The Lucy Letby case is the newest in plenty of UK legal medical instances that, past the rights and wrongs of every verdict, elevate critical questions round how such instances are tried – particularly when the proof is proscribed, advanced, and circumstantial. These instances usually rely closely on professional witnesses, whose testimony is essential but might be open to interpretation.
As an professional within the intersection of legal and medical legislation, I’m notably involved with how prosecution groups collect professional proof in such instances – and the way it’s then communicated to juries via professional witnesses.
Typically talking, in advanced medical instances, police and prosecutors might danger turning into overly reliant on a small pool of specialists when coping with extremely technical points past their experience. This dependence can inadvertently result in “cherry-picking” – selectively presenting proof that helps a selected narrative, whereas overlooking different views that might present a extra complete or balanced view.
Learn extra:
Specialists have challenged the medical case towards Lucy Letby. What in regards to the statistical proof?
Within the Letby case, the prosecution’s choice and interpretation of proof has now been challenged by an impartial panel of 14 neonatal and paediatric specialists. Letby is serving 15 whole-life jail phrases after being convicted of murdering seven infants and making an attempt to kill one other seven on the Countess of Chester hospital in north-west England. The chair of the panel, retired Canadian neonatologist Dr Shoo Lee, was co-author of a 1989 tutorial paper on air embolism in infants that was used within the prosecution’s case, however now says this proof was misinterpreted by the prosecution.
In advanced medical instances, I’m involved that prosecutors – who might lack the medical experience wanted to totally grasp these complexities – might gravitate towards specialists whose opinions align with a prosecutorial narrative, whether or not consciously or not. This may end up in a narrowing of professional views which could are inclined to focus solely on people who bolster the case for conviction, whereas different views that might present a extra balanced evaluation are excluded or marginalised.
In trials the place juries hear solely a restricted variety of professional voices, there’s a danger they could not obtain a sufficiently balanced understanding of the case. As well as, uncommon diagnoses might lack the strong scientific literature sometimes wanted to validate medical opinions in court docket.
Medical specialists, like professionals in any discipline, can have differing opinions, particularly in instances involving judgment calls or gray areas in medical apply. With out publicity to a spread of viewpoints, jurors might miss different interpretations of the identical proof, which might be essential for honest deliberation.
Peter Byrne/PA Pictures/Alamy
After all, the defence additionally has the chance to name its personal specialists, doubtlessly providing counter-arguments to prosecution proof. However selections by a defence workforce to not name sure specialists could also be based mostly on authorized technique, useful resource constraints, or considerations about how the testimony will stand up to cross-examination. When this occurs, it might probably amplify the load of the prosecution’s chosen specialists, doubtlessly skewing the jury’s understanding.
Jurors naturally place a excessive degree of belief in specialists, assuming their testimony is each correct and confined to their space of experience. So, when specialists enterprise past their remit, jurors might settle for these statements uncritically, unaware that such testimony might lack the depth required in such advanced medical instances. This challenge is especially regarding in circumstantial prosecutions the place the case usually hinges extra on professional interpretation than on direct proof, growing the danger of bewilderment or misjudgment.
Skilled overreach
Testimony from specialists unfamiliar with the sensible pressures of sure medical settings might result in distorted interpretations of what a “affordable” plan of action would have been underneath the circumstances. This may end up in unfair judgments, notably when the nuances of medical decision-making aren’t absolutely explored.
Sean Dempsey/PA Pictures/Alamy
Specialists additionally typically “overreach” their duties in court docket, providing opinions that stretch past their remit. Within the case of surgeon David Sellu, who was jailed for gross negligence manslaughter in November 2013 earlier than being freed three years later, having spent 15 months in jail, the court docket of attraction famous that professional witnesses had repeatedly expressed opinions on whether or not Sellu’s conduct amounted to gross negligence – an evaluation the court docket stated ought to have been left to the jury.
In that case, the specialists instantly addressed the “final challenge” of whether or not Sellu’s actions have been grossly negligent. However that was for the jury to resolve, not the specialists, and I consider the trial decide ought to have intervened. A key change wanted by the UK authorized system, for my part, is to ascertain clearer tips to make sure specialists don’t exceed their function – whether or not in a fancy monetary fraud or legal medical trial.
By the way, whereas the decide within the Sellu trial didn’t give the jury appropriate route (this was a key discovering by the court docket of attraction that made the conviction unsafe), I don’t suppose it was completely the decide’s fault. The legislation surrounding gross negligence manslaughter, notably when utilized to medical doctors unintentionally inflicting a affected person’s loss of life, is fraught with ambiguity. The dearth of clear tips on what constitutes “gross” negligence, coupled with inconsistent utility of the legislation, has sparked widespread considerations about its equity and appropriateness within the medical context..
Make-up of a jury
Letby’s trial additionally highlights the constraints of the present jury system in such advanced medical instances. The unique trial was one of many longest in UK authorized historical past, lasting ten months. The thought of jury trials is you’re tried by your friends, however if you happen to’re a healthcare skilled, you’re arguably probably not being tried by your friends.
In England, jury service is obligatory and jurors are chosen randomly from the electoral register, however there are some exemptions and deferrals accessible in particular circumstances, reminiscent of critical sickness, incapacity, or full-time caregiving. Moreover, individuals can apply for deferral if serving would trigger vital hardship as a consequence of work commitments, together with shift work or conflicts with essential public duties. That is notably related for professionals who can not simply take prolonged time away from their roles.
