A mum who pleaded guilty to killing her newborn son more than 25 years ago will be sentenced today. The body of the tiny infant, who came to be known as Baby Callum, was discovered in woodland close to Gulliver's World in Warrington on March 14 1998.
Joanne Sharkey, of Denham Close in Croxteth, was charged in April 2024 with murdering the child, who was believed to be hours old at the time of his death, and concealing the birth. But the 55-year-old admitted manslaughter on the basis of diminished responsibility, as well as concealing the birth of a child, on the first day of her trial at Liverpool Crown Court earlier this month.
The Crown Prosecution Service deemed the alternative pleas acceptable after it was found Sharkey had been suffering from a "moderate to severe depressive illness" which "substantially impaired her ability to form rational judgement and exercise self control".
The body of the newborn, who was named Baby Callum after the Callands area of Warrington where he was found, was discovered at around 10.45am on the day in question by a dog-walker who was with his son. The man came across two knotted bin bags in a wooded area off Camp Road, close to the children's theme park, and made the harrowing discovery after prodding a hole in the side of the bags.
Baby Callum was believed to have been born full term and experts said his body was discovered within days of his birth. However, the identity of his parents remained a mystery despite an extensive police operation that included house-to-house enquiries, nearly 500 DNA swabs from local residents and hundreds of interviews. Detectives also scoured hospitals, midwifery services, GPs and schools to identify any young females who may have recently given birth.
The only lead came from a witness who reported seeing a distressed female leaving the area where the baby was found days beforehand, as well as noticing the bin bags in situ. This led to an artist’s impression of the suspect being created, but this too proved fruitless.
However, a relative of Sharkey’s was subsequently added to the police national DNA database, leading to a breakthrough in the cold case in 2022 and Sharkey being identified as being the child's mum. She and the child’s father, who already shared a 20-month-old son at the time of Baby Callum’s death, were arrested as a result on July 28 2023. No further police action was taken against Sharkey’s husband after it was understood that he was unaware of his wife’s pregnancy and the baby’s subsequent birth and death.
It is believed Sharkey, then 28, had given birth in the bathroom of her Croxteth family home before she killed her son and drove to Warrington, where she abandoned his body. His cause of death was initially reported as asphyxiation following an inquest in 1998, with a post-mortem investigation finding injuries to his head and neck as well as wads of tissue within his mouth and neck. However, following a modern day review of the case, his cause of death is now being treated as "unascertained".
A funeral service arranged by Warrington residents following Baby Callum's death was attended by around 150 people. His headstone at Warrington Cemetery was inscribed: "Baby Callum, precious child of God. Laid to rest July 27, 1998. With love, from the people of Warrington."
Following Sharkey's pleas, specialist CPS prosecutor Adam Till said: "This has been a complex case about a baby whose life was unfairly cut short. He would have been an adult today and it’s devastating to think of the life he could have had. The circumstances of his death have deeply affected everyone who has been involved in this case as well as the wider community.
"We carefully considered and accepted a guilty plea to manslaughter following a thorough review of the psychiatric reports and medical evidence. The evidence concluded that Sharkey’s mental state was significantly impaired at the time of the offence due to a medical condition which diminished her criminal responsibility. While the outcome of this case will never bring the baby back, we hope it brings a small measure of comfort to everyone who has been affected by this awful case."
High Court judge Mrs Justice Eady is due to pass sentence from 11.30am, with Jonas Hankin KC and Lisa Hancox appearing for the prosecution and Sharkey represented by Nina Grahame KC and Rebecca Filletti. The ECHO's court and crime reporters Adam Everett and Patrick Edrich will provide live updates from today's hearing in courtroom 51.
Patrick Edrich
Judge adjourns sentencing until for two weeks
The judge addresses counsel: “This is a case where I need to reflect and think about very carefully what is the appropriate course. While I appreciate the stress involved in putting sentence off to another date, I’m afraid that is where i think we are”
This will now take place on either April 3 or 4, with the exact date to be fixed later.
Justice Eady says “the position of bail will stay the same”.
The judge tells Sharkey: “Mrs Sharkey, would you please stand? This is a case where I need to reflect on what I have heard. I am not in a position to go on to pass sentence this afternoon.
"I appreciate the stress that causes you and family members. I am sorry about that but it is more important if I make sure I make the right decision rather than trying to rush things on a Friday afternoon.”
Patrick Edrich
'Immediate custody can be avoided' says defence counsel
The defence counsel continues: “It’s clear an immediate custodial sentence would punish Joanne Sharkey very significantly. She would be in personal danger. She would receive very little therapeutic assistance.
“In the context of her truthful account, the defence observes that she has already had the punishment of 26 years of guilt. She has had the punishment of the proceedings and the impact on her and the people she cares about. These are not punishments that will end today. The defence ask the question, how much more punishment does Joanne Sharkey require?
