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 Clark, Cannings, Anthony and de Berk miscarriage-of-justice cases concerned specific sets of facts different from the Letby case. The precedents are not controlling on Letby on their specific facts.
The precedents apply not on their specific facts but on the legal principles they established. The Royal Statistical Society's post-Clark framework (2001) is the canonical UK reference on statistical evidence in criminal trials — applicable to any statistical-evidence case, including the Letby shift-rota chart. The Cannings principle (2003) is the operative Court of Appeal test on disputed medical expert evidence — applicable to the Letby expert-disagreement record. The de Berk statistical critique framework (Dutch Supreme Court 2010) is internationally available analytical scaffolding — applied to Letby by Prof. Richard Gill himself. The Anthony CCRC-referral precedent (2005) establishes the procedural route the Letby application is following. Each of these precedents operates at the level of principle, not specific fact — which is how legal precedent works.
Precedents apply at the level of principle. The Cannings principle says a conviction on disputed medical expert evidence is unsafe. The Letby expert record is a record of disputed medical expert evidence. The principle therefore applies.
The jury does not receive legal precedent; that is a matter for the judge's directions and for appellate review. The precedent-application question is therefore a CCRC / Court of Appeal question, not a jury question.
The Panel addresses the medical-evidence content. The legal-precedent application is a separate layer that flows from the Panel's medical findings: if the medical evidence is disputed at the level the Panel documents, the Cannings principle is engaged.