A couple was cleared of killing their baby daughter yesterday, with the mother declaring as she left court that she and her husband want another child.

Maatkari Tamerry, 39, and Dr. Amenemhet Waset Amen-Ra Tamerry, 51, had their manslaughter conviction quashed, with the Court of Appeal ruling that they should not face re-trial over the death of A-Maya from malnutrition and dehydration.

As she waited for her husband to be released from custody, Mrs. Tamerry responded to a question about whether they have other children by saying no, but they were “going to get started.”

Dr. Tamerry, a former dentist, told journalists he was “relieved” at the acquittal.

However, indicating that he and his wife will always grieve over the death of A-Maya, he added: “Tragedy is fleeting and short. Sorrow is forever.”

Mrs. Tamerry declined to talk about the case. The pair were found guilty in 2004 of manslaughter, after prosecutors told a jury that ten-month-old A-Maya died in March 2001 due to neglect at their hands.

Mrs. Tamerry served a one year sentence, from which she was released in March 2005.

Dr. Tamerry was still serving the five-year sentence meted out to him when he was acquitted yesterday.

The Tamerry trial had heard how, before her death, their baby was severely underweight, blind, and suffering from a slew of malnutrition-related illnesses.

Then-Director of Public Prosecutions Kulandra Ratneser said during the 2004 case that the child did not receive any medical attention at all for seven months before her death.

Mrs. Tamerry said she had not seen anything wrong with the baby until two days before she died.

Her husband did not give evidence during the trial, but their defence lawyer Mark Pettingill argued they were loving parents, and A-Maya’s death was “a tragedy and not a crime”

However, two British QCs who conducted this week’s appeal heavily criticised the way Mr. Pettingill handled the trial. One of their arguments centred on the fact that Mrs. Tamerry’s history of post-natal psychiatric problems was never outlined to the jury — although Mr. Pettingill told the appeal hearing he did not know about these.

Other allegations made were that he failed to ask the judge to direct the jury about Mrs. Tamerry’s lack of previous convictions, and did not heed Mr. Tamerry’s instruction that he wished to give evidence.

Announcing that the convictions were quashed, the three judges who heard the appeal said they would give their reasons for the decision at a later date.

President Justice Edward Zacca said the prosecution’s case had been a strong one, but because Mrs. Tamerry had already been released from jail and Dr. Tamerry was due out in October “we do not think that it’s in the interests of justice that a re-trial should be ordered.” The couple hugged their lawyers and shook hands with friends and family in the public gallery after the news of their acquittal. Commenting on behalf of his client Dr. Tamerry, William Taylor QC said: “So far as he’s concerned, a long nightmare is over. The judges, by their decision, have allowed him to put his life back together again.”

Nigel Rumfitt QC, who represented Mrs. Tamerry, said: “She’s very relieved.”

Relief, joy as conviction quashed