“This is an offence founded in tragedy. There is, the defence submit, a real danger if the prosecution’s submissions are accepted and the balance of society somehow takes precedence, there is a real danger that punishment of immediate custody might operate more similarly to being retribution.
“What we say overall is the total sentence of imprisonment that would be appropriate, addressing the complexity and bringing appropriate compassion to bear, should be moderate such that immediate custody could be avoided. If immediate custody was avoided, a sentence would meet all requirements for the purposes of sentence. That is a course we ask my lady to adopt.
“It goes perhaps without saying that if my lady is not so persuaded, we ask my lady to take these factors into account and that any immediate imprisonment should be as short as necessary to reflect the substantial personal mitigation and all of the other matters we have raised.”
KEY EVENT
'You can see the effect all this has had on her. She has lived with this for so many years'
Ms Filletti now reads Matthew Sharkey’s statement, which is again dated March 19 2025.
He says he works full time and owns his own home with his partner Danni.
The statement says: “Growing up I was lucky to have my mum. She always looked after and protected me. I always had everything I needed. I was always loved and had support.
“I never knew if my mum was having a tough time as she was always good at putting a brave face on. She brought me up to be a caring, loving person with manners and to treat others with respect.
“She does not like to burden me with any issues as she does not want to cause me any upset. My mum assisted me in progressing my career. She was always behind me and supporting me.
“When we moved into our home, my mum continued to support me and make sure I had everything I needed. She came to the home and decorated with Danni. My mum did everything she could.
“These proceedings have taken a toll on us as a family. We have all suffered a loss. This has all come as a shock to us. I never thought my mum would be the subject of any court proceedings. We are still all grieving over what has happened. We as a family are supporting my mum and standing by her. I will always support my mum.
“I know my mum and I know she has remorse for all that has happened and the heartbreak caused. She’s accepting of her guilt and ready to face any sentence seen fit.
“My mum always tried to protect us from heartbreak, upset and stress and knows how these proceedings have had an impact on us all.
“”I know my mum is still suffering with her mental health now. I can see the difference in her. The brave face she used to put on has faded. You can see the effect all this has had on her. She has lived with this for so many years. Now it is all out and she’s facing her punishment. I hope she can receive the help she needs. I will be there every step of the way to support her in whatever she needs.”
During the statements the man who accompanies Sharkey to the dock, believed to be her son Matthew, could be heard crying in the public gallery while hugging a man sitting to his right.
KEY EVENT
Sharkey's husband Neil tells the court 'I'm supporting Joanne and always will...I've loved her since the first time I saw her'
Ms Grahame says: “Family and friends attend today to support her. Their feelings are almost indescribable. Neil Sharkey and Matthew Sharkey are victims in this case in the very real sense but also as defined by law.”
She asks that Ms Filletti be given permission to read the statements of Neil and Matthew Sharkey.
The defence junior rises. She reads Neil Sharkey’s statement, dated from March 19 2025, first.
The statement says: “I have been married to Joanne for 31 years. We have spent the last 12 months apart since the arrests as I've been in the UAE working. I've recently returned to the UK as I have a new job but this is based in the south and I only come home at weekends.
“I was not the greatest husband and father. It was all left to Joanne. Joanne was an amazing mother to Matthew. She has single handedly raised Matthew to be one of the nicest people I've known. I’m so proud of Matthew, what he’s achieved and the person he is. This is all down to Joanne.
“I taught him to be a boy, play sports and look after himself. Joanne did the rest. Since I found out what happened I've been broken. There’s a piece of me that has disappeared and will never come back. I blame myself for what happened. I was not the easiest person to live with. It was difficult.
“I’m supporting Joanne and always will. She has been my best friend for 31 years. I’ve loved her since the first time I saw her.
“I know she is remorseful and is accepting of any punishment the courts deem suitable. I hope Joanne can receive the help she requires to address her mental health and as a family we will be here to support her.”
KEY EVENT
The Sharkey family has been 'fractured to its very core' following arrest
Ms Grahame says: “It's right to say Mrs Sharkey is an educated woman. She has possessed in her life organisational skills and practical knowledge. It’s right to say she is also a much loved wife and mother and a valued colleague and friend.
“Given these qualities, this positive good character that she did have, she could and we suggest would without doubt have taken steps to seek help after the birth of her son Matthew had she been able to do so. She would have taken steps to seek therapeutic help, but her mental condition led to distorted thought processes regarding the potential consequences resulting in her losing the child she already had.
“She took none of the steps an intelligent woman would be expected to do. She took no steps to protect herself from the tragic horror of what happened thereafter. She gave birth panicked, terrified and in pain. It is inconceivable she would have done this were it not for this mental illness.
“Mrs Sharkey’s remorse is evident in every minute of those interviews. Her presentation is flat and uncertain, indicative of her mental state and neurodiverse traits.
