PUBLISHER'S NOTE: Mind-boggling: The police claim they were not told about the inquiry into Hindmarsh by his regulatory body before he gave evidence at nurse Letby's trial. My question: Well, did they even ask? (Is that something they really wanted to know? The prosecutors claim they were not aware that he was subject to a formal investigation before his first appearance as a witness, Did they ask. (I mean, really check out his qualifications!) Yet the prosecution put him on the stand as their witness. Can you imagine if a defence lawyer preferred an expert witness - without revealing this extremely important information to the court? The prosecution would be seeking to have the defence lawyer disbarred. Withholding such importation information from the judge, who must act as the gatekeeper, in terms of whether or not to allow the witness to testify, is a fraud upon the court, and should be the subject of a judicial inquiry with testimony under path. But this is much more than a professional conduct issue. It goes to the heart of Lucy Letby's ability to have a fair trial. Indeed it destroyed her right to have a fair trial. She cannot be freed and exonerated soon enough;
Harold Levy: Publisher
------------------------------------------------------
SECOND PUBLISHER'S NOTE: One more connection between Charles Smith and Peter Hindsmith, While working on the Charles Smith story at the Toronto Star, I received a phone call from a source, advising me that Smith - whose reputation as a God of Pathology was shrinking every day - had quietly departed (I like to think of it as 'slinking away in the dark of the night' without a fanfare, from Toronto's undeservedly iconic Hospital for Sick Children. Unusual conduct for a man who had always sought the limelight. I was also able to report that he had been hired to work as a pathologist at a hospital in Saskatchewan. It was hard to imagine that a hospital would give Smith a job, since he he had at this point been subjected to an investigation by The College of physicians and Surgeon's, governing body of the medical profession in Ontario.. We later learned from an exhibit filed at the Goudge Inquiry, which examined many of Smith's cases, that when Smith applied for the job in Saskatchewan, he failed to disclose (as required), that he had been under investigation for professional misconduct in Ontario. (As previously noted on this Blog, when subjected to discipline proceedings the first time in Ontario, the College of Physicians and Surgeons covered up his misconduct by giving him a punishment that was so minimal that it didn't have to be recorded in the College's public Register). Incidentally, the Goudge inquiry only learned about Smith's discipline record in Ontario, from reading an article by a reporter named Harold Levy, that had been published in the Toronto Star. In short, or perhaps I should say 'in long,' I wasn't surprised to read the Guardian's revelations that Peter Hindmarsh "did not reveal hospital Investigation into his medical work."
Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog.
------------------------------------------------
PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "Hindmarsh was one of eight expert witnesses for the prosecution. He was an eminent figure in British medical practice; a consultant paediatric endocrinologist – specialist in hormones – and clinical director for paediatrics (child medicine) at University College London hospital. He was also an honorary consultant, working at Great Ormond Street, the world-famous children’s hospital. However, his contract was terminated by the hospital in July 2022, four months before he gave evidence at the trial. Cheshire police confirmed that Hindmarsh also did not disclose this to the force. When he appeared as an expert witness for the first time in November 2022, Hindmarsh was asked by Nick Johnson KC, lead barrister for the CPS, whether he was an honorary consultant at Great Ormond Street. Hindmarsh did not make it clear that his contract had been terminated."
-------------------------------------------------
PASSAGE TWO OF THE DAY: "Great Ormond Street informed Hindmarsh of the referral on 30 November 2022. Hindmarsh did then disclose to the Cheshire police, on 14 December 2022, that he was under investigation by the GMC. Both the police and CPS told the Guardian that was the first disclosure he had made. The jury at the trial was never told of the investigations. The allegations against Hindmarsh were never finally adjudicated, because in November 2024 he removed himself from the GMC register of doctors, a process known as “voluntary erasure”.
--------------------------------------------------
STORY: "Expert witness in Lucy Letby trial did not reveal hospital investigation into his medical work," The Guardian (Reporters David Conn and Felicity Lawrence) published on March 11, 2026. (David Conn is the Guardian's investigations correspondent. His latest book is The Fall of the House of Fifa.)...(Felicity Lawrence is a special correspondent for the Guardian. She is the author of Not on the Label and Eat Your Heart Out);
SUB-HEADING: "Cheshire police and CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) say they were not told about inquiry into Prof Peter Hindmarsh before he gave evidence at nurse's trial.")
GIST: "The police force behind the prosecution of the former nurse Lucy Letby has said it was not informed by a key expert witness before he gave evidence at her trial that he was under investigation over serious concerns in his medical work.
