SUB-HEADING: "After the convicted killer was refused permission to appeal, she has few options left.
GIST: What stages has Letby’s case been through at the court of appeal?
Any defendant wanting to make an appeal against a crown court conviction or sentence must seek permission to do so from the court of appeal criminal division, the second most senior court in England and Wales. This court, based at the Royal Courts of Justice in London, is able to reduce a prison sentence or quash a crown court conviction. It can order a retrial in cases where a judge has made an error.
After her trial last year, Letby’s lawyers sought permission to appeal against her convictions. She put forward four grounds of appeal, each of which related to applications she had made during the trial that had been denied by the judge, Mr Justice Goss. On 24 May, judges denied permission.
What did she argue at the appeal court?
Letby’s legal team argued that her convictions were unsafe because Goss had been mistaken in law when he refused four separate applications made by the defence.
First, they said the evidence of the prosecution’s key expert, Dr Dewi Evans, should have been struck out for being “dogmatic and biased”.
Letby’s barrister, Benjamin Myers KC, also argued that the medical evidence behind her convictions for fatally injecting air into babies’ bloodstreams, producing what is known as an air embolus, was “very weak” and could not be relied upon.
Dr Shoo Lee, an academic who researched the phenomenon of air embolus in babies in 1989, gave evidence to the appeal court on behalf of the defence, telling judges that the “only sign” of it was pink blood vessels “superimposed” on a pink or blue body.
When questioned by the prosecution, Lee accepted he had not assessed any of the victims’ medical records in Letby’s case or seen any of the witness testimony provided by other medical staff, who noted strange rashes on a number of the dead babies.
Letby’s third argument was that the judge was wrong to direct the jury that they did not have to be sure of the precise act, or acts, that led to a baby’s collapse or death.
Finally, Myers said the judge failed to properly investigate a complaint made about a juror in the final days of the trial, when they were allegedly overheard saying they had “made up their minds from the start” about Letby’s guilt.
It was later suggested that the complaint may have been made maliciously as the complaint was traced back to a cafe owner who had been in dispute with the juror’s partner over the sale of an iPhone.
Why was her application thrown out?
In a 59-page ruling published on Tuesday, the appeal court judges said Goss’s handling of the trial had been “thoughtful, fair, comprehensive and correct”. They ruled that none of the four legal challenges advanced by Letby were “arguable” and said they did not consider that the criteria for the admission of fresh evidence – in the form of two research papers by Lee – had been met.
Is this the end of the road for Letby’s appeal? What could she do next?
After her initial application for leave to appeal was rejected, Letby renewed her application, essentially putting in the appeal application for a second time, to be reconsidered by a panel of judges at a hearing. When this was denied, in effect she had exhausted the appeals process.
One avenue still available to Letby may be the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC).
What does the Criminal Cases Review Commission do?
The CCRC is an official public body tasked with investigating potential miscarriages of justice in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. It can refer a case back to the court of appeal if it identifies new or overlooked evidence.
It has the legal power to obtain evidence from public bodies, such as the police and the Crown Prosecution Service, and private organisations. It can also interview witnesses and arrange for new expert evidence such as psychological reports and DNA testing.
For the CCRC to be able to refer a case back to the court of appeal, there would need to be new information that may have changed the outcome of the case if the jury had known about it."
The entire story can be read at:
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue/resource. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com. Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog.
SEE BREAKDOWN OF SOME OF THE ON-GOING INTERNATIONAL CASES (OUTSIDE OF THE CONTINENTAL USA) THAT I AM FOLLOWING ON THIS BLOG, AT THE LINK BELOW: HL:
https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/120008354894645705/4704913685758792985
———————————————————————————————
FINAL WORD: (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases): "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices."
Lawyer Radha Natarajan:
Executive Director: New England Innocence Project;
—————————————————————————————————
FINAL, FINAL WORD: "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions. They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they've exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true!
Christina Swarns: Executive Director: The Innocence Project;