“The impact on her close family, most notably her husband and son, she bears that burden too now of a family that frankly has been fractured to its very core. The defence says if critical comment were to be made of Joanne Sharkey’s failure to come forward, perhaps one can be compassionate enough to consider the devastation this would bring on the people she loved if she did this. So she lived with this. She has remembered what she did every single day. Her remorse is genuine and absolute. We say this cannot be in doubt.”
Patrick Edrich
Defence says appropriate reduction makes sentence capable of being suspended
Ms Grahame: “Mrs Sharkey was on remand for seven days at the outset of proceedings. She has been on a qualifying curfew. To date, the qualifying curfew is 332 days. Half those days will count.”
Ms Grahame suggests that such a reduction could result in a sentence which is "capable of proper consideration for suspension".
She continues: “Custody weighs more heavily on somebody with psychiatric conditions and can have the effect of exacerbating problems. It is observed that underlying trauma exists in addition to the traits. These need to be addressed and dealt with.
“The question ultimately is whether immediate custody is unavoidable or whether a suspended sentence would be the more appropriate disposal. That is the course we urge you to consider taking in this case.”
Patrick Edrich
'Mrs Sharkey made the fullest possible admissions she was able to make in her lengthy interviews'
Ms Grahame submits that Sharkey could receive a full one third credit for her guilty plea.
“She never denied that the baby had been born alive. She simply didn’t know. Given she didn’t know, it’s right to say the pathologists didn’t know. They couldn’t reach a conclusion.
“Mrs Sharkey has of course been impacted in terms of her mental health by these proceedings. We don’t suggest the type of condition she was suffering at the time has continued until now. But the impact of these proceedings has been enormous. That has impacted on the ability to advise and take instructions.
“This is an exceptional case. The interests of justice would dictate that a defendant should not be penalised for fully examining legal issues.
“Mrs Sharkey made the fullest possible admissions she was able to make in her lengthy interviews. Her submissions have never been a firm denial. They have been an examination of the necessary factors.
“Those admissions in interview are, we suggest, a powerful and important feature of mitigation in this case, not easy and taking a great deal of courage. She made them in fact before she was even interviewed.”
Patrick Edrich
Sharkey acted in 'panic, fear and chaos' when disposing of baby's body
The defence counsel says: “One of the complexities is the inter-relationship between counts one and two. These are effectively one act. It’s a continuing act, but it’s one act.
“Concealment and attempted concealment almost invariably follows a traumatic birth where culpability is reduced by ill health. Her mental condition and ability to function remained the same throughout. They were impacted by the same mental illness throughout.
“She was able to function. It doesn’t mean her skills improved or lessened. She was able to conduct herself in a basic way and did so.
“Given the area she lived in north Liverpool one has to wonder why concealment of this infant ignored the huge number of locations available. Waterways, secluded woodlands. But rather, ended up parking in an area characterised by footpaths, walkers, bordered by a theme park. This was not an effective function. It was panic, fear, chaotic, unplanned and characterised by illogical thought processes.
“Count two and count one work together, part of a continuing act. She accepts responsibility for both.”
Patrick Edrich
Defence says Sharkey has 'never suggested all responsibility was completely extinguished by her mental illness'
Ms Grahame said: “The plea reflects what was agreed by the psychiatrists, depression of at least moderate severity. Both psychiatrists agree that when it came to labour, that depressive state would have exacerbated the state of an unattended birth such as this.”
Ms Grahame says of “possible autistic traits or possible personality traits”, “These would have acted to exacerbate this severe trauma. All of the issues should be assessed in relation to count one and count two equally.
“The prosecution after full review of evidence suggests the retained response falls into the lower category. We agree.
“Manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility is an offence that requires some degree of retained responsibility. That’s why it is a criminal offence. Mrs Sharkey does not suggest she had no comprehension whatsoever of the nature of her acts. She never has suggested all responsibility was completely extinguished by her mental illness.
“What we say is simply this. The degree of responsibility is very significantly reduced by her mental illness during pregnancy, during the birth and afterwards.
“She did not seek help of course. She withdrew and isolated herself. She tried to cope. All of these are factors that impacted on her failure to seek help.”
Patrick Edrich
Sharkey tore umbilical cord in 'chaotic and unplanned' birth
Ms Grahame continues: “She is able to articulate and recall that she wanted to silence the infant by covering its mouth. She accepts that the dreadful outcome was the same and the significant disturbed thought processes she was undergoing were as described.
“It’s suggested Mrs Sharkey’s acts were competently performed. We disagree. The situation was unplanned. The giving of birth was chaotic. Joanne Sharkey used material that must have been immediately available to hand to her. It was tissue. It was clear it was toilet tissue that must have been used. She had nothing to assist her with any of the actions that had to follow. This was such a chaotic and unplanned situation she didn’t have any item to cut the umbilical cord, which was torn and not cut.
“As far as injuries to the infant are concerned. How the bruising came about is unclear. The defence say the only proper inference was it not one single act that caused it. Delivery could well have caused some of that bruising. Some of it could have been caused when the baby fell out of her as the birth process completed. This is as much a possibility as some form of holding, although that is a possibility. There is no clear evidence. There is no clear inference that can be drawn.”
