Lucy Letby v R

Lucy Letby v R

None of the grounds advanced by the applicant were arguable. The trial judge was entitled to admit Dr Evans' evidence, reject the submission of no case to answer, and direct the jury as he did. The expert evidence on air embolus was admissible and the criticisms went to weight, not admissibility. The judge properly exercised discretion in investigating the alleged jury irregularity. The proposed fresh evidence from Dr Lee did not undermine the safety of the convictions and there was no reasonable explanation for not adducing it at trial. All applications, including for leave to adduce fresh evidence, were refused.

Parties
Applicant: Lucy Letby; Respondent: Rex
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 April 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Renewed Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal against conviction refused
Legal Topics
Expert Evidence, Jury Irregularity, Admissibility of Evidence, Murder, Attempted Murder, Appeals, Fresh Evidence
Criminal Law Expert Evidence Jury Irregularity Admissibility of Evidence Murder Attempted Murder Appeals Fresh Evidence

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lucy Letby

Applicant

Rex

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Renewed Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in admitting and refusing to exclude the evidence of Dr Evans as an expert witness
  2. 2 Whether the judge was wrong to reject the submission of no case to answer regarding air embolus evidence
  3. 3 Whether the judge's direction to the jury regarding the need to be sure of the precise harmful act was correct

Ratio Decidendi

None of the grounds advanced by the applicant were arguable. The trial judge was entitled to admit Dr Evans' evidence, reject the submission of no case to answer, and direct the jury as he did. The expert evidence on air embolus was admissible and the criticisms went to weight, not admissibility. The judge properly exercised discretion in investigating the alleged jury irregularity. The proposed fresh evidence from Dr Lee did not undermine the safety of the convictions and there was no reasonable explanation for not adducing it at trial. All applications, including for leave to adduce fresh evidence, were refused.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal against conviction refused