[News] Lucy Letby

[1066familyman]

They actually did have an expert witness but didn’t call him. I don’t get it either.

Edit: Letby does now have a new barrister.

Yes, that's my understanding. Doesn't make any sense.

Was her original defence funded by legal aid?

Who got together her new defence team? I know the MP David Davis is very much involved in it now. Is it funded by a legal charity, such as Appeal, who took on the case for Andy Malkinson?

Edit: I mean, it's my understanding also that they didn't call on their own experts. Therefore, I wasn't sure if they even had any.

 

[jcdenton08]

Edit: Letby does now have a new barrister.

From what I’ve read from legal experts, her barrister (a KC) did a good job presenting the case the defence solicitor(s) had prepared and “robustly tested” the testimony of each witness.

A barrister isn’t in charge of formulating defence, just presenting the evidence and advocating in court for defendant.

Some legal commentators are saying the issue was the defence strategy wasn’t aggressive enough. They felt that the evidence was all circumstantial and that the CPS hadn’t proven their case, so rather than offering their own expert testimony they took the route of discrediting the crown’s witnesses rather than offering their own.

This is a very common legal strategy when the defence feels the case isn’t strong enough to obtain a conviction on its own merits. Sometimes offering your own expert witness testimony and subsequent cross-examination can cause more problems than the benefits it offers.

Did you mean she has a new legal team? They may well engage the same barrister to present an appeal.

 

[1066familyman]

From what I’ve read from legal experts, her barrister (a KC) did a good job presenting the case the defence solicitor(s) had prepared and “robustly tested” the testimony of each witness.

A barrister isn’t in charge of formulating defence, just presenting the evidence and advocating in court for defendant.

Some legal commentators are saying the issue was the defence strategy wasn’t aggressive enough. They felt that the evidence was all circumstantial and that the CPS hadn’t proven their case, so rather than offering their own expert testimony they took the route of discrediting the crown’s witnesses rather than offering their own.

This is a very common legal strategy when the defence feels the case isn’t strong enough to obtain a conviction on its own merits. Sometimes offering your own expert witness testimony and subsequent cross-examination can cause more problems than the benefits it offers.

Did you mean she has a new legal team? They may well engage the same barrister to present an appeal.

Any idea on funding please?

Both of her original defence team, and her current one.

I can't seem to find that info.

 

[jcdenton08]

Was her original defence funded by legal aid?

Yes, but high profile cases in the public interest such as this have solicitors assigned and barristers instructed with appropriate experience in the field. This is why in very profile cases serial killers/atrocities, the legal team will consist of multiple experienced solicitors from a firm with a good reputation. Most of the time a KC will be instructed as advocate.

This obviously goes beyond the average legal aid funding.

Why though? It’s because in high profile cases with a lot of media pressure, the court wants to get it right first time, do everything completely professionally and by the book, and prevent legal errors which could cause a mistrial, or a later claim of incompetent legal representation.

To do this they hire lawyers they can trust and make sure the defendant has a strong advocate.

 

[1066familyman]

Yes, but high profile cases in the public interest such as this have solicitors assigned and barristers instructed with appropriate experience in the field. This is why in very profile cases serial killers/atrocities, the legal team will consist of multiple experienced solicitors from a firm with a good reputation. Most of the time a KC will be instructed as advocate.

This obviously goes beyond the average legal aid funding.

Why though? It’s because in high profile cases with a lot of media pressure, the court wants to get it right first time, do everything completely professionally and by the book, and prevent legal errors which could cause a mistrial, or a later claim of incompetent legal representation.

To do this they hire lawyers they can trust and make sure the defendant has a strong advocate.

Thanks.

It's beginning to look like they didn't succeed in this case!

 

[jcdenton08]

Any idea on funding please?

Both of her original defence team, and her current one.

I can't seem to find that info.

Please read what I’ve written above for a bit of a general overview of how it works:

Sorry for the source but;

Serial killer nurse Lucy Letby cost the taxpayer more than £4m

Lucy Letby, 33, was awarded more than £1.5million in legal aid to fund her defence, figures from the Legal Aid Agency revealed.

www.dailymail.co.uk

And here’s an article about getting a new legal team in September for her appeal:

Letby brings in new lawyer as potential appeal prepared

Barrister says there is a 'strong case' that former nurse is innocent.

www.lawgazette.co.uk

 

[jcdenton08]

Thanks.

It's beginning to look like they didn't succeed in this case!

