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.
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.
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.
Not applicable — a retrial would address what the next jury would hear. On the current evidence the Crown's framing is substantially weakened.
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.