This provides to the query of whether or not a jury, composed of 12 lay individuals with no specialised medical information, can successfully assess intricate, usually conflicting medical proof. As Rebecca Helm highlights in her e book How Juries Work (2024), whereas professional testimony goals to reinforce jury understanding of advanced proof, jurors usually lack the required background information to totally grasp or critically assess it. This may result in challenges in correctly weighing competing professional opinions, particularly in adversarial methods the place specialists current differing views.
Within the Letby case, the huge quantity of medical proof introduced for every child doubtless made it difficult for a lay jury to totally comprehend. Moreover, they could have felt intimidated or hesitant to ask the decide questions, additional complicating their capacity to critically have interaction with the proof.
The Insights part is dedicated to high-quality longform journalism. Our editors work with lecturers from many alternative backgrounds who’re tackling a variety of societal and scientific challenges.
After all, it’s essential to know the backdrop for instances like this. I’m very conscious of how overstretched, understaffed and under-resourced our hospitals are. And within the Letby case, we all know that severely untimely infants who’re born on the cusp of viability usually have lots of comorbidities. It’s very important that jurors have a transparent understanding of such particular context – which is outdoors the conventional expertise of most of us – once they come to make their selections.
The jury’s function is to evaluate professional proof independently, but this may be troublesome with out clear steerage. Within the Sellu trial, the absence of a “path to verdict” doc was one other vital challenge. Whereas not all the time obligatory, such a doc is usually utilized in advanced instances to assist jurors separate medical details from authorized conclusions.
With out it, the jury was left with out clear steerage, growing the danger of confusion and misapplication of the legislation. Whereas the court docket of attraction didn’t say a path to verdict was strictly required, it strongly indicated that its omission contributed to an unfair trial course of.
Skilled advisors for juries
In advanced legal instances, like fraud or medical trials, the place a considerable amount of professional proof is introduced, it may be difficult for lay jurors to totally perceive and assess the proof. Elsewhere in Europe – together with in Italy, Spain and France – professional judges or advisers are sometimes concerned in advanced instances to assist information the jury and make clear skilled requirements related to the case.
Given the complexity of instances like Sellu and Letby, it’s value contemplating whether or not jury reform is required within the UK to make sure honest trials. A possible resolution is the inclusion of an professional, reminiscent of a medico-legal advisor, who can help juries in understanding and weighing medical proof. This would supply readability on advanced points and assist jurors navigate the case extra successfully. It might be a sensible, cost-effective step that maintains the integrity of jury trials, whereas addressing challenges particular to advanced medical manslaughter and homicide instances.
This medico-legal professional would serve solely to help the jury in understanding advanced points introduced in the course of the trial, and would haven’t any function within the deliberation or decision-making course of. They’re separate to the decide who oversees the trial, and their exact experience can be depending on the actual nature of the case.
After all, every little thing must be confidential in accordance with jury guidelines – their introduction would merely be to facilitate decision-making and clarify advanced issues to the jury.
I consider it’s within the pursuits of each events, the defendant and the prosecution, that the jury absolutely understands the proof introduced in court docket. An neutral medico-legal professional might assist guarantee this understanding, with out influencing the case’s consequence. Their function can be helpful for readability, serving to each events make sure the jury comprehends the advanced proof earlier than them.
Additional, it could even be value contemplating specialist medical juries for sure advanced legal instances, such because the Letby trial, the place the proof is very technical. The sheer quantity of advanced medical data introduced for every child on this case suggests {that a} jury with out specialised medical information might wrestle to totally grasp the proof.
Appeals course of
One of many Letby attraction grounds concerned an utility to confess contemporary proof from Lee, difficult the conclusions reached from the 1989 examine he co-authored. The court docket of attraction denied this, noting it didn’t meet the requirements for contemporary proof. Refusals reminiscent of this highlights a vital side of public debate: the necessity for transparency about how the court docket of attraction evaluates new proof, particularly in instances that obtain vital media consideration.
Whereas it stays to be seen whether or not the court docket grants a brand new attraction for Letby, after the legal instances overview fee opinions the newest proof offered by Lee’s panel, the Thirlwall inquiry has been sitting since September 2023, occasions on the Countess of Chester Hospital on the idea that Letby is responsible. It would in the end make suggestions about totally different elements of this wider medical ecosystem, nevertheless it’s obtained no authorized authority. Inquiries could make helpful suggestions, however they’re advisory in nature and can’t implement authorized adjustments or compel motion.
There are quite a few different examples the place legal trials haven’t led to the systemic-level adjustments that they spotlight are urgently wanted, past the person verdict. In the course of the trial of Hadiza Bawa-Garba – a junior physician discovered responsible of manslaughter in November 2015 on the grounds of gross negligence manslaughter following the loss of life of a six-year-old boy in her care – it was revealed that the Leicester NHS belief’s critical incident report had recognized 93 failures, solely six of which have been attributable to the physician herself.
In the end, whereas holding people accountable is important, we should additionally shift our focus in direction of long-term, systemic reform. Solely by addressing the foundation causes and strengthening oversight inside healthcare establishments can we be certain that tragedies are by no means repeated. The legal justice system, although crucial in instances of clear legal conduct, needs to be complemented by proactive, preventative measures that foster a tradition of security, accountability and transparency in healthcare.
For you: extra from our Insights sequence:
To listen to about new Insights articles, be part of the a whole bunch of hundreds of people that worth The Dialog’s evidence-based information. Subscribe to our e-newsletter.