The Crown Prosecution Service also told the Guardian it was not aware that Prof Peter Hindmarsh was subject to the formal investigation by the hospital that employed him, before his first appearance as a witness on 25 November 2022.
Hindmarsh provided crucial evidence in the trial for the prosecution’s case that Letby had attempted to murder two babies, referred to as F and L, by injecting insulin into their fluid bags.
The Guardian revealed last week that in the period leading up to the trial University College London hospitals NHS trust (UCLH), Hindmarsh’s main employer, was leading a formal investigation, with involvement from Great Ormond Street hospital, into multiple, wide-ranging, serious concerns, including allegations that Hindmarsh harmed patients.
Rules governing criminal cases require expert witnesses to disclose to the side they are giving evidence for – in Hindmarsh’s case Cheshire police – anything “that might reasonably be thought capable of undermining the expert’s opinion or detract from the credibility or impartiality of the expert”.
Senior lawyers have told the Guardian that these duties of disclosure can include investigations by an expert’s employer, like the one into Hindmarsh’s professional conduct.
Glyn Maddocks KC, joint secretary of the all party parliamentary group on miscarriages of justice, said: “As I understand the rules, in order to be open and transparent with the court, this expert should have disclosed this investigation, so that its relevance and importance could be assessed. It’s vitally important that the integrity of experts is retained at all times.”
Tim Green KC, a barrister experienced in the disclosure rules, said he could not comment on the details of the Letby case, but in general, an expert would be expected to disclose an internal investigation by his employer, particularly if it had reached an adverse conclusion.
“If the investigation report was critical of an expert’s competence and skill, I would expect a physician who had experience in giving expert evidence to disclose the trust’s investigation into him/her to those lawyers seeking his opinion. That is to enable the instructing lawyers to ensure the expert complies with the disclosure rules before he gives evidence.”
Hindmarsh contract terminated before trial
Letby was convicted of murdering seven babies and attempting to murder seven others in the neonatal unit of the Countess of Chester hospital, over two trials in 2023 and 2024.
The two insulin cases were pivotal in Letby’s conviction and were two of only three guilty verdicts on which the jury was unanimous.
The former nurse has always maintained she is innocent. In February last year, her lawyer Mark McDonald submitted an application to the Criminal Cases Review Commission that the convictions were unsafe and should be referred back to the court of appeal.
The CCRC is reviewing the application, which is supported by reports from 27 experts, including a panel of leading UK and international doctors led by the Canadian neonatologist Dr Shoo Lee. They say the prosecution’s medical evidence, including Hindmarsh’s, was wrong, that the babies died from natural causes and poor care on the unit, and there was no evidence of any murders, insulin poisoning or any other deliberate harm.
Hindmarsh was one of eight expert witnesses for the prosecution. He was an eminent figure in British medical practice; a consultant paediatric endocrinologist – specialist in hormones – and clinical director for paediatrics (child medicine) at University College London hospital. He was also an honorary consultant, working at Great Ormond Street, the world-famous children’s hospital.
However, his contract was terminated by the hospital in July 2022, four months before he gave evidence at the trial. Cheshire police confirmed that Hindmarsh also did not disclose this to the force.
When he appeared as an expert witness for the first time in November 2022, Hindmarsh was asked by Nick Johnson KC, lead barrister for the CPS, whether he was an honorary consultant at Great Ormond Street. Hindmarsh did not make it clear that his contract had been terminated.
‘No disclosure until December 2022’
Ultimately Great Ormond Street referred its concerns about Hindmarsh to the regulator, the General Medical Council. The GMC opened an investigation into Hindmarsh’s fitness to practise on 25 November 2022, the same day he first gave evidence for the prosecution of Letby. UCLH then also reported its concerns to the GMC.
Great Ormond Street informed Hindmarsh of the referral on 30 November 2022. Hindmarsh did then disclose to the Cheshire police, on 14 December 2022, that he was under investigation by the GMC. Both the police and CPS told the Guardian that was the first disclosure he had made. The jury at the trial was never told of the investigations.
The allegations against Hindmarsh were never finally adjudicated, because in November 2024 he removed himself from the GMC register of doctors, a process known as “voluntary erasure”.
A spokesperson for Cheshire police said: “The professor made a disclosure to Cheshire police in December 2022 and we then notified the CPS.”
A CPS spokesperson said: “We can confirm we are not aware of any disclosure being made by Prof Hindmarsh to the police until December 2022.”"
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. 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.
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;
SUB-HEADING: "Cheshire police and CPS say they were not told about inquiry into Prof Peter Hindmarsh before he gave evidence at nurse's trial."
