It is reported in The Times newspaper that the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) has taken what may be an unprecedented step of familiarising themselves about the case of Lucy Letby before even receiving a submission from her lawyers. Long demanded by critics of the CCRC, they have finally, it seems, started to apply a little common sense. The Times quotes the CCRC as having said:
“Given the likely complexity of the review, a senior case manager, group leader and nominated decision maker had been assigned and preliminary reading and familiarisation was underway. The team would be expanded once the application was received.” (1)
There are several ways of interpreting this initiative by the CCRC. An optimist might conclude that the CCRC has recognised that there is a tsunami of highly qualified medical professional opinion lining up to denounce the evidence given at Letby’s trial by Dr. Dewi Evans, who changes his mind about the cause of death of the babies as often as he changes his underwear. With this in mind, the CCRC may be seeking to attempt to give the impression of professionalism and thoroughness.
The Times newspaper also reported that Dr. Shoo Lee, whose academic research was misquoted at Letby’s trial is to hold a press conference on Tuesday 4th February where he will unveil details of an independent review by a “blue ribbon committee” of 14 international medical experts into the causes of death of the babies Letby was accused of harming and/or murdering.
It is understood that in a “large number” of cases, if not all, the experts have recorded a different cause of death from the one used in the prosecution, which would confirm the original coroners verdict of natural deaths.
Taken at face value this all sounds impressive and to the lay person indicative of expert opinions that outweigh that of the retired investigator Dr. Dewi Evans who was primarily responsible for the medical/scientific evidence that convicted Letby. It seems likely that the Lucy Letby submission will focus primarily on the validity of complex scientific evidence, which the CCRC is in no position to judge, having insufficient expertise in the subject matter (and let us hope that they do not assign any retired police officers to oversee the case).
However, we have been here before with the CCRC, as reported in the case of Clive Freeman by CCRC Watch here and here. The overlap between the case of Lucy Letby and Clive Freeman is considerable; both are convicted of murdering persons who almost certainly died of natural causes. (2)
In the Freeman case, there is very considerable evidence from nine eminent pathologists indicating that the pathologist who carried out the autopsy on Mr Hardie reached an incorrect conclusion that Hardie was murdered. At the heart of the issue is whether Hardie died of natural causes. The first autopsy conducted by Dr Richard Shepherd concluded that Hardie died from alcoholism and pancreatitis. However, this autopsy was kept secret and not revealed to the Court. Shepherd gave evidence based on a second and third autopsy and pronounced death by a technique known as ‘Burking’, supporting the charges of murder and arson brought against Freeman.
The CCRC have stubbornly refused to refer Freeman’s case to the Court of Appeal (CoA) on the basis that even if the forensic evidence given by Shepherd is totally wrong there are other circumstantial pieces of evidence that mean that the jury was entitled to return a verdict of guilty. However, this misses the point entirely– if Hardie died of natural causes there was no crime. This was a possibility that the jury was never given an opportunity to consider, because Shepherd concealed vital information about his first autopsy on Hardie from them.
Similarly, in the Letby case, it appears that between 14 and 50 medical experts are prepared to testify that Dr. Dewi Evans’ testimony was incorrect, misleading the Jury, and in effect just as in the case of Clive Freeman, Lucy Letby has been convicted of murdering babies that died of natural causes .
The CCRC says that it is gearing up to receive a complex submission from Letby’s lawyers but, actually, the issues are not particularly complex. In order to support a contention that babies were murdered, the police relied upon what appears to be erroneous medical evidence. Once that evidence is debunked by better qualified experts the case falls apart – or does it?
The CCRC and the Court of Appeal both take the view that evidence given at the original trial should not be ‘trumped’ by the later production of “bigger and better experts” by the defence. It is within the powers of the Court of Appeal to ignore the panel of experts convened by Dr. Shoo Lee, but will they dare?
We should also bear in mind that the original trial was told exactly why Evans’ evidence was incorrect and the person offering that information was not thanked but was instead threatened with prosecution for contempt of court! There is no guarantee that the CoA is prepared to eat humble pie.
The Letby appeal will likely be governed by how the tabloids, particularly the Daily Mail, reacts to the evidence put forward by the panel of 14 experts. How this is any different from the 9 experts who have questioned the conviction of Clive Freeman is uncertain?
We live in an age where the actions of the CCRC are far less important than the views of the tabloid press, it seems, and as the tabloids have taken very little interest in Clive’s case. The refusal of the CCRC to refer his case to the CoA receives little attention.
Returning to the initiative launched by the CCRC, what we might call the ‘Letby Team’ – while very welcome, why is this happening when so many other cases are under resourced and the CCRC refuses to consider investigating vital issues? Probably because Lucy Letby’s case is like a torpedo heading straight for the side of HMS CCRC.
If the CCRC screw up the Letby appeal they will explode and sink without a trace. So, finally, it seems, somebody at the CCRC has decided that Lucy Letby must receive a proper review and investigation – it’s a shame about the other 25,000 previous cases where such thoroughness was deemed not worth the bother.
By Bill Robertson
Bill Robertson has researched alleged miscarriages of justice for around 20 years and advised on several cases, including the most recent application to the CCRC by Jeremy Bamber.
Please let us know if you think that there is a mistake in this article, explaining what you think is wrong and why. We will correct any errors as soon as possible.
References
(1) The Times newspaper Monday February 3, 2025. Constance Kampfner.
(2) According to the latest views of Dr Evans, Letby murdered all seven babies by injecting sufficient air into a venous line to cause sudden death. All other harms were non-fatal. However, the Thirlwall inquiry has released an email of 14 February 2017 from Countess of Chester medical director Ian Harvey which states: “The pathologists at Alder Hey have assured me that a significant air embolus would be detected at Postmortem.” And yet, of the six babies who had meticulous post-mortem examinations, not a single significant air embolism was found. (Private Eye Special Report, Part 12).
コメント