A shocking revelation has come to light in the high-profile case of nurse Lucy Letby, who was convicted of murdering babies in a neonatal unit. The expert witness, Professor Peter Hindmarsh, who provided crucial evidence for the prosecution, was under investigation by the General Medical Council (GMC) during the trial, raising serious questions about his credibility.
But here's where it gets controversial...
On the very first day of his testimony in late 2022, the GMC opened an investigation into Hindmarsh due to concerns about his fitness to practice, including allegations of patient harm. Despite this, Hindmarsh continued to provide expert evidence for the prosecution, with the jury remaining unaware of the ongoing investigation.
And this is the part most people miss...
During the trial, a medical tribunal imposed severe restrictions on Hindmarsh's work, stating that he "may pose a real risk" to the public. The tribunal also considered that the allegations against him could impact his ability to act as an expert witness. However, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) opposed any attempt to inform the jury, arguing that the allegations were not yet adjudicated.
Ultimately, the GMC investigation was never concluded as Hindmarsh voluntarily removed himself from the register, effectively ending the inquiry without any regulatory findings against him.
The Guardian's investigation has uncovered details of the allegations against Hindmarsh at the time of his testimony. These allegations, which included concerns about his clinical practice, documentation, diagnosis, and treatment of patients, were reported to the GMC by Great Ormond Street hospital, where Hindmarsh had previously worked.
Letby was convicted of murdering seven babies and attempting to murder seven others over two trials in 2023 and 2024. She received a whole-life prison sentence, and her applications for appeal were denied. Many supporters believe she was unfairly blamed for medical failures on the unit.
Since the convictions, leading medical and scientific experts have challenged the prosecution's medical case, including Hindmarsh's evidence. Dr. Shoo Lee, a renowned Canadian neonatologist, has argued that the prosecution misrepresented his research, and an expert panel unanimously found that the babies' deaths were due to natural causes and poor care, with no evidence of murder, insulin poisoning, or deliberate harm.
In February 2023, Letby's lawyer applied to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) to have her case reviewed, supported by reports from 27 leading experts. The CCRC is currently examining the application.
Hindmarsh appeared as a key witness for the prosecution during Letby's first trial, which lasted from October 2022 to August 2023, believed to be Britain's longest murder trial. As a professor and consultant paediatric endocrinologist, Hindmarsh had extensive clinical experience with children.
On November 25, 2022, Hindmarsh provided evidence supporting the prosecution's case that Letby attempted to murder two babies, F and L, by poisoning them with insulin injected into their feed bags. However, the jury was not informed that Hindmarsh's contract with Great Ormond Street had been terminated four months earlier due to allegations of clinical failings.
When contacted by the Guardian, Hindmarsh declined to comment, and the children's hospital did not clarify whether the contract termination was related to the allegations.
The jury remained unaware of the allegations and investigations against Hindmarsh, including the formal inquiry led by UCLH, his main employer, which had been ongoing for months before his testimony.
On November 15, 2022, Great Ormond Street referred its concerns about Hindmarsh to the GMC, leading to the regulator's own formal investigation on November 25, the same day Hindmarsh first testified.
Between Hindmarsh's first and second appearances, further developments occurred. He was informed of the GMC investigation on November 30, and in December, UCLH reported similar clinical concerns to the GMC, indicating Hindmarsh's suspension pending a return to work under supervision.
Leaked documents revealed allegations against Hindmarsh, including cases where patient harm was alleged, concerns about his diagnosis, treatment, and use of treatments in unusual age groups without adequate monitoring.
In January 2023, the tribunal renewed restrictions on Hindmarsh, stating that he "may pose a real risk" to the public if allowed to return to unrestricted clinical practice. The tribunal's interim order restricted Hindmarsh to work only at UCLH under supervision.
Hindmarsh applied for permission to continue working as an expert witness, arguing that his work was unrelated to the concerns raised. The tribunal allowed it, with the condition that Hindmarsh inform any instructing party of the GMC investigation.
However, it is unclear why the CPS waited until December 2022 to inform Letby's barrister about the investigation, and why the defense did not apply to the judge to inform the jury.
Hindmarsh's second appearance at the trial on February 24, 2023, saw the jury still unaware of the investigations, restrictions, and concerns surrounding his practice.
His evidence for the prosecution appeared to be pivotal, with the prosecution arguing that the insulin cases were incontrovertible evidence of deliberate endangerment, which could influence the jury's view on other babies' deaths.
In summing up, the judge told the jury that they could infer deliberate harm in other cases if they were sure about one case. These insulin cases were the first guilty verdicts and were unanimous.
Experts now challenging Letby's convictions have contested Hindmarsh's insulin evidence, arguing that the tests used were unreliable and that his calculations and the prosecution's theory were implausible. They also note that Hindmarsh failed to provide alternative explanations for the babies' hypoglycaemia, which they attribute to poor medical care.
The Guardian asked Hindmarsh detailed questions about his evidence and the investigations, but he declined to comment.
This case raises important questions about the integrity of expert witnesses and the potential impact of undisclosed investigations on the outcome of trials.
What are your thoughts on this matter? Do you think the jury should have been informed about the investigations? Join the discussion and share your opinions in the comments!
