header-logo header-logo

20 September 2024 / Mark Solon
Issue: 8086 / Categories: Opinion , Criminal , In Court , Expert Witness
printer mail-detail

Calling your expert: stick or twist?

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

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
In this week’s NLJ, Fred Philpott, Gough Square Chambers, invites us to imagine there was no statutory limitation. What would that world be like?
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
back-to-top-scroll