The CCRC’s published chronology
In January 2026 the CCRC took the unusual step of publishing a timeline of the application, to limit possible misunderstandings about the time spent on the review. The chronology records nine further entries between February 2025 and January 2026 — seven of them filings received, plus the Commission’s own request for a waiver of privilege and its publication of the chronology. Including:
- 3 February 2025 — preliminary application received.
- 31 March 2025 — independent experts’ reports received.
- 15 April 2025 — additional expert reports received.
- 2 May 2025 — main written submissions received.
- 15 August 2025 — further expert report on a topic not previously covered.
- 8 October 2025 — further written submissions, on matters separate from those previously notified.
- 11 December 2025 — waiver of privilege and the original trial defence files received.
The chronology has not been updated since. Filings reported since then — including the 9 July 2026 insulin report below — are known from press reporting rather than from the CCRC.
See the full timeline on our CCRC overview, and the Commission’s chair’s statement of 13 February 2026.
The April 2025 hand-delivery
On 2 April 2025, Letby’s legal team hand-delivered to the CCRC the international expert panel’s 86-page report, which the team said cast “serious doubt” on the verdicts, together with a separate report on the insulin cases of Babies F and L from seven experts. Mark McDonald KC said the fresh evidence “totally undermines the prosecution case at trial”. (The Guardian, ITV News.)
The July 2026 insulin report
On 9 July 2026 Letby’s legal team sent the CCRC a 100-page analysis by Neil Aiton, a consultant neonatologist at the Royal Sussex County Hospital in Brighton, and Hilde Wilkinson-Herbots, an associate professor in the Department of Statistical Science at University College London. Reported by Private Eye, it alleges errors of fact and omissions in the trial evidence of Prof. Peter Hindmarsh, the prosecution’s insulin expert, and states that an email from Hindmarsh indicates he was aware of other potential causes for the babies’ insulin levels which were never placed before the court. It also questions how the alleged poisoning could have been carried out on shifts Letby was not working. (Brighton and Hove News, 9 July 2026.)
The report itself has not been published. What is above is what has been reported about it, not its contents. See the insulin evidence page, the Hindmarsh non-disclosure page, and the shift-chart page for the three strands it draws together.
The publicly available reports
- Shoo Lee International Expert Panel — Summary Report (February 2025). The fourteen-member panel’s case-by-case medical review. Full PDF · press-conference transcript · how to read the Panel report.
- Joint Expert Witness Insulin Report on Babies F and L (May 2025). The immunoassay-validation and C-peptide analysis. Our transcript page.
The peer-reviewed publications
- Prof. John O’Quigley (December 2025) — “Use of roster charts in the investigation and prosecution of nurses suspected of inflicting deliberate harm on patients”, Medicine, Science and the Law. SAGE. The paper concludes the roster chart should not have been put before jurors; Prof. Richard Gill’s June 2026 critique disputes the modelling while endorsing that conclusion.
- Prof. Geoff Chase & Helen Shannon (April 2026) — peer-reviewed insulin research in the Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology: around four in ten preterm babies have high insulin readings, and insulin-binding antibodies can keep measured levels elevated. (The Justice Gap.)
What is not public
The individual expert reports filed with the CCRC — beyond the publicly released documents above — have not been published, and the Commission does not disclose which experts it has engaged or which counts it is prioritising. Public claims about the number or content of the filed reports that go beyond the CCRC’s published chronology should be treated with caution, and this page deliberately does not repeat them. See our methodology and corrections policy.