Jesse Harvey: Dads appeal against shaking conviction for sons injuries rejected

A court has upheld a fathers conviction for seriously injuring his infant son, finding it was open for the jury to find him guilty. Seven-week-old, Casey, was rushed to the Ballarat Base Hospital in April 2017 where extensive brain injuries were discovered.

A court has upheld a father’s conviction for seriously injuring his infant son, finding it “was open” for the jury to find him guilty.

Seven-week-old, Casey, was rushed to the Ballarat Base Hospital in April 2017 where extensive brain injuries were discovered.

He survived but is expected to remain severely disabled and dependent on carers for the rest of his life.

His father, Jesse Harvey, was found guilty two years later by a jury of recklessly causing serious injury to his son in a shaking incident earlier the same day.

He was jailed for eight years in May 2019.

Harvey returned before the Court of Appeal on Tuesday, where a panel of three judges rejected his attempt to overturn the conviction after conducting their own “independent assessment of the evidence”.

Harvey had argued the jury could not have excluded the possibility his son’s injuries were caused by an earlier, unknown incident of trauma, pre-existing medical conditions or “unknown causes”.

He challenged the expert testimony of forensic paediatrician Dr Jo Tully, who opined the injuries were caused by inflicted head trauma.

The court was told Harvey and his son had moved to Ballarat from South Australia just days before the injuries after his relationship with Casey’s mother ended.

The pair moved in with Harvey’s mother, Catherine Scott, and his brother, Peter Scott.

During the initial trial, Havey’s defence had suggested Casey’s injuries could have been caused by Mr Scott, which he rejected as a “load of bulls--t”.

Handing down their findings, Justices Karin Emerton, Phillip Priest and Maree Kennedy found the verdict was not unsafe or unsatisfactory.

“There is nothing to be said about unknown causes,” they wrote.

“That submission is purely speculative. It ignores the substantial evidence of Dr Tully about the cause of the combination of injuries identified in Casey.

“We are satisfied that it was open to the jury to be satisfied of guilt.”

ncG1vNJzZmivp6x7r7HWrGWcp51jrrZ7zZqroqeelrlwwsicq6iqmZZ8pLvUq6usZZyWxHC2xKyqnmWYlr%2B3sdhmm5qco2KusbzEmqNmmZeWtq%2B%2F02aqoZmbnruoecKopa%2Bhk6m2sLqMn6arZaOku7R5yKehrqqZmsBuvsSjnJyslZl8r7HWrGSsrJ%2BnxnCyxJyZnJuSbLJ1gsJvam9vkpqDdHzAapxwmmlpsXWBxQ%3D%3D

 Share!