I am currently writing a critical and – I hope – balanced article on the Lucy Letby case, for Prospect magazine.
That article will be accompanied here on this blog by a post setting out the issues about the case in more detail.
It is not an easy case to write about.
Partly this is because the case is complicated, based on circumstantial and expert evidence, over two trials.
Partly this is also because that some of the contended problems with the case go to the methodology of investigation, rather than to the prosecution case as presented at the trials. This means that finding fault with the investigation will not be directly relevant to faulting the convictions if that was not actually the basis on which she was convicted.
And partly it is because there are many with very strong but contrasting opinions about the case, and I am seeking to anticipate the most obvious counterpoints.
(Nonetheless, the final article will probably irk both ‘sides’ of the discussion on the case.)
For what it is worth, I do not know whether she is guilty or not guilty – and that is, of course, a matter for a court – either with a jury or by judges at a court of appeal.
But it does seem that there are non-trivial issues about the expert evidence relied on by the prosecution of Letby.
If so, this may raise a serious question about whether the juries were then placed in a position where they could not properly consider the expert evidence relied on the prosecution in this case.
*
In any case (excuse the pun) it does seem that a critical and balanced account of the case may assist in the public understanding of law.
In essence: if there was a miscarriage of justice – and that is an ‘if’ – how could it have actually come about? What, if anything, failed, in the process?
***
Comments Policy
This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.
Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome, or if they risk derailing the discussion.
More on the comments policy is here.
Icymi Law Commision report from 2011… recommendations not acted upon https://lawcom.gov.uk/project/expert-evidence-in-criminal-proceedings/
Good. The case is worrying and I look forward to your analysis.
As regards the last paragraph – It make me think of a Star Trek quote.
“It is possible to commit no mistakes and still lose. That is not a weakness, that is life” – Jean-Luc Picard
Which got me thinking – What if there *was* a miscarriage but not because anything actually went wrong? If every single person at every single point in the process did things absolutely by the book with no errors, (CPS presenting evidence, defence not rebutting with their own expert, etc) but we wound up with an unsafe conviction anyway…. Systemic questions would need to be asked.
That is a good question.
“(Nonetheless, the final article will probably irk both ‘sides’ of the discussion on the case.)”
As a rule of thumb, I think that’s a good indicator that you have the balance right.
When Letby was arrested & very publicly too, what was striking was an apparent assumption of “guilt” from every visible aspect, especially the media, including the supposedly impartial BBC, and broadly, the medical world. To my non-legal, non-medic eyes, this wasn’t something I’d perceived in the past even in the notorious Shipman case. In this instance, it was very clearly “case closed” and a theme that continued in the reporting of the rial proceedings.
I do still wonder how any jury, none of whom could have avoided the initial publicity, presented with compelling prosecution testimony from expert witnesses; a plethora of complex statistics and other circumstantial evidence based on the vagaries of electronic door lock (notorious for tailgating) read-outs and so on; and in the absence of countervailing evidence, could avoid reaching any other conclusion.
Terrifying question is: given how difficult it is to ‘nail’ a truly guilty (cunning) serial killer nurse on neonatal ICU wards / neonatal wards in general, how many could be out there? How will system detect and catch any in future?
I understand that Dr. Dewi Evans is primarily an expert in paediatrics who has extensive experience as an expert witness. While his main profession is in the medical field, his expertise has frequently led him to serve as an expert witness in legal cases.
This means he is not just an occasional witness but someone who regularly provides expert testimony, particularly in cases involving complex medical evidence related to child health and infant deaths. The majority of his testimonies, around 96%, have been on behalf of the prosecution.
If that is true, has it a bearing?
It may have been beneficial had it been established if whether or not a crime(s) had been committed before we found an accused and subsequently a guilty party to that which may never have been…….
It is often claimed that detailed financial crimes are beyond the competence of layperson juries to address. As the depth of investigation and forensic technique come more to the fore in criminal trials such as this then perhaps that sentiment is or should be more widely applied.