Lucy Letby Case: Key Witness Hid Investigation During Trial

The prosecution of former nurse Lucy Letby has been further complicated by revelations that a key expert witness, Professor Peter Hindmarsh, was under investigation by medical regulators during the trial. This investigation, concerning serious allegations about his medical work, was not disclosed to the police or the prosecution until December 2022, months after he began providing crucial testimony.

The Insulin Evidence and the Letby Case

Professor Hindmarsh’s evidence centered on the prosecution’s claim that Letby intentionally poisoned two babies, referred to as Child F and Child L, with insulin. These cases were pivotal in securing convictions against Letby, who was accused of murdering seven babies and attempting to murder seven others at the Countess of Chester Hospital’s neonatal unit. The jury reached unanimous guilty verdicts on these two insulin-related charges, alongside others. However, Letby maintains her innocence, and her lawyer, Mark McDonald, has submitted an application to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) arguing the convictions are unsafe.

The CCRC is currently reviewing the application, supported by a panel of experts, including Canadian neonatologist Dr. Shoo Lee, who have questioned the medical evidence presented during the trial. This panel suggests the babies’ deaths were likely due to natural causes and inadequate care, rather than deliberate harm, and that there was no evidence of murder or insulin poisoning.

Disclosure Concerns and Professional Conduct

The concerns surrounding Professor Hindmarsh’s conduct came to light through a formal investigation led by University College London hospitals NHS trust (UCLH), his primary employer, with involvement from Great Ormond Street hospital. The investigation encompassed multiple serious allegations, including claims that Hindmarsh had harmed patients. According to legal experts, these types of investigations should have been disclosed to the defense – in this case, Cheshire police – as anything that could potentially undermine the expert’s credibility or impartiality is required to be revealed.

Glyn Maddocks KC, joint secretary of the all party parliamentary group on miscarriages of justice, emphasized the importance of transparency, stating that the investigation “should have disclosed this investigation, so that its relevance and importance could be assessed.” Tim Green KC, a barrister specializing in disclosure rules, added that an internal investigation by an expert’s employer, particularly if it reached adverse conclusions, would generally be expected to be disclosed. He explained that disclosure allows instructing lawyers to ensure the expert complies with the necessary rules before providing evidence.

Timeline of Events and Non-Disclosure

The timeline reveals a concerning gap in disclosure. The General Medical Council (GMC) initiated an investigation into Hindmarsh’s fitness to practice on November 25, 2022 – the very day he first testified for the prosecution. UCLH also reported its concerns to the GMC around the same time. Despite this, no disclosure was made to Cheshire police until December 14, 2022. Cheshire police then informed the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). The CPS has stated they were unaware of any disclosure from Hindmarsh prior to that date. Crucially, the jury was never informed about these investigations during the trial.

Adding another layer to the situation, Hindmarsh’s contract with Great Ormond Street hospital was terminated in July 2022, four months before he began giving evidence. When questioned about his continued role at Great Ormond Street during his initial testimony in November 2022, Hindmarsh did not clarify that his contract had been ended.

Implications for the CCRC Review

The non-disclosure of these investigations has prompted further scrutiny of the case. Mark McDonald, Letby’s lawyer, intends to submit Hindmarsh’s failure to disclose the hospital investigations as additional evidence to the CCRC, arguing it raises questions about his credibility and integrity.

Professor Hindmarsh himself has declined to comment on the matter. The allegations against him were never formally adjudicated, as he voluntarily removed himself from the GMC register of doctors in November 2024. This process, known as “voluntary erasure,” effectively ends the GMC’s investigation.

What Happens Next: Ongoing Scrutiny and Potential Appeal

The focus now rests with the Criminal Cases Review Commission. The CCRC will assess the newly presented evidence, including the disclosure issues surrounding Professor Hindmarsh, alongside the existing concerns raised by the expert panel led by Dr. Shoo Lee. If the CCRC determines there is a real possibility the convictions are unsafe, it will refer the case back to the Court of Appeal for a fresh review. The outcome of this review will be critical in determining the future of Lucy Letby’s case and whether a retrial will be ordered. The integrity of expert testimony, and the rigorous adherence to disclosure rules, remain central to ensuring a fair and just legal process.

For more information on the role of the Criminal Cases Review Commission, you can visit their website: https://www.ccrc.gov.uk/. Further details on the Lucy Letby case can be found through the Guardian’s coverage and the BBC’s reporting.