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 Crown complied with its disclosure obligations under the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996. The defence received the unused material it was entitled to; the trial proceeded on the basis of a fair evidential playing field.
Post-conviction analysis of the disclosure trail has identified multiple categories of unused material that were not disclosed to the defence or were disclosed in a form that made effective use impossible. These include: complete Datix incident records for the unit across the indictment period (not just the extracts the Crown relied on); pharmacy-dispensing records that would have allowed independent verification of insulin stock movements; full nursing-staff rotas across all units (not just the ones selected for the shift chart); viral-testing records from the unit and the Trust's microbiology laboratory; maintenance and plumbing records corresponding to Mansutti's defence evidence; the Trust's internal mortality-review papers; and the RCPCH review's full working papers. Under section 3 of CPIA 1996 the Crown must disclose unused material that 'might reasonably be considered capable of undermining the case for the prosecution against the accused, or of assisting the case for the accused.' The CCRC application argues several categories of material fell within this obligation but were not disclosed or were disclosed late / in redacted form.
Disclosure is the quiet half of a criminal trial. What the defence never sees is often what makes the difference between a verdict the jury can safely reach and one it cannot.
The jury was not told what material the Crown had chosen not to rely on, or what material the defence had sought and not received. This is standard; juries never see the disclosure framework. The post-conviction question is whether the disclosure regime was correctly applied.
The Panel's scope is clinical. But the Panel's case-by-case identification of natural-cause differentials that are live on the clinical record — IVH, sepsis, thrombosis, NEC, viral outbreak — is itself evidence that material in the hospital's records would have supported the defence if fully disclosed and reviewed.