Patrick Edrich
'The primary intent was concealment on the day itself'
Ms Grahame: “By her guilty plea, Joanne Sharkey accepts her actions caused the death of her infant. She gave a very lengthy account of what she thought she could recall, what she thinks could have occurred and which she could not recall. The prosecution concedes her account in interview is supported by their own evidence and is likely to be honest and truthful.
“She was not evading. She was not being untruthful. Having said that, her account in interview is characterised throughout by recollections significantly limited by memory issues. Her memory issues are genuine too.
“Her interviews are characterised by genuine uncertainties, attempts to be helpful and cooperative including making assumptions and also characterised by question marks. For example, Joanne Sharkey assumed that she took time off sick when she gave birth. She just didn’t know. She couldn’t recall that and she couldn’t recall many other matters.
“What she did say and maintains, I can quote.
‘I can’t remember an awful lot about it. I’ve lost a lot of that. I can’t even remember. That’s what I'm saying. I can’t remember what time of day or night it was, whether Neil or Matthew were there. Perhaps he’d taken him out somewhere. I’m sure nobody was there. It was just me. I can’t remember if it was 3 o'clock in the morning or 3 o'clock in the afternoon, I’ve no idea. Was it the kitchen, bathroom? I don’t know, I can’t remember. I think it was quite easy, quick. And then it was a bit of a panic. There was no plan. There wasn’t a plan. I think it was just this baby. It’s come out. Then the head was there, and it was like a push’.
“She went on over several hours to try to recall more detail to try and work out what must have happened. What she remembers in the interview is that the baby made a noise during the process of the birth. It’s not completely clear precisely at what stage of the process this noise was made.
“She did recall her aim and desire was for the baby to make no further noise. She accepts that she caused the death. Her primary intent throughout was concealment. That had been her intent for nine months. The primary intent was concealment on the day itself.”
Patrick Edrich
Sharkey's family remain supportive
The judge takes up her position and Ms Grahame KC will now address the court.
She says: “We have statements from family and friends. There is a statement from Neil Sharkey, from Matthew Sharkey, from Daley Matthews, her husband’s fiance, and Susan Handley. Those people attend court today as most have throughout these proceedings. It’s right to say they remain supportive of Joanne Sharkey.”
Patrick Edrich
Hearing due to resume
Court has reassembled and the hearing is due to resume imminently.
Sharkey reenters the dock, with her bag this time being carried by a younger man in a navy blue hoodie.
Patrick Edrich
Joanne Sharkey arrived at court today with a hood and sunglasses covering her face
Patrick Edrich
'Brutality of the killing and determination of the child's death are capable of aggravating the killing'
Mr Hankin: “Should the court conclude that the defendant bears a lower level of responsibility, the starting point is seven years. The category range is three years to 12 years. The court should consider the context and factors relating to the defendant when considering an upward or downward adjustment.”
Of the aggravating features, he says: “A human being is probably never more vulnerable than at the moment of their birth. It is submitted that the brutality of the killing and determination of the child’s death are capable of aggravating the killing.
“The finger of suspicion was pointed at Neil Sharkey as potentially an accomplice and he was arrested and interviewed. Additionally, innocent young women were placed under suspicion. Many had to have DNA swabs to exclude them. Finally, the significant and long lasting impact on the local community.
“The prosecution identifies the following features reducing seriousness. They are the defendant’s positive good character before and since the offences and a lack of premeditation. In respect of the question of remorse, the court may wish to consider that the defendant resiled from her admissions in interview. She denied that the infant was born alive or that she deliberately caused his death, intending to kill him.
Instead the defendant put the prosecution to proof. Finally the fact of delay is not a mitigating factor. It is the fault and conduct of the def that has led to a break of 27 years.”
Mr Hankin says Sharkey is assessed as posing a low risk of serious harm to the public. He adds there is no evidence that she is now suffering from a mental disorder and invites the court to consider that the sentence on the manslaughter count is aggravated by the second count.
Mr Hankin states that Sharkey “ought not to be entitled to a full one third credit” for her guilty pleas. He finishes: “The prosecution submits the interest of society ought to prevail over the interests of the defendant”.
Mrs Justice Eady tells the court: “I am concerned that this is now not leaving us with time. Nobody will welcome me saying it. The most important thing is that I get this right.”
The court adjourns until 2.10pm.
Patrick Edrich
'The killing was competently performed' and 'the manner...was, relatively speaking, controlled'
Addressing the Sentencing Council’s guidelines on manslaughter by diminished responsibility, Mr Hankin says: “The mental disorder concerned was in 1998. The defendant is not now someone suffering a mental disorder.
“The first step is for the court to assess the degree of responsibility the defendant retained. The court is required to determine whether the defendant’s retained responsibility is to be categorised as medium, high or low.
