Scrolling down to the very bottom of this pdf, and it is very encouraging , imo. A very informative summary of the major issues with the proposed new 'appeals' from the new defense team.
ANNEX
The Executive’s Application
- In the closing phases of the Inquiry, those representing the Former Executives of the Trust applied for the Inquiry to be adjourned pending the outcome of an application to the CCRC by Letby’s new “Legal Team”2. The Families note also the recent correspondence from Sir David Davis MP, a supporter of Letby, urging the Chair to do the same.
- As things stand at the time of writing, Lucy Letby is a convicted multiple child murderer, the most prolific child murderer in Britain. She has twice brought appeals before the Court of Appeal and on both occasions was unsuccessful. When Sir David Davis urges the Chair, as he does in his letter dated 28 February 2025 to pause the Inquiry: “Until Ms Letby’s avenues of appeal have been fully exhausted” he ignores the fact that those avenues of appeal have already been exhausted. Her right to appeal in the future could only arise within closely defined circumstances, which have so far not been established. Upon the assumption that Letby has abandoned the prospect of making a further direct appeal to the Court of Appeal (see below), her only potential route to re-referral to the Court of Appeal is through the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) as established by the Criminal Appeals Act 1995.
637. The Families are concerned that the Panel appear to be describing issues that have already been ventilated at trial or which were considered as part of the first Appeal. At their highest, the panel put forward alternative explanations for why some, but not all, of the babies collapsed and/or died based upon a review of the medical records and some, but by no means all, the evidence called at trial. It is difficult to see how a panel of experts of a single discipline provided with limited evidence could reach a better conclusion than experts of multiple disciplines considering the evidence in the round. It is unclear to the Families why Mr McDonald (or his Instructing Solicitors if he has them) would instruct multiple experts of a single discipline to undertake a limited review of the evidence and present their findings as superior to the evidence adduced at trial.
638. The elephant in the room, which Letby’s legal team appear to be studiously ignoring is that Letby had experts available to her at trial, who had access to all of the same material available to the prosecution experts and who provided multiple reports. As the Court of Appeal observed at paragraph 5 of their judgement in the first appeal:
“The defence mounted a robust approach to the evidence that was called. Serious allegations were put to the numerous professional witnesses (including expert witnesses) who were called on behalf of the prosecution. Two points may be noted at the outset. First, though the defence instructed a number of expert witnesses of their own, and many reports were served from them before and during the trial, no evidence was called on the applicant’s behalf. The entirety of the evidence called for the defence consisted of the applicant’s own testimony, and that of an estate plumber, who had worked at the hospital since 1986. He gave evidence about certain plumbing problems that had occurred at various points in the unit: and of two particular incidents in the unit, but not on a date or around the time of any incident in the indictment. Secondly, to make a somewhat basic point, what was put to the prosecution witnesses in cross-examination, was not evidence, save to the extent it was accepted by the witness. More specifically, in the context of this appeal, suggestions made in cross-examination which were not accepted by prosecution witnesses and were not supported by evidence called on behalf of the applicant, are, as the respondent has submitted, irrelevant.”
jk jk i could certainly see that it would still stand with the CCRC though.
