Cardiotocography traces — antenatal records not in evidence
The prosecution’s claim: Antenatal records were not central to the prosecution case; collapse was framed as occurring against an otherwise unremarkable clinical baseline.
Prosecution claim
Antenatal records were not central to the prosecution case; collapse was framed as occurring against an otherwise unremarkable clinical baseline.
Counter-evidence
Cardiotocography (CTG) traces, antenatal Doppler studies and other antenatal-monitoring records exist for the affected infants and are part of the maternity-record set. Several of these records contain findings — non-reassuring fetal heart-rate patterns, reversed end-diastolic flow, evidence of intrauterine compromise — that materially alter the baseline against which postnatal deteriorations should be assessed. The extent to which these records were placed in evidence at trial, or made available to defence experts, is contested and is part of the disclosure-completeness review under the CCRC submission.
Key point: If the antenatal CTG and Doppler record shows intrauterine compromise, the postnatal collapse is not anomalous against the baby's actual baseline — it is consistent with it. Whether the jury saw the antenatal record in full is the disclosure question.
What the jury heard
Antenatal records were referenced selectively and were not given the prominence they would carry in a clinical-causation review of an extremely preterm infant.
What the Panel says
The Panel's case-by-case findings consistently weight antenatal trajectory and prematurity-associated risk in assessing whether a deterioration requires a deliberate-act explanation.
What independent experts add
- Disclosure-completeness on antenatal records is part of the broader CPIA-disclosure review.
- Dr Martyn Pitman has emphasised the antenatal-record dimension in case-by-case analysis.