“The central submission made by the prosecution is that the defendant’s abilities were substantially impaired but not abolished. Her ability to think rationally was substantially reduced and her ability to exercise self control was substantially weakened. However neither was completely abolished.
“Further it is submitted that the defendant's ability to understand the nature and consequences of her actions is substantially impaired is born out by the evidence. What the defendant did is suffocate her new born infant and dispose of the body. There is evidence of rational controlled behaviour.
“Mrs Sharkey was able to function normally in her capacity as a benefits officer, socially and in caring for her young child Matthew before and after the killing. The killing was competently performed. The defendant recognised it was necessary to deprive the infant of oxygen and did so.
“The manner of the killing was, relatively speaking, controlled. There was no evidence of violence beyond the application of force necessary to obstruct the airway and bring about the result. There was a determination to ensure the infant’s death. Inserting tissue into the mouth and throat could have no other sensible purpose.
“The prosecution invites the court to consider the sealing of the infant’s body inside plastic bags and decide whether that process could have had no other result than if the infant was still alive. The defendant quickly realised there was a need to clean the scene and dispose of the body. Neither the placenta nor the materials she must have used to clean the bathroom were found. No trace of blood was found in the house, the defendant’s clothing or the car.
“The prosecution accepts that the killing would not have occurred but for an undiagnosed depressive illness. The court may conclude that Mrs Sharkey’s retained responsibility falls into the lower category of blame. However the features outlined above the prosecution say lends support to the proposition that the defendant’s abilities were substantially impaired but not abolished.
“The court may wish to consider to what extent it is relevant that, acknowledging that she was moderately depressed, she did not seek therapeutic support or tell anyone she was pregnant. In the same period, she was able to function normally socially and professionally. She wasn’t very young or immature at the time the offence was committed.”
Patrick Edrich
Sharkey would have received life sentence with minimum term of 17 to 20 years without diminished responsibility
Mr Hankin says in respect of the manslaughter count: “The sentence to be imposed upon her for that offence reflects the fact if she had not been suffering from a depressive illness, she would not have killed her infant. This does not mean the defendant was not to blame for what she did, but her culpability is much less than it would have been if she had not been ill.”
The prosecutor says that, without diminished responsibility, Sharkey would have received a life sentence with a minimum term of between 17 and 20 years.
He adds: “It remains the prosecution’s case that there are many examples of statements by the defendant that can be shown by other evidence to be reliable, in other words truthful and accurate.
In particular, the defendant’s description of the killing, which is of some form of mechanical airway obstruction if consistent with the findings. The prosecution maintains while the defendant could not bring herself to describe in detail what she did, her account was essentially truthful and reliable.
None of the pathological findings is at odds with the account she gave. All of the findings are consistent with an unlawful death by airway obstruction.”
KEY EVENT
Experts agree 'severe depressive illness substantially impaired defendant's ability to perform rational judgement'
Mr Hankin continues: “Turning to the psychiatric evidence. Reports have been provided by Dr Plunkett, instructed by the defence, and Dr Kennedy, in response to the report served on behalf of the defendant.
“There is consensus as to each of the required elements of diminished responsibility. There is no identifiable reason for objecting to the expert opinion. The experts agree it is more likely than not the defendant was experiencing at least moderately severe post-natal depression from the birth of her first child which persisted and was amplified by the stress of the birth of the deceased child and gave rise to an abnormality of mental functioning.
“That is consistent with the evidence of the defendant’s husband and her close friend Suzanne Hadley. It is also consistent with the defendant’s own account of her behaviour.
“In addition, as a minimum there is evidence of personality disorder traits that may support the defendant’s description of her conduct during her pregnancy.
“Dr Plunkett is unable to form a confident opinion of the defendant’s mental state in the period following the killing. Dr Kennedy comments there is evidence of the defendant having consequential thinking. She was able to clean the scene of the birth. She transported the baby in plastic bags and deposited the body in a location where its rapid detection was perhaps unexpected.
“The question whether there is impairment of ability is a purely psychiatric question. The experts were asked to comment whether there was substantial impairment. They agreed a moderately severe depressive illness substantially impaired the defendant’s ability to perform rational judgement and exercise self control.
“Both experts are agreed that the abnormality of mental functioning played a part in Mrs. Sharkey as she did to kill her child. Only a finding by the jury that the killing was pre-mededitated could have displaced the psychiatric evidence. There is no objective evidence of this and strong evidence to the contrary."
Patrick Edrich
Prosecution's case on murder charge was Sharkey 'deliberately killed the infant'
The court hears Sharkey was charged on April 15 2024 and appeared at the magistrates’ court the following day. She appeared for plea at crown court on July 15 of the same year and entered not guilty pleas to murder and concealing the birth of her child.
A trial date was fixed for January 15 this year which was later vacated and refixed for March.
