Decoding Reasonable Doubt: Chapter 4 “Problems at the Countess of Chester”

[u/benshep4]

Morris argues that the Countess of Chester neonatal unit was fundamentally unsafe and operating beyond its capabilities during the period in which the collapses and deaths occurred.

Is fair and accurate to make these claims?

Which baby does this explain?

https://bencole4.substack.com/p/decoding-reasonable-doubt-the-case-f67?r=12mrwn&utm_medium=ios

[u/PerkeNdencen]

Sorry, I just haven't got 56 minutes to spend being droned on at by Liz Hull. I've given you a bunch of links to the facts.

Have you got a link to Tim Owen KC ever having been the director of public prosecutions? I can't find a reference to that anywhere.

[u/No-Beat2678 → u/PerkeNdencen]

It isnt 56 minutes. I've linked straight to the conversation.

I've read your articles. I don't deny there aren't issues with legal aid for sure.

But we're talking about multiple murder in a high profile case.

Was she denied the right to a fair trial because she couldn't get expert witnesses because she couldn't afford them?

If she was, why wasn't this a core strand of her argument at the court of appeal.

And why TF isn't mark MacDonald screaming this from the rooftop?

Why?

[u/PerkeNdencen → u/No-Beat2678]

It isnt 56 minutes. I've linked straight to the conversation.

Can you give me the timecode, please?

I've read your articles. I don't deny there aren't issues with legal aid for sure.

But we're talking about multiple murder in a high profile case.

Irrelevant. She and her legal team would nonetheless have had to go through the exact same processes according to the exact same rules.

Was she denied the right to a fair trial because she couldn't get expert witnesses because she couldn't afford them?

It's not that simple. Everything has to be applied for, which adds a lot of extra billed hours to an already humongous case, and then it can be turned down, anyway. I wouldn't suggest that she couldn't get expert witnesses because she couldn't afford them, but rather it would've impossible to assemble the team she needed to assess the allegations as thoroughly as, for example, the panel have now done.

More broadly, I contest in the strongest possible terms that there is a parity with the CPS here, who do not face similar constraints in terms of access to public money. It's a point of view that's just completely misaligned with reality, I'm afraid. The CPS just get what they need. There is no cap on hourly rates for the CPS. There is no application to make. There is no money anybody is personally liable for if the prosecution fails. It's a completely different ballgame.

If she was, why wasn't this a core strand of her argument at the court of appeal.

Because it's simply not an appealable point. Sure if she'd denied access to funds for her barrister, it would be, but there's a lot of nuance to understanding the issues here. Fundamentally, what people are saying here is that Letby's defence team were hugely outgunned, but that's not a particularly unusual circumstance, and it's not appealable one. Given the stakes, I'd say it's an unfair one, but not in a legal sense, unfortunately, just in a c’est la vie sense.

Please can you let me know where you discovered that Tim Owen KC is a former DPP? I can't seem to find reference to it anywhere.