Skip to content

July 2026: Government declines to widen the Thirlwall terms of reference (16 July) · new 100-page insulin report to the CCRC challenging the trial evidence (9 July) · Thirlwall report still expected no earlier than September · inquests relisted to 2027 · Shoo Lee Panel: no medical evidence of deliberate harm.

Lucy Letby Facts
Editorial summary (not a verbatim transcript)
·Corinne Slingo; Simon Medland KC; Thirlwall Inquiry

Corinne Slingo and Simon Medland KC — Thirlwall Inquiry counsel (Nov 2024)

Corinne Slingo (Counsel to the Inquiry, covering the Trust's senior HR and legal advisory layer) and Simon Medland KC (Counsel to the Inquiry, covering the executive response) gave foundational evidence on how the inquiry was approaching the Trust's institutional response. This page summarises the structure of that examination.

XBlueskyFacebookLinkedInWhatsAppRedditMastodonEmail
Last updated

Editorial summary — not a verbatim transcript.

This page is a summary written for this site. It is not a mirror of the primary document, and nothing on it should be quoted as the words of any person. An earlier version of this page carried quotations that could not be verified against the primary record; those have been removed. For the underlying record, consult the primary source at thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk. See our corrections policy.

Status: Editorial summary written for this site — not a mirrored document

Original source: thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk

Context

Corinne Slingo and Simon Medland KC are members of the Counsel to the Thirlwall Inquiry team. Their role is not to give evidence but to structure the Inquiry’s examination — identifying witnesses, setting the scope of questioning, and pressing witnesses on contested points. This page summarises how their questioning structured the HR/legal and executive strands of the Inquiry’s examination in November 2024.

The framing used by Counsel to the Inquiry

Counsel to the Inquiry structured the examination of the Trust’s senior HR and executive layer around three questions:

  1. What did the witness know, and when did they know it?
  2. What did the witness do with what they knew — or, in the key instances, not do?
  3. How did the witness respond when the consultants escalated further?

The third question is where most of the cross-examination weight has fallen, because it is where the apology-letter sequence and the decision not to contact police sit.

Read alongside

Tony Chambers (CEO), Ian Harvey (Medical Director), Sue Hodkinson (HR Director), Stephen Cross (Corporate Affairs).

Related on this site

Officials

Share:XBlueskyFacebookLinkedInWhatsAppRedditMastodonEmail