Mr Hankin says: “It was the prosecution’s case in respect of count one murder that the defendant deliberately killed the infant, most likely by obstructing his airways and or by inserting tissue into his oral cavity and larynx. She had also sealed the infant’s body inside two plastic bags which would have contributed to his death if he was still alive when that was done.
“It was the prosecution’s case in respect of count two that the defendant cleaned any contaminated surfaces, disposed of her clothing and disposed of the infant’s body in the woodland close to Gulliver’s World theme park in Warrington. At some stage, she separately disposed of the placenta which has never been found. Her objective was to conceal that she had given birth to a child.
“The defence’s case was set out in a defence statement served in October 2024. The defendant did not accept that the infant was born alive, nor did she accept she had caused the infant’s death. It was indicated the defendant would rely on her mental state at the time, which was affected by the birth of her first child. It was further stated that the defendant was unable to recall her behaviour in any detail. It was also asserted the defendant did not possess the requisite mens rea in count two. Of course, the defendant has now changed her plea.
That was first indicated on March 5 2025, the day before the trial was due to start.
Patrick Edrich
'Difficult to ascertain' Sharkey's motives putting tissue in mouth
The court hears consultant paediatrician Dr Robinson “reviewed and commented on the evidence”.
Mr Hankin says: “In his opinion the infant was born alive. Most infants born at term will survive with basic care including warmth and feeds. Some infants born at term have respiratory problems, but there was no evidence of these.
“If the delivery was complicated with oxygen deprivation, resuscitation may have been required. The defendant’s account in interview suggested international upper airway obstruction.
“He said it was possible the tissue was placed in the mouth and larynx but it was difficult to ascertain the defendant’s motive for doing this. A live infant placed in a sealed plastic bag would have been asphyxiated in minutes to hours.
“If the infant was born healthy he would have survived with basic care. If he had respiratory difficulties, he’s likely to have survived with neonatal intensive care.”
Patrick Edrich
Two doctors gave medical cause of death as 'unascertained'
The senior barrister says: “Dr McPartland gave her findings. There was no fixed impression of a cord on the neck and therefore no physical evidence to indicate that the umbilical cord had been wrapped tightly around the neck. The absence of laceration indicated that the infant had not died in the womb well before delivery.
“However, based on external appearances, it was not possible to distinguish between a live birth, death during birth or death in a short period prior to birth. Dr McPartland points out there was no macroscopic or microscopic evidence of inflammation in the infant’s tissue to suggest infection.
“Given the normal birth weight, severe placental insufficiency was unlikely. In her opinion the scalp and skull injuries were more widely distributed than would normally be seen in a delivery.
“The appearance of the lungs was consistent with live birth and of the infant breathing after delivery and supporting live birth. Dr McPartland explained after birth the lungs transition from being fluid filled to air filled and this process takes one to two minutes.
“The defendant’s account of the infant making noise was consistent with her assessment that the infant was live born. There were also areas of bleeding surrounding the lungs. This can occur where a foetus is deprived of an inadequate supply of oxygen or where a child is deprived of oxygen after birth. Which applies could not be ascertained from a purely pathological perspective.
“The infant was most likely live born and breathed independently after birth. However it was not possible to be certain of a cause of death. Therefore she too gave as a medical cause of death, unascertained.”
Patrick Edrich
Doctors found it not possible to deduce if baby was alive when tissue paper put in mouth
Mr Hankin continues: “Dr Williams' observations during the autopsy, photographs taken and slides of tissue taken were reviewed by Dr Matthew Lyle and Dr Jo McPartland. They performed this review in 2023. Dr Lyle set out his findings, which I will distill as best I can.
“From a forensic perspective, he said there were limitations to the extent of the post mortem exam compared with what would be expected in the present day. Dr Lyle said there were no morphological signs of natural disease, in his opinion. It was most likely the infant was born alive but he couldn’t be certainly on purely pathological grounds.
“The presence of scalp bruising indicates mechanical force had been applied to the head. The extent of the bruising was indicative of an active circulation at the time blunt trauma was applied to the head by whatever means. He said the scalp bruising and the appearance of the lungs were entirely consistent with the mother’s account that the infant was born alive.
“It is recognised that the process of birth can sometimes cause injury to the head, including bruising to the scalp. However in Dr Lyle’s experience, scalp bruising is more frequently concentrated on the vertex rather than multi-focally as seen here. He observed that the sheer extent of the bruising is more than he and Dr McPartland had seen previously.
“He said he had reservations and concerns about the scalp bruising but couldn’t be sure it was wholly due to inflicted head trauma in the absence of information about the mode of delivery. The court has heard the defendant’s account, denying having touched the child’s head or assisted him during the delivery. The court can be sure considering that account the pattern of injury isn’t wholly or sensibly explained by vaginal birth but represents inflicted injury by the defendant in the process of obstructing the infant’s airway.
“Dr Lyle said from a purely forensic perspective, injuries to the neck could indicate deliberate compression of the neck. In other words, strangulation. He stated it was not possible to deduce whether the infant was alive when that material was introduced to the airway.