Unless she did it, of course. They aren’t miracle workers. Having lost, and with a wave of support behind her presently questioning the convictions, it really could go either way at this point. Let’s wait and see what the appeals court says.

 

[The Optimist]

Did you mean she has a new legal team? They may well engage the same barrister to present an appeal.

I didn’t previously understand how a legal team is put together and how they operate. Now I’m not sure what I meant. I know she has a new legal professional(s) in some role. I thought it was a new barrister but maybe I got that wrong.

 

[jcdenton08]

I didn’t previously understand how a legal team is put together and how they operate. Now I’m not sure what I meant. I know she has a new legal professional(s) in some role. I thought it was a new barrister but maybe I got that wrong.

I’m with you. It’s very possible they instruct a new barrister too. I’m just making a distinction that a barrister does the talking in court, but the discovery and casework is done by the solicitor. In America, an attorney does both, but it’s more uncommon here as there is a lot of procedure to learn to advocate in court.

In crown court, CPS prosecuting barristers (barristers are freelance and can be hired or “instructed” by either side) can be woefully unprepared as they have case after case after case and a huge backlog.

I’ve sat in on a lot of cases and it’s clear sometimes they’re completely unprepared, getting names/dates wrong etc.

 

[1066familyman]

I didn’t previously understand how a legal team is put together and how they operate. Now I’m not sure what I meant. I know she has a new legal professional(s) in some role. I thought it was a new barrister but maybe I got that wrong.

This is where I'm at too. Hence my questions.

I do know that she has a new Barrister though. His name is Mark McDonald.

This video answers a few of our questions I think.





Edit: Since reading the two articles kindly put up by jcdenton08.

Mark McDonald is providing his services in this case for free.

 

[1066familyman]

Please read what I’ve written above for a bit of a general overview of how it works:

Sorry for the source but;

Serial killer nurse Lucy Letby cost the taxpayer more than £4m

Lucy Letby, 33, was awarded more than £1.5million in legal aid to fund her defence, figures from the Legal Aid Agency revealed.

www.dailymail.co.uk

And here’s an article about getting a new legal team in September for her appeal:

Letby brings in new lawyer as potential appeal prepared

Barrister says there is a 'strong case' that former nurse is innocent.

www.lawgazette.co.uk

Thanks for this.

Very helpful.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Yes, that's my understanding. Doesn't make any sense.

Was her original defence funded by legal aid?

Who got together her new defence team? I know the MP David Davis is very much involved in it now. Is it funded by a legal charity, such as Appeal, who took on the case for Andy Malkinson?

Edit: I mean, it's my understanding also that they didn't call on their own experts. Therefore, I wasn't sure if they even had any.

The medical evidence isn’t definitive, a defence medical witness pulled apart in court would have been a risk for the defence team - only now in hindsight does it look a questionable decision.

This panel haven’t had their evidence cross examined or has it been stacked against the other evidence. As they have stated it is their medical opinion on the medical evidence only.

 

[GT49er]

This is where I'm at too. Hence my questions.

I do know that she has a new Barrister though. His name is Mark McDonald.

This video answers a few of our questions I think.





Edit: Since reading the two articles kindly put up by jcdenton08.

Mark McDonald is providing his services in this case for free.

Lawyers/barristers always find a way to make money; they will find one even if there doesn't appear to be one.

 

[jcdenton08]

Lawyers/barristers always find a way to make money; they will find one even if there doesn't appear to be one.

Interesting viewpoint.

I think this certainly applies more to corporate lawyers, though. Criminal defence barristers are the worst paid in their profession, with incredibly long hours and comparatively low pay for their expertise (when compared with consultants, or tube drivers).

“The most junior barristers at successful commercial chambers can earn up to £70,000, but their counterparts working in criminal and family law take home £20,000 or less at the start of their careers. According to anindependent review, the median salary for a criminal barrister in the year 2019-2020 was £79,800. This is before deductions for travel costs, chambers’ rent, clerks’ fees, tax, and more. Lawyers are self-employed and therefore have to pay their own expenses.”

How much do criminal barristers earn and why are they striking?

Criminal barristers are striking over pay, but how much do they earn?

www.standard.co.uk

Obviously this chap is quite a bit more senior and experienced, so doing pro-bono work won’t harm his ability to pay his mortgage…

 

[1066familyman]

Lawyers/barristers always find a way to make money; they will find one even if there doesn't appear to be one.

That's a very cynical view.

There are legal charities out there for instance, such as Appeal, who work on cases without taking a fee.

