There is a recurring pattern of defence teams coming up with a counter-argument only after a first trial has resulted in conviction. Something needs to change.
Nicely laid out Simon. I like your proposal for wider powers for the courts to reject expert evidence if they decide it is not of sufficient quality. There are clearly reasonable grounds to argue reasonable doubt for at least some of the 'alleged' murders if new evidence is allowed. I understand that the Criminal Cases Review Commission may nevertheless decide it cannot act due its own procedural requirements. I hope not.
Many thanks for your comment, Robin. I hadn't heard anything about the CCRC not being able to act, but if that turns out to be the case, presumably Letby's lawyers would be able to apply directly to the Court of Appeal under Criminal Procedure Rule 36.15: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/759/rule/36.15
That rule was discussed in the Double Jeopardy podcast on 12 February of this year. Starting at 2 minutes in, the podcast explained why it wouldn't be available if the CCRC route was open:
Thanks for this very thoughtful commentary. Like many casual observers this case leaves me feeling uneasy about the outcome and, as a non-lawyer, somewhat confused by the conduct of the trial and the subsequent attempts to challenge the result(s). Your analysis helps explain the context.
As you suggest there must be a better way of dealing with complex and competing expert evidence. I suppose it starts with the Crown's decision on whether to prosecute. I'd be happy to see more cases not reach a jury where the Crown decides that there is evidence which will be central to the jury's decision but about which the jury cannot be expected to be "sure" which way the evidence points.
Maybe we need to see more use of non-jury criminal trials?
Would be interested in an Irregular Thought on the criminal justice system more broadly.
Nicely laid out Simon. I like your proposal for wider powers for the courts to reject expert evidence if they decide it is not of sufficient quality. There are clearly reasonable grounds to argue reasonable doubt for at least some of the 'alleged' murders if new evidence is allowed. I understand that the Criminal Cases Review Commission may nevertheless decide it cannot act due its own procedural requirements. I hope not.
Many thanks for your comment, Robin. I hadn't heard anything about the CCRC not being able to act, but if that turns out to be the case, presumably Letby's lawyers would be able to apply directly to the Court of Appeal under Criminal Procedure Rule 36.15: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/759/rule/36.15
That rule was discussed in the Double Jeopardy podcast on 12 February of this year. Starting at 2 minutes in, the podcast explained why it wouldn't be available if the CCRC route was open:
https://open.spotify.com/episode/6X7qLCUX3e8wMvnoC1qftl
Oh good.
Remarkable analysis — I marvel at how you bring such intellectual skill to this, presumably as a pursuit of interest. It speaks to real discipline.
Many thanks for your kind comment. Yes, my writing here is purely out of interest.
Thanks for this very thoughtful commentary. Like many casual observers this case leaves me feeling uneasy about the outcome and, as a non-lawyer, somewhat confused by the conduct of the trial and the subsequent attempts to challenge the result(s). Your analysis helps explain the context.
As you suggest there must be a better way of dealing with complex and competing expert evidence. I suppose it starts with the Crown's decision on whether to prosecute. I'd be happy to see more cases not reach a jury where the Crown decides that there is evidence which will be central to the jury's decision but about which the jury cannot be expected to be "sure" which way the evidence points.
Maybe we need to see more use of non-jury criminal trials?
Would be interested in an Irregular Thought on the criminal justice system more broadly.