“Haemorrhages on the lungs were consistent with mechanical asphyxia. Overall the autopsy findings were not able to prove the infant died of mechanical asphyxia caused by another, nor could the autopsy exclude that possibility. He gave a medical cause of death as unascertained.”
KEY EVENT
Sharkey told police: 'it's not easy to live with all that time...it's haunting, something you think about every day'
The judge is shown maps of the defendant’s home address and the “deposition site”.
The court hears Sharkey told the police: “I can’t remember whether it was half an hour after he was born or the day after, or whether he was in the car overnight. I think he was in the back, in the footwell’
A map walks out of the public gallery.
Mr Hankin says: “She said ‘I remember it being a bright day. It must have been afternoon, quite possibly. It was quite sunny. I can’t remember if it was the next day, the same day’.
“She said ‘I just drove to nowhere in particular, just on a motorway’. She was asked how long the journey took. She said half an hour, 40 minutes. Asked about where she ended up she said ‘grassy wood, that’s all I remember’.
She said she drove on a motorway to a location she had not driven before, ‘quite rural, that’s all I remember. At some point I've taken the bag out of the car. I can’t remember how I placed it. There was a pavement, or was it a pavement with a grass bank’.
She said: ‘It was ok to park, it was countrysidey. Asked where she disposed of the bag, she said: ‘I remember trees and grass. I remember it was a woody type area. She said she placed the bag out of the way, hidden. Somewhere out the way and hidden from view.
“She went straight back to her car and drove home. There's no suggestion that she had difficulty locating her home on the return trip. Asked about her arrival there, she said ‘obviously I've made sure everywhere was clean where I've given birth’.
“The defendant also expressed feelings of guilt and a sense of relief. She said she’d never spoken to anybody about what happened. She thought about it a million times but how would you say it?
“She said: ‘I couldn't actually say the words. It’s not easy to live with all that time. I thought this would happen. You don’t get away with anything forever. It's haunting, something you think about every day. You try and push it out but it creeps back in. You do Christmas and Easter but this is always in your head’.
“She was asked why she described herself as terrified in the month after. She replied: ‘I think that’s just me, that’s just what I’ve done’. She said she was terrified somebody would be knocking on that day. ‘You’re waiting for it. One day it's gonna happen and then it did happen’.
“Asked how she felt about what she did, she replied ‘horrendous, the worst feeling ever’. Asked about the arrest and interview, she replied: ‘It’s been a bit of a relief. I feel sick to the stomach about what I've done. It's come out’."
Patrick Edrich
'I had to find somewhere to not be with me anymore'
Mr Hankin says: “When asked what happened after the baby had become silent she said she couldn't remember and said he was wrapped up into something and put inside a bag.
“She was asked where would you have got a bag from. She replied ‘in the house somewhere. In the kitchen. I’m thinking I left him in the bathroom to go and find something. I've wrapped the infant up. I can't think how long he was in the house. Was he a day, maybe two days’.
She says she can’t remember what happened to the placenta and umbilical cord. She was asked about the mess. She replied ‘I must have cleaned it up at some point. It’s just been mopped and cleaned’.
“She was asked what happened next. She replied ‘I think I realised I just had to get him out of the house. She said she put the bag in the car and drove to nowhere in particular, just driving then stopping. She said: ‘I had to find somewhere to not be with me anymore’.”
Patrick Edrich
When asked by police if her actions caused death, Sharkey said 'I won't answer that question'
Mr Hankin continued: “She said this. ‘The infant was born. I just had to make him quiet. When asked what she could hear, she responded ‘he’s making a noise, just a little snuffly starting to cry noise. Not massively loud, just a whimery sort of cry’.
“Asked what she did then, she replied: ‘I sort of reached down. I must have been on the floor at this point. I’ve covered his nose, his mouth. It just couldn’t make that noise, just to be quiet’.
“Asked why she wanted him to be quiet, she responded that she didn’t know, saying ‘I knew I just had to. It had to be quiet. Then he was quiet’.
“She said she doesn’t know how long it took to make him quiet. Asked why she felt she wanted the infant to be quiet, she said she was concerned someone outside would hear him.
“She was unable to describe the movement of the infant. She said: 'I don't know. Little movements. I didn't want to see, I didn't want to look'. When asked if she thought the infant was alive, she responded ‘yeah’ and added he did make a noise.
“She was asked to account for the head and neck bruising. She said ‘I can't so no comment’. Asked if she could remember intending to hurt him, she said no. Asked about the wad of tissue, she replied ‘no comment’.
“Asked to account for the tissue in the larynx she said I don’t know. Asked whether her actions had caused the death, she responded ‘I won’t answer that question’.
Patrick Edrich
Sharkey said 'I kept myself to myself' during pregnancy and rarely saw husband who worked shifts
Sharkey was interviewed over the course of the following two days.
Mr Hankin continues: “Concerning her knowledge of the pregnancy, she described her state of mind at the prospect of a second child as a case of ‘I can’t do this again’.
