Expert witness in Lucy Letby trial did not reveal hospital investigation into his medical work | Lucy Letby
The police force behind the trial of former nurse Lucy Letby said it was not informed by a key expert before she testified at her trial that she was under investigation due to serious concerns about her medical work.
The Crown Prosecution Service also told the Guardian that Prof Peter Hindmarsh was not aware that he was the subject of a formal investigation by the hospital that employed him before he first appeared as a witness on 25 November 2022.
Hindmarsh presented crucial evidence at the hearing of the prosecution case that Letby attempted to kill two babies, named F and L, by injecting insulin into their fluid bags.
The Guardian revealed last week that University College London hospitals NHS Trust (UCLH), Hindmarsh’s main employer in the run-up to the hearing, had conducted a formal investigation, with the involvement of Great Ormond Street hospital, into a number of wide-ranging, serious concerns, including allegations that Hindmarsh had harmed patients.
Rules governing criminal cases require experts – such as the Cheshire police in the Hindmarsh case – to disclose to the party to whom they are giving evidence anything that “may reasonably be considered likely to undermine the expert’s opinion or impair the expert’s credibility or impartiality”.
Senior lawyers told the Guardian that these disclosure duties could also include investigations carried out by an expert’s employer, such as the investigation into Hindmarsh’s professional conduct.
Glyn Maddocks KC, Joint Secretary All party parliamentary group on miscarriages of justiceHe said: “As I understand the rules, in order to be open and transparent to the court, this expert should have disclosed this investigation so that its relevance and importance could be assessed. It is vital that the integrity of experts is maintained at all times.”
Tim Green KC, a barrister experienced in disclosure rules, said he could not comment on the details of the Letby case but said in general an expert would be expected to disclose an internal investigation carried out by his employer, especially if it had reached a negative conclusion.
“If the investigation report were critical of the competence and skill of an expert, I would expect a doctor with experience in giving expert evidence to explain the trust’s investigation of him to solicitors who seek his opinion. This is to ensure that instructing solicitors ensure that the expert complies with disclosure rules before giving evidence.”
Hindmarsh’s contract terminated before hearing
Letby was convicted of murdering seven babies and attempting to kill a further seven babies in the neonatal unit of the Countess of Chester hospital in two trials in 2023 and 2024.
The two insulin trials were pivotal in Letby’s conviction and were two of the jury’s three unanimous guilty verdicts.
The former nurse has always maintained her innocence. In February last year his lawyer, Mark McDonald, lodged an application with the Criminal Cases Review Commission saying the convictions were unsafe and should be sent back to the court of appeal.
The CCRC is reviewing the application, supported by reports from 27 experts, including a panel of leading UK doctors and international doctors led by Canadian neonatologist Dr Shoo Lee. They said the prosecution’s medical evidence, including Hindmarsh’s, was inaccurate, that the babies died of natural causes and poor care in the unit, and that there was no evidence of murder, insulin poisoning or any other intentional harm.
Hindmarsh was one of the prosecution’s eight experts. He was a distinguished figure in British medical practice; consultant pediatric endocrinologist – hormone specialist – and clinical director of paediatrics (child medicine) at University College London hospital. He was also an honorary consultant working at the world-famous children’s hospital, Great Ormond Street.
However, his contract was terminated by the hospital in July 2022, four months before he testified at the hearing. Cheshire police confirmed Hindmarsh also did not disclose this to police.
When he first appeared as an expert witness in November 2022, Hindmarsh was asked by the CPS’ lead solicitor, Nick Johnson, whether he was an honorary consultant at Great Ormond Street, KC. Hindmarsh did not publicly state that his contract had been terminated.
‘No statement until December 2022’
Ultimately, Great Ormond Street took its concerns about Hindmarsh to the regulator, the General Medical Council. The GMC launched an investigation into Hindmarsh’s fitness to train on 25 November 2022, the same day he first gave evidence at Letby’s trial. UCLH later also reported its concerns to the GMC.
Great Ormond Street notified Hindmarsh of the referral on 30 November 2022. Hindmarsh later disclosed to Cheshire police on 14 December 2022 that he was under investigation by the GMC. Both the police and the CPS told the Guardian this was the first statement he had made. The jury at the trial was never told about the investigations.
The allegations against Hindmarsh were never finally resolved because he removed himself from the GMC medical register in November 2024, a process known as “voluntary deletion”.
A spokesman for Cheshire police said: “The professor made a statement to Cheshire police in December 2022 and we subsequently notified the CPS.”
A CPS spokesman said: “We can confirm that we are not aware of any statements made by Prof Hindmarsh to police until December 2022.”
McDonald said Hindmarsh would present the hospitals’ failure to disclose their investigation of him as further evidence supporting his CCRC application.
“Given the significance of Prof Hindmarsh’s evidence, I am surprised that he did not disclose before giving evidence that his contract with Great Ormond Street had been terminated and was under investigation. His failure to disclose these matters raises questions about his own credibility and integrity.”
In response to the Guardian’s questions about this statement, a representative for Hindmarsh said: “We have no comment at this time.”
