Key Facts
- •Lucy Letby, a neonatal nurse, was convicted of seven counts of murder and seven counts of attempted murder of babies in her care.
- •The prosecution case relied heavily on circumstantial evidence and expert medical testimony, particularly regarding air embolus as a cause of death or collapse.
- •The defense challenged the expertise and impartiality of the prosecution's lead expert, Dr. Evans, and the sufficiency of the scientific evidence supporting the air embolus diagnoses.
- •The defense also argued that the judge's directions to the jury were incorrect, allowing conviction without certainty about the precise mechanism of harm.
- •A potential jury irregularity was investigated by the judge, involving allegations that a juror discussed the case outside the jury room.
Legal Principles
Admissibility of expert evidence
Criminal Procedure Rules 2020 and Criminal Practice Direction 19A (now para 7 of Criminal Practice Direction 2023)
Submission of no case to answer
R v Galbraith (1981) 73 Cr. App. R. 124
Jury directions on harmful acts
R v Brown (1984) 79 Cr. App. R. 115, R v Ames [2023] EWCA Crim 1463
Fresh evidence
Section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, R v Erskine and Williams [2009] EWCA Crim 1425, R v Jones (1997) 1 Cr. App. R. 86
Jury irregularity
Criminal Practice Direction 2023, para 8.7
Outcomes
Appeal refused
The court found no arguable grounds for appeal. The challenges to the expert evidence, jury directions, and the handling of the potential jury irregularity were deemed to be without merit.
Application for fresh evidence refused
The proposed fresh evidence did not meet the criteria for admission under section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968; it was not capable of affording grounds for allowing the appeal, and there was no reasonable explanation for its non-adduction at trial.