“She said ‘I thought I was pregnant but not sort of acknowledging the fact. I don’t even think I even thought I was until about five months. It must have been when I was showing’. Asked if there were any other signs of pregnancy, the defendant responded ‘just probably putting a little bit of weight on’. She said she wore bigger clothes.
“She said ‘I kept the secret to myself’. Asked how she kept it secret, the defendant answered she and Neil were ships that passed in the night. ‘He’d been working shifts. I wasn’t huge.
“You put a bit of weight on, it's the winter. You’ve eaten a bit too much. I kept myself to myself, didn’t socialise and just kept everyone at arms length’.
“She remembered the labour, which she described as quite easy, quick. She explained when she had Matthew it was only two and half hours in labour, maybe along similar lines.
“‘Obviously I knew what was going on. I recognised labour. The head was there and then it was like a push, infant born. She remembers the afterbirth and stuff, that was bloody, which was a mess.
She said ‘I didn't want to look’.. She was prompted to remember where the birth had taken place. She said ‘I’m thinking bathroom, I think the bathroom. I think I panicked a lot all round the house. I’m thinking I made my way up to the bathroom’.
“She said ‘he just sort of came out without me doing anything. Asked ‘did you help him out’, she replied no, she didn’t touch him as the child was being born. She said: ‘I never felt his head’.
“ Asked at any point while he’s coming out have you touched him, she said no. She was asked about Neil and Matthew's whereabouts on the day of the birth. She said: ‘They weren’t in the house. There was no one in the house that day. I was the only one in the house’.
KEY EVENT
'It is what it is...I f***ing did it'
Mr Hankin tells the court: “Neil Sharkey was also placed under arrest. He too was interviewed.
While Mr and Mrs Sharkey were in the back of a police car prior to being interviewed, a covert recording was made of a conversation between them during which Mrs Sharkey was heard to say ‘I’m not gonna f***ing deny nothing, it is what it is isn’t it. I f***ing did it'.”
KEY EVENT
Sharkey's DNA matched to baby after older son Matthew arrested by police
Mr Hankin says: “It was not until 2023, during a periodic review of the national database that the DNA profile of Matthew Sharkey, Joanne Sharkey’s first child, whose DNA had by that time been uploaded to the national database because he had been arrested for an unrelated offence.
“His profile was found to be a close match to that of the infant. There was very strong support that he was the deceased infant’s brother. DNA samples were taken from Joanne and Neil Sharkey who were identified as the biological parents.”
“On the 28th of July 2023, 25 years and four months after she disposed of her infant’s body, Mrs Sharkey was arrested for his murder. Referring to her husband, she said ‘he knows nothing about it’.
Patrick Edrich
Young women named by families as potentially baby's mum during police investigation
“Enquiries were made in 1998 by police with hospitals, general practice surgeries, midwives and other medical facilities. House to house enquiries and enquiries at shops and public houses were made. There was a poster publicity campaign initiated. A mail drop was conducted via the Royal Mail to houses in surrounding areas appealing for public assistance.
“Because the National Crime Agency offender profile suggested the mother was a young woman, enquiries were made at the three schools closest to the scene - Great Sankey, Penketh and St Gregory’s. A list of absentees from that date was compiled and DNA profiles were abstained from all absentees.
“Some young women were named by their own families as potential candidates as the mother of the baby. They were arrested. Police report women who were drawn into this investigation can be seen to this day commenting on social media about how it affected them. The infant was buried on the 29th of July 1998. The local Asda store arranged a collection to pay for the funeral and the headstone.
“The baby was given the name Callum after the Callands district of Warrington in which his body had been discovered. Over the years press releases were made by Cheshire Police to encourage new information. Each time such efforts were made, it provoked a strong response from local people about their memories of these events.
“The prosecution say there can be no doubt that the impact in the local community has been significant and enduring.”
Patrick Edrich
DNA profile obtained from blood staining on the bag
Mr Hankin turns to the identification of the child, telling the court: “Detective Sergeant Hughes took possession of the exhibits produced during the post mortem examination. They included the bin liners in which the baby had been sealed, pieces of the tissue from the child’s mouth and larynx and a sample of blood from the deceased child.
“The bin bags were examined by a forensic scientist. He described them as consisting as two plastic bags. The open ends had been knotted. Both had been torn open. There was a small amount of blood staining on the inside of one of the bags and heavy blood staining on the inside of the other.
“Wads of tissue were removed from the throat and examined. They were heavily blood stained, screwed up wads of tissue paper. A forensic scientist examined the items using a DNA analysis technique called STR profiling. A DNA profile was obtained from blood staining on the bag and it was found to belong to a female. This profile was different to the DNA profile attributable to the deceased baby, which was male.
“A female profile could have been shed from the mother of the baby. That DNA profile of the female, believed to be the infant’s mother, was then stored on a national DNA database.”
