancy's children had happened in the UK, how would the prosecution of that defend and be different from what we've witnessed in this trial? Yes, so the way the UK's Infantoside act works is that if a woman has given birth within the last 12 months and kills their child, that they can be charged with Infantoside instead of murder. And that would be, you know, if it was deemed that she, that her mind had been negatively impacted by childbirth or by lactation. And so what that would have looked like in this case is that the prosecution could have charged her within Infantoside instead of murder. But it also could have been a case of it offered the defence, a form of defence instead. So it could have gone sort of either way in that sense.

2:08But I think it's interesting that, you know, this law has been on the books for almost 90 years in the UK. And as you mentioned, such a law does not yet exist over here. And here in this case, Clancy is facing a charge of first-degree murder and we know in Massachusetts that if convicted of that charge, that is life in prison without parole. But within Infantoside, the penalty would be much lower, correct or maybe even a mental health facility. Yeah, so over there it would be treated in a similar sense to manslaughter, which manslaughter with diminished responsibility. So that is obviously a lot lesser of a sentence and sometimes not even a custodial sentence at all. Wow. Okay, so let's talk about the differences between the two countries on healthcare. Evidence in the Clancy trial revealed more than a dozen psychiatric appointments, more than two dozen prescribed medications, two calls to a suicide hotline.

3:08Still, it does seem based on the evidence that Clancy did not get the hope that she needed. How would a woman in the UK find similar help? Would it be easier to come by? So I think that's something that's really, you know, raised a lot of questions in this case. Because the way it works in the UK is we obviously have the NHS. And with that, you have an NHS number. So your healthcare is a bit more centralized, you know? You could, I could go to a doctor there and they can pull up my medical history and see what are the doctors I've gone to and my treatment and health records there. Whereas here we obviously have Linsic Lancy in the form and leading up to the killings. So multiple different providers and was prescribed multiple different medications from them all. And, you know, there was no connection between them, which obviously we understand that that is to do with hippo laws that they can't just access your different medical records.

4:09But they can of course ask the patient if they can reach out and get those medical records. And that was something that really came up during this trial, you know, Kevin Reddington kept pressing. Each of the providers did you call, did you ask Linsic if you could contact the other providers? Did you ask if you could get her medical records? And, you know, in each case the answer was no. So that was something that really stood out to me as that difference there. Especially when you're looking at, you know, this case where over medication is a big part of the defences case. And also when you're dealing with someone with very severe mental health issues, you know, this was a woman who was suicidal and very severely depressed. And you're relying on her to give an honest account of the treatment she's getting, of the medication she's getting, and also to advocate for herself. I have no doubt you've covered a lot of trials. I wonder when you were covering this one where medical history was such a huge part of the defense,

5:09did it surprise you how difficult it is for one medical provider to get the medical records from another medical provider? Yeah, I mean, obviously with the hippo laws, that is something that is understandable. But I think it was, you know, I think it was just a point that was really hammered home here. And, you know, having been part of both, you know, I've received healthcare here and in the UK. It's something I hadn't really thought about personally until this trial and that coming to light. And, you know, it really does raise those questions. And I think it has a lot of people thinking about those questions. And it's points like that that I think have made this case, which broader than the trial taking place in the courtroom behind us. And more looking more broadly at the healthcare system overall, and whether there are gaps in it that could prevent something like this in future. No doubt it is raising really important issues that we need to talk about more than we have been thus far. So in your coverage of the trial for the Daily Mail, you've referred to it several times,

6:13the Lindsey Clancy trial, as America's saddest murder trial. And it's hard to argue with that description. But I just wonder how you landed on that word sad as opposed to so many other adjectives that also fit this trial. Yeah, I mean, I can't personally take credit for that. The use of that phrase. But I think it certainly sums up what we're dealing with here, you know. I think, you know, this is such a sad tragic case. You've got three adorable little children who are dead. And it's unlike a lot of murder cases that, you know, I've covered and that I think a lot of crime reporters have covered and worked on. And, you know, a lot of crime cases that gain a lot of traction over here and gain a lot of interest. Because the difference is here. This isn't about finding the person that committed this awful act. Lindsey has obviously admitted that she was the person who killed the three children. It's about what was going on in her mind at the time and basically whether she could stop herself.

7:18And, you know, obviously we've mentioned all the medications and everything like that. But I think, you know, it's just, it is a case that I think everyone seems, you know, in agreement with that it is just such a tragedy. And by all accounts, everyone has said, up until her severe mental health issues, this was a woman who was a good mother who doted on her children and really cared about them. And was a wonderful mother up until her struggles with mental health. So, I think sad is just, it's, yeah, sad and tragic cases, almost just the only way to sort of describe what's going on here. You know, another unique thing about this case is we've heard so often from our viewers what they think, what their questions are. I wonder when people are consuming your content in the UK, what are they saying back to you about this trial and the details around it?

8:19Yeah, I mean, it's really interesting because, you know, in the first few weeks of the trial, you know, this is, I'm here reporting for the US. And we are, you know, it's a huge case over here and something our US readers are very interested in. But it didn't really have the momentum over in the UK until the last couple of weeks. And that's really been, you know, as the cases grown in interest on social media, as well as outside the courthouse. That's when the UK seems to have really started paying attention to this. And, you know, I've heard lots from my UK colleagues, from friends, from family, from readers. And the overwhelming census that I've got from them is that, you know, there's a lot of sympathy here for Lindsey Clancy. That's been the overarching, the overwhelming sort of consensus that I've heard from people. And they're also really looking at the American healthcare system and, you know, wondering about the various aspects of that.

9:19You know, in particular, people are, you know, sort of saying that the amount of medications, that's something that UK readers really believe is something that is quite an American issue. You know, in the UK, medication is not given out as freely as it seems to be over here. So there's certainly been, you know, a lot of sort of questions around that. But also, I think, you know, post-partamental health issues impact women all over the world. So, it's, while it is, you know, there is a lot of questions about the American system. It is also issues that I think has everyone talking and everyone relating to wherever they are. Well, as you know, Rachel, New England and the UK have connections that go back centuries. And now, in both places, we're all waiting for that jury to come back with a verdict. Thank you so much for spending some time talking with us. Rachel Sharp from The Daily Mail. Thank you.