GIST: "The police force behind the prosecution of the former nurse Lucy Letby has said it was not informed by a key expert witness before he gave evidence at her trial that he was under investigation over serious concerns in his medical work.
The Crown Prosecution Service also told the Guardian it was not aware that Prof Peter Hindmarsh was subject to the formal investigation by the hospital that employed him, before his first appearance as a witness on 25 November 2022.
Hindmarsh provided crucial evidence in the trial for the prosecution’s case that Letby had attempted to murder two babies, referred to as F and L, by injecting insulin into their fluid bags.
The Guardian revealed last week that in the period leading up to the trial University College London hospitals NHS trust (UCLH), Hindmarsh’s main employer, was leading a formal investigation, with involvement from Great Ormond Street hospital, into multiple, wide-ranging, serious concerns, including allegations that Hindmarsh harmed patients.
Rules governing criminal cases require expert witnesses to disclose to the side they are giving evidence for – in Hindmarsh’s case Cheshire police – anything “that might reasonably be thought capable of undermining the expert’s opinion or detract from the credibility or impartiality of the expert”.
Senior lawyers have told the Guardian that these duties of disclosure can include investigations by an expert’s employer, like the one into Hindmarsh’s professional conduct.
Glyn Maddocks KC, joint secretary of the all party parliamentary group on miscarriages of justice, said: “As I understand the rules, in order to be open and transparent with the court, this expert should have disclosed this investigation, so that its relevance and importance could be assessed. It’s vitally important that the integrity of experts is retained at all times.”
Tim Green KC, a barrister experienced in the disclosure rules, said he could not comment on the details of the Letby case, but in general, an expert would be expected to disclose an internal investigation by his employer, particularly if it had reached an adverse conclusion.
“If the investigation report was critical of an expert’s competence and skill, I would expect a physician who had experience in giving expert evidence to disclose the trust’s investigation into him/her to those lawyers seeking his opinion. That is to enable the instructing lawyers to ensure the expert complies with the disclosure rules before he gives evidence.”
Hindmarsh contract terminated before trial
Letby was convicted of murdering seven babies and attempting to murder seven others in the neonatal unit of the Countess of Chester hospital, over two trials in 2023 and 2024.
The two insulin cases were pivotal in Letby’s conviction and were two of only three guilty verdicts on which the jury was unanimous.
The former nurse has always maintained she is innocent. In February last year, her lawyer Mark McDonald submitted an application to the Criminal Cases Review Commission that the convictions were unsafe and should be referred back to the court of appeal.
The CCRC is reviewing the application, which is supported by reports from 27 experts, including a panel of leading UK and international doctors led by the Canadian neonatologist Dr Shoo Lee. They say the prosecution’s medical evidence, including Hindmarsh’s, was wrong, that the babies died from natural causes and poor care on the unit, and there was no evidence of any murders, insulin poisoning or any other deliberate harm.
Hindmarsh was one of eight expert witnesses for the prosecution. He was an eminent figure in British medical practice; a consultant paediatric endocrinologist – specialist in hormones – and clinical director for paediatrics (child medicine) at University College London hospital. He was also an honorary consultant, working at Great Ormond Street, the world-famous children’s hospital.
However, his contract was terminated by the hospital in July 2022, four months before he gave evidence at the trial. Cheshire police confirmed that Hindmarsh also did not disclose this to the force.
When he appeared as an expert witness for the first time in November 2022, Hindmarsh was asked by Nick Johnson KC, lead barrister for the CPS, whether he was an honorary consultant at Great Ormond Street. Hindmarsh did not make it clear that his contract had been terminated.
‘No disclosure until December 2022’
Ultimately Great Ormond Street referred its concerns about Hindmarsh to the regulator, the General Medical Council. The GMC opened an investigation into Hindmarsh’s fitness to practise on 25 November 2022, the same day he first gave evidence for the prosecution of Letby. UCLH then also reported its concerns to the GMC.
Great Ormond Street informed Hindmarsh of the referral on 30 November 2022. Hindmarsh did then disclose to the Cheshire police, on 14 December 2022, that he was under investigation by the GMC. Both the police and CPS told the Guardian that was the first disclosure he had made. The jury at the trial was never told of the investigations.
The allegations against Hindmarsh were never finally adjudicated, because in November 2024 he removed himself from the GMC register of doctors, a process known as “voluntary erasure”.
A spokesperson for Cheshire police said: “The professor made a disclosure to Cheshire police in December 2022 and we then notified the CPS.”
A CPS spokesperson said: “We can confirm we are not aware of any disclosure being made by Prof Hindmarsh to the police until December 2022.”"
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. 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.
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;
