Why it matters in the Letby case
Much of the post-conviction expert material in the Letby case (the Shoo Lee Panel report, the Joint Insulin Report, the further expert reports on the CCRC's chronology) emerged after the 2024 direct-appeal refusal.
Legal explainer
Fresh evidence in criminal appeals
Under section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, the Court of Appeal admits fresh evidence if it appears capable of belief, would have been admissible at trial, could have affected the verdict, and was not available at trial.
Legal explanation1Court/official
Last updated
Prosecution position
At the 2024 direct appeal the Court declined to admit or act on the material then advanced, and the convictions were upheld.
Expert challenge / post-conviction reading
Much of the post-conviction expert material emerged after that refusal: the February 2025 Shoo Lee Panel report, the Joint Expert Witness Insulin Report on Babies F and L, and the further expert reports recorded on the CCRC's chronology through December 2025. The argument is that this material satisfies the section 23 conditions.
What remains uncertain
Whether evidence 'was not available at trial' is contested where the underlying science existed but was not deployed. That is a question for the Court, and the site does not predict how it would be answered.
Common questions
What are the section 23 conditions?
Under section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 the Court may admit fresh evidence if it appears capable of belief, would have been admissible at trial, could have affected the verdict, and there is a reasonable explanation for its absence at trial.
Which material is said to be fresh?
Principally the Shoo Lee Panel report of February 2025, the Joint Insulin Report on Babies F and L, and further expert reports filed with the CCRC through 2025.
Why is the fourth condition contentious?
Because material can be new in the sense that no one produced it at trial while the underlying science was already available. Courts examine why it was not deployed.
Does the CCRC apply the same test?
Not directly. The CCRC asks whether there is a real possibility the Court would not uphold the conviction, which in practice requires it to anticipate how section 23 would be applied.
Related reading
Found an error or missing source? Send a correction with the page URL and supporting source.