[诸葛国际][英研]内部培训教材之阅读练习Ⅱ-样篇02

CampusHR

阅读Ⅱ的样篇这是最后一个了，没有了哦。
PART II LONG PASSAGESOur Nightmare Is Over ---There Are No WinnersBy Frances Gibb and Michael Horsnell SALLY CLARK, the solicitor jailed for life for murdering her two baby sons, left court a free woman yesterday after her conviction was overturned. But her reaction, having spent more than three years in jail for a crime she consistently denied, was subdued."Today is not a victory," she said. "We are not victorious. There are no winners here. We have all lost out. We simply feel relief that our nightmare is finally at an end."Outside the High Court in London, Mrs Clark, 38, thanked her husband, Stephen, for standing by her in a tireless five-year campaign to prove her innocence. "He has stood by me and supported me throughout this whole nightmare, not through blind love or unthinking loyalty, but because he knows me better than anyone else and knows how much I loved our babies."The couple returned to their home in Wilmslow, Cheshire, and their four-year-old son.Mrs Clark , the daughter of a senior police officer, was convicted at Chester Crown Court in November 1999 of smothering her son Christopher in December 1996 ,when he was 11 weeks old, and Harry, who was eight weeks old, in January 1998.Yesterday three Appeal Court judges ruled that the conviction was unsafe because vital evidence that could have cleared her had been kept secret from her defence team.The General Medical Council said later that it was considering whether to take action against two pathologists whose evidence helped to convict her. Mr and Mrs Clark will consider taking civil action for her three-year prison ordeal as well as seeking compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority.On hearing that she had not received a fair trial and that she would be freed, Mrs Clark's face momentarily crumpled and she dissolved into tears behind the iron bars of the dock, where she sat with a security guard. She then looked across the court, smiled and mouthed the words "I love you" to her husband, who had clasped his head in his hands before standing and raising both arms in triumph. They were the same words he had mouthed to her as she left the dock when convicted.Outside the court they kissed and Mrs Clark hugged both him and her father, Frank Lockyer, retired divisional commander with the Wiltshire Constabulary.Mr Lockyer, 72, said: "My reaction is one of total admiration for my daughter and son-in-law for the way they have coped with this for five years. It's easy to be proud of one's daughter taking A levels and getting a university degree, but the real time to be proud is how they react when the chips are down."His daughter's successful appeal centred on microbiological post-mortem test results on Harry— finally obtained by Mr Clark and the couple's lawyers----Which suggested that he died suddenly in reaction to a bacterial infection.Clare Montgomery, QC, for Mrs Clark, told Lord Justice Kay, Mrs Justice Holland that at the end of 2000 clear evidence had emerged of a staphylococcus aureus infection that had spread as far as Harry's cerebral spinal fluid.She said that the evidence had been known since February 1998 to the prosecution pathologist, Alan Williams, who had carried out post-mortem examinations on both babies.Ms Montgomery said that its non-disclosure to the defence and the jury had led to a serious miscarriage of justice.Lord Justice Kay said: "This resulted from the failure of the pathologist to share with other doctors investigating the cause of death information that a competent pathologist ought to have appreciated needed to be assessed before any conclusion was reached. We have no doubt that the resulting convictions are, therefore, unsafe and must be quashed." He added: "With commendable good sense, the prosecution have themselves decided that no retrial can take place.'Dr Williams, a Home Office pathologist, declined to attend court to explain why he had not disclosed the evidence. The General Medical Council is now considering whether to take action against Dr Williams, who initially said that Harry had died from being shaken, then changed his finding during the trial to smothering.Michael Green, Professor of Forensic Pathology at Sheffield University, who had since retired, also changed his opinion about the cause of death.Mrs Clark, dressed in a black woolen cardigan and dark grey trousers, appealed for privacy so that she could rebuild her and her family's lives. "Being separated from my husband for so long has been a living hell," she said. "Being deprived of more than three years of being a mum to our little boy has been even worse. And yet somehow, despite our separation and against all the odds, we have managed to remain a family and stay close. My little boy knows that he has a mummy and daddy who love him very much, and that's what counts."Sally Clark was the victim of the failure of two senior doctors to give reliable evidence at her trial, leading to calls for reform of the handling of cot-death cases.Mrs Clark's children, like two thirds of babies who die of infant death syndrome, were seen by a general pathologist rather than a paediatric pathologist. The Foundation for the Study of Infant Death, backed by senior paediatricians, said that the errors made by Alan Williams in the case meant this practice had to end.Dr Williams was criticised by the Appeal Court judges for withholding crucial information about the probable natural cause of death of Harry, her second son.He is being investigated by the General Medical Council after it emerged that he failed to reveal to the defence the results of tests which showed the child's spinal fluid was infected with high levels of the staphylococcus aureus bacteria.Two years ago, a manslaughter prosecution against a dentist accused of killing a five-year-old girl collapsed after Dr Williams admitted making an error in the examination of the body.Another doctor, Professor Sir Roy Meadow, a former president of the Royal College of Child Health, told the jury that there was a one in 73 million chance of both Mrs Clark's sons dying of cot death. That figure has now been discredited, with experts agreeing the real statistic is closer to one in 60.At the time he was the leading proponent of what some call "Meadow's Law", that "one cot death is a tragedy, two is suspicious, and three is murder". Sir Roy has since admitted that he made an error with his statistic.However, research shows that once a family has one cot death, genetic weaknesses make a sibling much more likely to die. Evidence shows that a second sibling dies of cot death every year in Britain.  1. Do you think that Mrs Calrk had been wronged? Why?2. Why do you think Mr Lockyer was proud of his daughter and son-in-law?3. If Mrs Clark's two baby sons were not smothered, what was the cause of their death?4. What implications does the cot death case have to the legal system of UK?5. What did Mr Clark do to his wife after her condemnation to life imprisonment for a crime she consistently denied?   
国际关系论坛www.newslist.com.cn欢迎您