Many years ago, when I decided to go all the way with refusing to pay the Poll Tax for example, I was in regular phone contact with a Solicitor in a Birmingham who supported the campaign against it. I never paid him a penny, and he never asked for a penny either.

I get where you're coming from, but there are still honourable people out there. Even in the legal profession!

 

[Gwylan]

Interesting viewpoint.

I think this certainly applies more to corporate lawyers, though. Criminal defence barristers are the worst paid in their profession, with incredibly long hours and comparatively low pay for their expertise (when compared with consultants, or tube drivers).

“The most junior barristers at successful commercial chambers can earn up to £70,000, but their counterparts working in criminal and family law take home £20,000 or less at the start of their careers. According to anindependent review, the median salary for a criminal barrister in the year 2019-2020 was £79,800. This is before deductions for travel costs, chambers’ rent, clerks’ fees, tax, and more. Lawyers are self-employed and therefore have to pay their own expenses.”

How much do criminal barristers earn and why are they striking?

Criminal barristers are striking over pay, but how much do they earn?

www.standard.co.uk

I think I've mentioned this before, but the ex Mrs Gwylan, a criminal barrister, earned so little that I basically paid the mortgage and the bills in our flat. Which is why I got the larger share when it was sold, even though it was jointly owned. There really isn't much money in criminal law.

She earned so little, in fact, that she gave up lawyering and started working for a building firm in Hereford - all those years of study and pupillage for such scant reward

 

[rippleman]

From what I’ve read from legal experts, her barrister (a KC) did a good job presenting the case the defence solicitor(s) had prepared and “robustly tested” the testimony of each witness.

A barrister isn’t in charge of formulating defence, just presenting the evidence and advocating in court for defendant.

Some legal commentators are saying the issue was the defence strategy wasn’t aggressive enough. They felt that the evidence was all circumstantial and that the CPS hadn’t proven their case, so rather than offering their own expert testimony they took the route of discrediting the crown’s witnesses rather than offering their own.

This is a very common legal strategy when the defence feels the case isn’t strong enough to obtain a conviction on its own merits. Sometimes offering your own expert witness testimony and subsequent cross-examination can cause more problems than the benefits it offers.

Did you mean she has a new legal team? They may well engage the same barrister to present an appeal.

Then it is a totally shit legal strategy which clearly doesn't work.

Either the defence team under-estimated the strength of the prosecution case or they were totally incompetent when it came to challenging the prosecutions expert witnesses.

Either way, can only result in a mistrial.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Then it is a totally shit legal strategy which clearly doesn't work.

Either the defence team under-estimated the strength of the prosecution case or they were totally incompetent when it came to challenging the prosecutions expert witnesses.

Either way, can only result in a mistrial.

Or she is guilty and all the evidence as presented was sufficient to prove that.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

When AI juries become the way forward it will do away with
"I have no doubt about her guilt. But I guess it's never with 100% certainty."
That was what I was replying to.

I suggest you might want to speak to the BBC about AI then. Specifically the issue they've had with Apple AI summarising their news stories - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cge93de21n0o - utterly nutty idea to allow an AI jury.

 

[jcdenton08]

Then it is a totally shit legal strategy which clearly doesn't work.

Either the defence team under-estimated the strength of the prosecution case or they were totally incompetent when it came to challenging the prosecutions expert witnesses.

Either way, can only result in a mistrial.

Actually it’s the most common legal strategy.

In the vast majority of cases in crown court, the defence amounts to one of the following:

It happened but was justified or not a crime (common in violent offences including murder - self defence)

I didn’t do it (it was an accident or someone else did it, or it never occurred at all)

If a crime is acknowledged, the defence is based around justification for why it happened (it was consensual sex not rape, it was self defence in fear of my own life) or why it has nothing to do with the defendant at all (alibi, it was someone else, it was an accident unrelated to the defendant).

In this case they’ve gone with a reasoning that essentially no crime has been committed as their defence, rather than trying to actively prove innocence across each and every murder and attempted murder charge.

The reasons for this are many, but let me put this to you:

If I accuse you of a murder, you may have a perfectly good excuse for why it wasn’t you. Then I accuse you of another murder and you have another good excuse. Then another, and another, and another. Multiple excuses under cross examination as to why you are not a murderer, backed up by your paid defence expert dozens of times.

The idea was to stay relatively silent, and argue that prima facie the CPS hadn’t proven their case because the evidence in each charge was circumstantial.