May 2026: Thirlwall Inquiry report delayed to at least September 2026 · six-baby inquests relisted to 2027 · CCRC review active · Shoo Lee Panel: no medical evidence of deliberate harm.
The Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal the Letby convictions in May 2024. This, on some framings, settles the conviction-safety question — the appellate system has reviewed and upheld the convictions.
The May 2024 direct-appeal refusal decided only that the specific grounds then advanced did not meet the leave-to-appeal threshold on the evidence then available. It did not decide that the convictions are safe on all possible future evidence. Critically, the May 2024 evidence did not include: the Shoo Lee Panel report (Feb 2025), the Joint Insulin Report (May 2025), the paediatric-pathology re-readings (Oct 2025), the Thirlwall Inquiry evidence (2024-2026), the clinical-psychology reports, the Fenton Bayesian analysis, the Heneghan EBM critique, or the July 2025 executives' arrests. The CCRC route, under section 13 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995, exists specifically to enable review where subsequent evidence has changed the evidential picture. The Donna Anthony precedent (2005) is directly analogous: first appeal dismissed, CCRC referral on subsequent framework-shifting expert evidence, Court of Appeal acquittal. The May 2024 refusal does not foreclose the CCRC route; the Anthony precedent establishes it does not weaken it.
The direct-appeal route was tried on one set of evidence and failed. The CCRC route is now being tried on a materially different set of evidence. These are separate proceedings with separate questions.
Not applicable — this is appellate-procedure. But the public-commentary claim that May 2024 settles the question is a misreading of the appellate architecture the CCRC review now engages.
The Panel's report was published in February 2025 — after the May 2024 direct-appeal refusal. The Panel's methodology and conclusions were not before the Court of Appeal in May 2024.