What a retrial would require — why the Crown's position would be structurally weaker
Prosecution claim
If the convictions are quashed and a retrial ordered, the Crown could reasonably proceed on the current evidence. The 2022–2023 trial produced convictions; a retrial on similar evidence could produce similar results.
Counter-evidence
A retrial would have to work with the evidence as it now is — which is materially different from the evidence at the 2022–2023 trial. The Crown would face: the Shoo Lee Panel report and Additional 10 Cases report; the Joint Insulin Report; independent paediatric-pathology re-readings; Prof. Gill, Prof. Green, Prof. Fenton, Prof. Hutton, Sir David Spiegelhalter, Prof. Schneps on statistics; clinical-psychology expert reports on the Post-it notes; the Thirlwall Inquiry evidence record; the executives' July 2025 arrest on suspicion of gross negligence manslaughter. No body of peer-reviewed literature defends the Crown's methodology. The forensic-evidence gap (no TPN bags, no mass spectrometry, no post-mortem imaging showing intravascular gas) cannot now be filled. On the Horizon parallel, when convictions are quashed on this kind of evidential base, retrials are typically not ordered because the Crown acknowledges the evidence cannot sustain conviction.
A retrial in 2027 would not be the same trial as 2022–2023. It would be a fundamentally different trial, on fundamentally different evidence, with the expert consensus against the Crown's methodology.
What the jury heard
Not applicable — a retrial would address what the next jury would hear. On the current evidence the Crown's framing is substantially weakened.
What the Panel says
The Panel's methodology — blinded differential diagnosis, structured multidisciplinary review, specialist consensus — is the modern-standards version of expert review. A retrial on current evidence would have to engage with it.
What independent experts add
- The evidence now available did not exist at the 2022–2023 trial.
- The Crown would have to adduce equivalent-weight expert evidence to counter the Panel, Joint Insulin Report, and statistical experts.
- Peer-reviewed literature does not exist to support the Crown's framing.
- The forensic-evidence gap cannot now be filled.
- Memory-delay on witness testimony is eleven-to-twelve years for events in 2015–2016.
- Rob Rinder KC, Sir David Davis MP, Lord Sumption, Bar Council signatories have expressed scepticism about whether retrial on current evidence is viable.
- On the Horizon parallel, Crown retrials on this kind of evidential base are typically not pursued.