What the CCRC does
The Criminal Cases Review Commission was established by the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 as an independent public body. Its core function is to review potential miscarriages of justice in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. It receives applications from convicted persons who believe their conviction or sentence was wrong, investigates those cases, and — where the statutory test is met — refers the case back to the relevant appeal court.
The CCRC operates entirely outside the prosecution service and the judiciary. It has powers to obtain documents, commission expert reports, and compel disclosure from public bodies. An application to the CCRC does not require leave from any court. Any convicted person, or someone acting on their behalf, may apply. There is no fee and no time limit on applications, though the CCRC may take into account whether all normal appeal routes have been exhausted.
In the Letby case, an application was submitted following the dismissal of the first appeal. The CCRC chair Vera Baird confirmed publicly on 13 February 2026 that the commission had accepted and opened an active review of the case. An interim status update on 24 April 2026 confirmed that expert review is underway within the process.
The section-13 “real possibility” test
Section 13 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 sets out the statutory test the CCRC must apply before referring a conviction to the Court of Appeal. The commission may refer a conviction only if it considers that there is a real possibility that the conviction would not be upheld by the Court of Appeal — and only if the reference is based on an argument or evidence not previously raised before the court.
The “real possibility” standard is lower than a balance of probabilities. It does not require the CCRC to conclude that the conviction is unsafe — only that there is a genuine, non-fanciful prospect that the Court of Appeal would so conclude. The commission has described this as requiring a realistic rather than merely theoretical prospect of the conviction being overturned.
The freshness requirement — that the reference must be based on argument or evidence not raised in the original appeal — is a significant filter. In the Letby context, the post-conviction scientific work, including the Shoo Lee Panel’s February 2025 report and the Joint Insulin Report of May 2025, constitutes evidence that was not before the trial court or the first-appeal court. It is this body of post-conviction material that forms the primary basis for the section-13 analysis.
The Anthony precedent — first-appeal refusal doesn’t foreclose review
The case of Donna Anthony, decided by the Court of Appeal in 2005, is directly relevant to the Letby pathway. Anthony had been convicted of murdering her two infant children in 1998, partly on the basis of expert evidence from Professor Sir Roy Meadow on “sudden infant death syndrome” patterns. A first appeal was dismissed. The CCRC subsequently reviewed her case and referred it back to the Court of Appeal on the basis of post-conviction developments in the science of infant death, including the Law Lords’ ruling in the appeal of Sally Clark and the General Medical Council proceedings against Professor Meadow. The Court of Appeal quashed her convictions in 2005.
Anthony established several propositions relevant to the Letby pathway:
- A dismissed first appeal does not create an absolute bar to CCRC referral. The commission can and does refer cases where the first appeal failed, provided the section-13 test is independently met.
- Post-conviction changes in the scientific landscape — including new expert consensus, discrediting of previously accepted expert evidence, and the emergence of alternative explanations — can constitute the fresh evidence or argument required for a section-13 referral.
- The court, on referral, will consider the fresh material and its impact on the overall safety of the conviction. It is not limited to overturning on procedural grounds; it can quash on the basis that the scientific foundation of the prosecution case has been shown to be unreliable.
Supporters of a referral in the Letby case argue that the parallel to Anthony is structurally close: a conviction substantially dependent on expert evidence, post-conviction scientific re-evaluation identifying alternative natural-cause explanations, and a first appeal that did not engage with the now-available scientific material.
What the CCRC has said publicly about this case
The CCRC’s public communications about the Letby review have been measured, as is customary for the commission during an active review. Chair Vera Baird confirmed the review on 13 February 2026, noting that the commission was examining the application in accordance with its standard procedures. She did not comment on the likely outcome or timeline.
The 24 April 2026 interim status update confirmed that expert review is underway — meaning the commission has engaged external specialists to review at least part of the scientific evidence underlying the convictions. This is a standard step in complex scientific cases and does not indicate a predetermined outcome in either direction.
The CCRC has not publicly disclosed which experts it has engaged, which counts it is prioritising, or what timeline it expects for completion of the review. These details remain internal to the commission’s process, consistent with its standard practice to avoid prejudicing ongoing review work.
What a referral would mean
If the CCRC concludes that the section-13 test is met and refers the convictions to the Court of Appeal, the court will conduct a fresh hearing at which the new evidence and arguments are considered. The court may quash some or all convictions, order a retrial, or — if it finds the fresh material does not undermine the safety of the verdicts — dismiss the reference and confirm the convictions.
A referral is not an acquittal and does not release the applicant pending appeal. The Court of Appeal process itself can take a further year or more from the date of referral, depending on the complexity of the evidence and the court’s listing. In the Donna Anthony case, the CCRC referral to the Court of Appeal hearing took approximately eight months; in the Angela Cannings case, the process from CCRC application to quashed conviction was completed within two years of the original conviction.