“If you are satisfied so that you are sure in the case of any baby that they were deliberately harmed by the defendant then you are entitled to consider how likely it is that other babies in the case who suffered unexpected collapses did so as a result of some unexplained or natural cause rather than as a consequence of some deliberate harmful act by someone.
“If you conclude that this is unlikely then you could, if you think it right, treat the evidence of that event and any others, if any, which you find were a consequence of a deliberate harmful act, as supporting evidence in the cases of other babies and that the defendant was the person responsible.
“When deciding how far, if at all, the evidence in relation to any of the cases supports the case against the defendant on any other or others, you should take into account how similar or dissimilar, in your opinion, the allegations and the circumstances of and surrounding their collapses are."
Judge tells Lucy Letby trial jurors to set aside emotion
Coming back to the judge's legal directions, and the fact that if the jury decides that she is responsible for deliberately harming any of the babies they can use that as supporting evidence that she was responsible for others, bearing in mind similarities, I feel almost certain that the
legal basis for this is that if they have decided she is guilty of one or more, it is then a matter of equity under the law and treating her as if she had a previous conviction of substantially the same or similar offence, which would be treated as admissible evidence in the trial. They would be entitled to treat her as having a previous conviction from the minute they decide she is guilty of one of the charges, based on them being the deciders of whether she will be convicted of it.
JMO
See that law here Section 101
Criminal Justice Act 2003
Criminal Justice Act 2003
101Defendant’s bad character
(1)
In criminal proceedings evidence of the defendant’s bad character is admissible if, but only if—
(a)all parties to the proceedings agree to the evidence being admissible,
(b)the evidence is adduced by the defendant himself or is given in answer to a question asked by him in cross-examination and intended to elicit it,
(c)it is important explanatory evidence,
(d)it is relevant to an important matter in issue between the defendant and the prosecution,
(e)it has substantial probative value in relation to an important matter in issue between the defendant and a co-defendant,
(f)it is evidence to correct a false impression given by the defendant, or
(g)the defendant has made an attack on another person’s character.
(2)Sections 102 to 106 contain provision supplementing subsection (1).
(3)The court must not admit evidence under subsection (1)(d) or (g) if, on an application by the defendant to exclude it, it appears to the court that the admission of the evidence would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that the court ought not to admit it.
(4)
On an application to exclude evidence under subsection (3) the court must have regard, in particular, to the length of time between the matters to which that evidence relates and the matters which form the subject of the offence charged.
And Section 103
Criminal Justice Act 2003
103“Matter in issue between the defendant and the prosecution”
(1)For the purposes of section 101(1)(d) the matters in issue between the defendant and the prosecution include—
(a)the question
whether the defendant has a propensity to commit offences of the kind with which he is charged, except where his having such a propensity makes it no more likely that he is guilty of the offence;
(b)the question
whether the defendant has a propensity to be untruthful, except where it is not suggested that the defendant’s case is untruthful in any respect.
(2)Where subsection (1)(a) applies,
a defendant’s propensity to commit offences of the kind with which he is charged may (without prejudice to any other way of doing so) be established by evidence that he has been convicted of—
(a)
an offence of the same description as the one with which he is charged, or
(b)an offence of the same category as the one with which he is charged.
(3)Subsection (2) does not apply in the case of a particular defendant if the court is satisfied, by reason of the length of time since the conviction or for any other reason, that it would be unjust for it to apply in his case.
(4)For the purposes of subsection (2)—
(a)
two offences are of the same description as each other if the statement of the offence in a written charge or indictment would, in each case, be in the same terms;
(b)two offences are of the same category as each other if they belong to the same category of offences prescribed for the purposes of this section by an order made by the Secretary of State.
(5)A category prescribed by an order under subsection (4)(b) must consist of offences of the same type.
(6)Only prosecution evidence is admissible under section 101(1)(d).
[...]