Why his role is material
Dr Evans’s testimony was the primary causation evidence in the Crown’s case. On the air-embolism counts, on the insulin counts, on the “air in stomach” counts — his opinion as a causation expert was what brought the mechanism of harm into the courtroom. If his methodology fails, the primary causation evidence on those counts fails with it.
Independent international review now publicly rejects his methodology. The Shoo Lee International Expert Panel’s February 2025 report, signed by fourteen senior international neonatologists and allied specialists, reaches the opposite conclusion on every case he gave evidence on. That rejection is the most important single feature of the post-conviction record on his role.
Professional background
- Retired consultant paediatrician. Formerly of Singleton Hospital, Swansea.
- Had not worked in routine neonatal intensive care for over a decade at the time of instruction in the Letby case.
- Approached Cheshire Police in 2017 offering his services on the case — an unusual route by which a prosecution expert comes to be instructed.
- Gave expert evidence across most counts at the original trial (2022–2023) and at the Child K retrial (2024).
Specific concerns about his instruction and methodology
- Self-referral to police. Most expert witnesses in criminal trials are identified and approached by the prosecuting authority independently. Dr Evans approached Cheshire Police offering his services. A self-referring expert is a self-selected expert, and self-selection risks bias in exactly the direction of the hypothesis the investigation is pursuing.
- Remote from current practice. He had not worked in routine neonatal intensive care for over a decade. Modern UK NICU practice, monitoring technology and differential-diagnosis frameworks had evolved substantially during that period.
- Family-court ‘worthless’ judgment. In an unrelated family court matter in September 2023, a judge described an Evans expert report as “worthless”. The comment was picked up by Private Eye and subsequently by other media, and referenced in the April 2025 Bar Council letter and October 2025 CCRC application materials.
- Forensic-not-diagnostic methodology. His methodology worked from a pre-formed criminal hypothesis toward confirming findings, rather than from a blinded differential-diagnosis review. Modern UK expert-instruction standards require the latter. The Panel’s case-by-case review demonstrates how the two methodologies produce different readings.
- Second-opinion circularity. The Crown’s second-opinion expert, Dr Sandie Bohin, worked within the methodological frame Dr Evans established. Her evidence inherits the methodological limitations of his — which is not independent second-opinion corroboration in any strong sense.
What the Shoo Lee Panel says about his work
The Panel’s finding — no medical evidence of deliberate harm in any case reviewed — is a direct rejection of Dr Evans’s opposite conclusion on those same cases. Fourteen senior international neonatologists, pathologists and specialists from eight countries publicly reach the opposite reading from a retired Swansea paediatrician who approached the police in 2017.
Why this bio is on the site
This site includes a bio page for Dr Evans because his role is an evidential question the CCRC review turns on. It is not a personal-criticism page. It is a record of the specific procedural and methodological concerns about his role that the independent expert reports, the Bar Council letter, Rob Rinder KC, Sir David Davis MP, Lord Sumption and Private Eye have all flagged as material to conviction safety.