header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
20 September 2024 / Mark Solon
Issue: 8086 / Categories: Opinion , Criminal , In Court , Expert Witness
printer mail-detail

Calling your expert: stick or twist?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
189734
Lucy Letby’s defence team’s decision not to call their experts to the stand highlights the potential benefits & risks of oral testimony, says Mark Solon

The trial of Lucy Letby and the recent Court of Appeal’s rejection of her application for leave to appeal against her convictions raises issues of expert witness credibility, independence and expertise (the full judgment can be accessed at R v Letby [2024] EWCA Crim 748). The matter has generated many conspiracy theories as to Letby’s guilt and some of these are based on the fact that although the defence had instructed expert witnesses to produce reports, they were not called to give oral evidence. Let us look at why the defence may not have called their experts, although we do not know what those reasons actually were.

Grounds & response

The applicant’s grounds of appeal included that the trial judge was wrong not to direct the jury to disregard the evidence of the main prosecution expert witness, Dr Evans, and to reject the

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Penningtons Manches Cooper—Robert Dransfield

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Robert Dransfield

London medical negligence practice strengthened by senior partner hire

DAC Beachcroft—seven appointments

DAC Beachcroft—seven appointments

Firm boosts professional risk practice with team hire in Manchester, led by partner Ben Parks

Doyle Clayton—Benedicte Perowne

Doyle Clayton—Benedicte Perowne

Workplace law firm appoints new head of regulatory team

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: CPR tweak closes third-party disclosure gap
A seemingly dry procedural update may prove potent. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ this week, Stephen Gold explains that new CPR 31.12A—part of the 193rd update—fills a ‘lacuna’ exposed in McLaren Indy v Alpa Racing
NLJ this week: Court of Appeals wrestles with Mazur fallout
The long-running Mazur saga edged towards its finale as the Court of Appeal heard arguments on whether non-solicitors can ‘conduct litigation’. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School reports from a packed courtroom where 16 wigs watched Nick Bacon KC argue that Mr Justice Sheldon had failed to distinguish between ‘tasks and responsibilities’
NLJ this week: Appeal court reins in ‘wrong defendant’ switcheroo

The Court of Appeal has slammed the brakes on claimants trying to swap defendants after limitation has expired. In Adcamp LLP v Office Properties and BDB Pitmans v Lee [2026] EWCA Civ 50, it overturned High Court rulings that had allowed substitutions under s 35(6)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980, reports Sarah Crowther of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ

NLJ this week: Driving test fraudsters steer towards jail
Cheating in driving tests is surging—and courts are responding firmly. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort Law School charts a rise in impersonation and tech-assisted fraud, with 2,844 attempts recorded in a year
NLJ this week: Deepfakes demand data law muscle
As AI-generated ‘deepfake’ images proliferate, the law may already have the tools to respond. In NLJ this week, Jon Belcher of Excello Law argues that such images amount to personal data processing under UK GDPR
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll