WEBVTT - Shaking Up the Establishment 0:00:07.720 --> 0:00:10.240 So I'll walk you up and I'll show you the 0:00:10.360 --> 0:00:15.800 Actually it starts up in Lincoln's INNO. Okay, So this 0:00:15.920 --> 0:00:19.280 is Lincoln's In that we're about to enter. I think 0:00:19.360 --> 0:00:22.720 this is the oldest of all the evens, about six 0:00:22.800 --> 0:00:23.560 hundred years old. 0:00:23.720 --> 0:00:29.120 Lincoln's It almost everything I understand about a fair trial. 0:00:29.680 --> 0:00:33.080 I owe to a place like this, one of England's 0:00:33.240 --> 0:00:38.559 historic bar associations. This is nuts, guys, ok right. So 0:00:38.720 --> 0:00:43.199 this is a huge room, a huge banquet hall that 0:00:43.400 --> 0:00:48.640 has wood paneling with all of these like crests of 0:00:48.720 --> 0:00:55.080 some nightly kind. There's portraits of people from presumably very 0:00:55.120 --> 0:00:59.720 important people, and it looks like a cathedral. But I 0:00:59.720 --> 0:01:04.720 guess for food, the presumption of innocence, the right to 0:01:04.760 --> 0:01:08.680 be judged by a jury of your peers. England built 0:01:08.920 --> 0:01:12.720 all that, and then it handed the blueprint to the 0:01:12.720 --> 0:01:16.080 rest of us. And you have to belong to this. Yes, 0:01:16.640 --> 0:01:17.360 what does that mean? 0:01:17.720 --> 0:01:20.400 So you can become a member, okay? And you can 0:01:20.480 --> 0:01:23.280 only become a call to the bar. What you've eaten 0:01:23.400 --> 0:01:24.640 so many dinners. 0:01:25.040 --> 0:01:27.200 That's bizarre. So okay, So you take the test to 0:01:27.240 --> 0:01:30.000 become a barrister. But that's not enough. You have to 0:01:30.040 --> 0:01:31.320 eat food. 0:01:32.560 --> 0:01:34.560 I had to eat eighteen dinnies. 0:01:34.440 --> 0:01:36.960 Eighteen dinners. What is the point of that? Is that 0:01:37.000 --> 0:01:38.840 to say, like trade your bar. 0:01:38.959 --> 0:01:41.800 Was that you didn't actually take exams to become a barrister. 0:01:42.440 --> 0:01:45.559 You learn by dining and being with people. 0:01:46.760 --> 0:01:50.600 You learn by belonging. That's the part that stayed with me. 0:01:51.280 --> 0:01:54.240 A system this old doesn't just hand down its rules. 0:01:54.680 --> 0:01:59.640 It hands down its instincts, who belongs, who's reliable, whose 0:01:59.680 --> 0:02:03.720 sounds right? And six hundred years of that builds something 0:02:03.840 --> 0:02:07.160 beautiful and something very sure of itself. 0:02:08.000 --> 0:02:13.160 This here is a painting of all the great lawmakers 0:02:13.200 --> 0:02:19.079 throughout history. Up there is Alfred, King, Alfred and Plato 0:02:20.240 --> 0:02:24.760 and sort of all the great voices throughout history is 0:02:24.760 --> 0:02:25.600 all painted of that. 0:02:25.800 --> 0:02:31.040 Are there a wall of certainty looking down? And I 0:02:31.160 --> 0:02:34.960 kept thinking, a system this confident in its own history 0:02:35.560 --> 0:02:38.040 is a system that finds it very hard to say 0:02:38.080 --> 0:02:39.320 it got something wrong. 0:02:40.440 --> 0:02:43.200 I think the slightly unorthodox approach that I've taken to 0:02:43.240 --> 0:02:48.640 this case are playing the whole thing out in public. Yeah, 0:02:49.360 --> 0:02:53.799 it's something that a few parts of the bar, some 0:02:53.960 --> 0:02:57.000 elements of the bar would probably raise our eyebrow out. 0:02:58.600 --> 0:03:02.400 That's why I'd come to London. Mark McDonald is Lucy 0:03:02.520 --> 0:03:07.000 let Be's barrister. He's doing something. His profession isn't built 0:03:07.000 --> 0:03:12.520 for making the argument out loud in public where everyone 0:03:12.639 --> 0:03:16.839 can see it. Because the quiet, traditional route, the one 0:03:16.880 --> 0:03:20.560 those portraits would prefer, is the one that's kept her 0:03:20.760 --> 0:03:26.440 where she is. This is doubt the case of Lucy 0:03:26.520 --> 0:03:53.360 let Be Bonus episode four, Shaking up the Establishment. Sitting 0:03:53.400 --> 0:03:56.560 down with Mark at his offices, we got straight into 0:03:56.640 --> 0:04:00.280 the important business of understanding what Lucy let Be's out 0:04:00.280 --> 0:04:07.400 to release might be. So you talk about her getting released, yes, 0:04:07.640 --> 0:04:10.600 can you explain to me how that could happen? 0:04:11.680 --> 0:04:14.600 So the CCRC refers the matter to the Court of Appeal. 0:04:15.200 --> 0:04:18.760 Before the Court of Appeal. We have some amazing judges 0:04:18.960 --> 0:04:22.159 in this country in the Court of Appeal. I'm not 0:04:22.200 --> 0:04:24.279 just saying that because I want them to agree with me, 0:04:24.720 --> 0:04:29.800 but we do. We do have some brilliant judges and 0:04:30.000 --> 0:04:33.720 they will put what I have put before the CRC 0:04:33.839 --> 0:04:37.880 under scrutiny, and they will test it, and if it's 0:04:37.920 --> 0:04:41.560 found wanting, they will reject it. The battle in this 0:04:41.680 --> 0:04:45.440 case is the Court of Appeal. Now the CCRC can 0:04:45.520 --> 0:04:49.960 refer the conviction to the Court of appeal on any 0:04:50.560 --> 0:04:54.640 of the reports that I've put before them, or all 0:04:54.960 --> 0:04:57.200 of the reports I put before them, But they can 0:04:57.200 --> 0:04:59.840 do on a discrete issue. And when I get to 0:04:59.880 --> 0:05:02.800 the Court of Appeal, I'm going to have to argue, well, 0:05:02.839 --> 0:05:05.840 the CCRC has said the failure to have a statistician 0:05:06.640 --> 0:05:10.320 is so important that the convictions are unsafe. But actually 0:05:10.440 --> 0:05:12.720 I want to bring in Shuley and the international experts, 0:05:12.720 --> 0:05:14.440 and I want to bring in this so I want 0:05:14.480 --> 0:05:16.760 to expand it. And it's up to the Court of 0:05:16.800 --> 0:05:18.680 Appeal to decide or not they agree with me or 0:05:18.760 --> 0:05:21.599 not if they want to hear all that evidence, or 0:05:21.600 --> 0:05:24.520 they could just say the whole and then all these experts. 0:05:24.520 --> 0:05:27.719 And if that's the case, then we could have a 0:05:27.839 --> 0:05:30.359 lengthy argument in the Court of Appeal that can go 0:05:30.440 --> 0:05:34.320 on for weeks, where they hear all this evidence and 0:05:34.440 --> 0:05:38.799 their decision, their only decision that they have to make. 0:05:39.400 --> 0:05:42.320 You board it all the way down is are these 0:05:42.360 --> 0:05:47.280 convictions safe? That's the test. If they say they're not safe, 0:05:48.000 --> 0:05:49.160 then they're crushed. 0:05:50.360 --> 0:05:51.080 And she's out. 0:05:51.480 --> 0:05:51.560 No. 0:05:52.240 --> 0:05:57.560 The prosecution can then apply for a retrial, the Court 0:05:57.600 --> 0:06:01.000 of Appeal can agree, or it's called who's Decisionless to 0:06:01.080 --> 0:06:04.240 whatever or not she has a retrial, but the prosecution 0:06:04.440 --> 0:06:08.039 can apply for a retrial and it is likely that 0:06:08.120 --> 0:06:12.080 if they do apply, they would agree to let them 0:06:12.160 --> 0:06:17.920 have a retrial in front of the jury. Now, who 0:06:17.920 --> 0:06:20.839 they're going to use as they're experts when it comes 0:06:20.880 --> 0:06:25.360 to a retrial, would be of interest, but that's their problem. 0:06:25.400 --> 0:06:28.000 Not so when does the lucy gets out part. 0:06:28.560 --> 0:06:31.279 If there's a retrial and it goes in front of 0:06:31.279 --> 0:06:34.320 a jewelry and she's found not guilty, she walks out 0:06:34.360 --> 0:06:37.680 of the Crown Court. If there's not a retrial, she 0:06:37.760 --> 0:06:39.000 walks out of the Court of Appeal. 0:06:39.680 --> 0:06:43.279 So the before even being retried, she got out. But 0:06:43.360 --> 0:06:47.200 also there are a lot of ifs. What happens if 0:06:48.120 --> 0:06:51.720 the CCRC doesn't recommend it, if they. 0:06:51.800 --> 0:06:54.560 Don't refer it to the Court of Appeal. I can 0:06:54.680 --> 0:07:01.520 challenge the CCRC by way of judicial in the High Court. 0:07:02.040 --> 0:07:06.880 I have to say that applications to review the CCRC 0:07:07.680 --> 0:07:11.160 don't often succeed. I've done it once in fact, and 0:07:11.200 --> 0:07:15.320 we've known that case. I succeeded in that I got 0:07:15.440 --> 0:07:18.560 leave to appeal, and then the CCRC took it back 0:07:18.560 --> 0:07:20.240 and said, yeah, we agree with the High Court where 0:07:20.360 --> 0:07:20.800 we look at this. 0:07:21.440 --> 0:07:25.400 So it's not a complete dead end if the CCRC 0:07:25.640 --> 0:07:29.920 doesn't refer it to appeal, but if the High Court, 0:07:30.000 --> 0:07:32.440 if you challenge that and you go to the High 0:07:32.440 --> 0:07:35.520 Court and they say too. 0:07:35.360 --> 0:07:36.400 Bad, that's it. 0:07:36.680 --> 0:07:39.400 That's it, nothing will nothing more. 0:07:40.200 --> 0:07:42.080 Sometimes I think, oh, shall I hold one of these 0:07:42.120 --> 0:07:45.880 reports back just in case? But they've got everything. 0:07:46.880 --> 0:07:51.080 And when Mark says they've got everything, he really means it. 0:07:51.760 --> 0:07:54.840 The amount of work that has gone into those reports 0:07:55.200 --> 0:07:59.880 has been immense. Clearly the role of the expert place 0:08:00.160 --> 0:08:05.040 an outsized rule, especially in this case. How important are 0:08:05.120 --> 0:08:08.040 the rules of the expert witnesses during her appeal, especially 0:08:08.040 --> 0:08:11.360 considering the fact that she had none during her actual 0:08:11.400 --> 0:08:12.080 first trial. 0:08:12.720 --> 0:08:15.040 The starting point with the whole of this trial is 0:08:15.080 --> 0:08:19.120 that it was based around a hypothesis, so no direct 0:08:19.200 --> 0:08:22.600 evidence Noah saw her do anything wrong. The hypothesis was 0:08:22.640 --> 0:08:26.800 given by the experts. Therefore, the quality of the experts 0:08:26.840 --> 0:08:30.080 and the evidence that they give is under a microscope. 0:08:30.560 --> 0:08:33.839 And so the experts that I have gone to and 0:08:34.000 --> 0:08:38.400 used foording to three categories, really the first is a 0:08:38.559 --> 0:08:42.920 greater expert by file than the ones that were used 0:08:42.920 --> 0:08:49.000 at trial by the prosecution Secondly, an identification by experts 0:08:49.160 --> 0:08:52.600 of evidence that was not put before the jury. The 0:08:52.640 --> 0:08:55.840 third is in relation to experts of a discipline, for 0:08:55.920 --> 0:08:59.560 example susssicians that were simply not used in the trial. 0:09:00.280 --> 0:09:04.079 So I have those experts. There is now evidence and 0:09:04.200 --> 0:09:08.079 I am relying upon that's put before the CCRC in 0:09:08.120 --> 0:09:11.079 relation to the police investigation. It is up to the 0:09:11.080 --> 0:09:14.800 CCRC to decide whether that is something that impacts upon 0:09:14.800 --> 0:09:18.800 the safety of the conviction. So that's what I'm putting it. 0:09:18.920 --> 0:09:24.600 The main prosecution expert witness has been saying quite a 0:09:24.640 --> 0:09:28.080 lot since the conviction and has given a number of 0:09:28.120 --> 0:09:32.080 podcasts and interviews, and in some of those interviews he's 0:09:32.080 --> 0:09:35.000 said things that are inconsistent with what was said before 0:09:35.160 --> 0:09:37.200 the jury. So that's gone in. 0:09:38.000 --> 0:09:40.240 How do you think they should conduct themselves? 0:09:41.000 --> 0:09:44.680 So an expert has a duty to the court. The 0:09:44.840 --> 0:09:49.360 overrides their duty to the person who instructs them to 0:09:49.400 --> 0:09:52.800 give the evidence. So their duty is to be the 0:09:52.840 --> 0:09:56.960 Criminal Cases Review Commission or the Court of Appeal is 0:09:57.240 --> 0:10:00.400 to assist the court. And if it's a we try 0:10:00.559 --> 0:10:03.400 the jewelry investor come to come to the conclusion and 0:10:03.440 --> 0:10:07.240 what their opinion is. The juries are directed that they've 0:10:07.240 --> 0:10:09.839 got an expert opinion. It's up to them whether or 0:10:09.880 --> 0:10:12.200 not they accept it or not. They could disregard it 0:10:12.240 --> 0:10:15.160 if they wanted to. And so they're there to be 0:10:15.400 --> 0:10:19.280 independent and not to come to a conclusion as to 0:10:19.360 --> 0:10:23.120 the guilt or innocence of the individual. That's not their job. 0:10:24.120 --> 0:10:30.040 Their job is to look at the statistics, look at 0:10:30.040 --> 0:10:33.160 what was said to the jewelry, and then say, I 0:10:33.200 --> 0:10:36.319 don't think that they were given accurate information and this 0:10:36.400 --> 0:10:39.760 is the reasons why, and not to go beyond that 0:10:39.840 --> 0:10:42.200 and to say and that means she's not guilty and 0:10:42.200 --> 0:10:43.920 she's innocent. That's not their job. 0:10:44.320 --> 0:10:44.520 Now. 0:10:44.720 --> 0:10:48.400 The important thing about all the experts or thirty odd 0:10:48.400 --> 0:10:52.520 experts is that not one of them has been paid, 0:10:53.360 --> 0:10:57.800 not one penny. Why because I got money? 0:10:58.200 --> 0:11:01.440 Well, should they be in an ideal situation? 0:11:01.679 --> 0:11:06.000 Yea work, you do a job, let's be paid. But 0:11:06.080 --> 0:11:06.959 aren't any money? 0:11:08.160 --> 0:11:12.000 So what kind of experts does Mark have working on 0:11:12.040 --> 0:11:13.559 his CCRC reports? 0:11:14.600 --> 0:11:19.520 Neil Layton is an incredibly experienced neoetologist, but he's also 0:11:19.800 --> 0:11:26.280 a man who's a detailed man who has spent hundreds 0:11:26.320 --> 0:11:31.520 and hundreds of hours working away at the hospital. Notes 0:11:31.559 --> 0:11:36.439 in the hospital x rays and expert reports that found 0:11:36.600 --> 0:11:39.760 things that other people have not been able to find, 0:11:40.679 --> 0:11:44.280 not based upon Oh I've got a different opinion, But 0:11:45.040 --> 0:11:47.800 hold on you. You haven't included that lab result there. 0:11:47.880 --> 0:11:51.000 That's actually quite important. And here go through the whole 0:11:51.040 --> 0:11:54.440 of the transcripts and it was never mentioned for the jury. 0:11:55.360 --> 0:11:58.640 And he is, I think, has become very important to 0:11:58.760 --> 0:12:02.880 this appeal system. And the probably lighton also is that 0:12:02.920 --> 0:12:06.120 he's only anatologist and one of the things that the 0:12:06.160 --> 0:12:10.200 Court of Appeal don't like is just getting. 0:12:09.840 --> 0:12:12.840 Another expert, just any old expert. 0:12:13.679 --> 0:12:15.800 And so he's been great from the point of view 0:12:15.880 --> 0:12:23.520 that he's uncovered things, But the hierarchy of experts starts 0:12:23.559 --> 0:12:27.280 with Shuley and the international experts across the world. But 0:12:27.400 --> 0:12:31.280 what he's been very good at is uncovering a lot 0:12:31.320 --> 0:12:36.079 of wrongdoing, mistakes that happened before the trial and expose them. 0:12:36.200 --> 0:12:39.679 So his reports sometimes go up to eighteen ninety one 0:12:39.760 --> 0:12:42.120 hundred pages of detail. 0:12:43.280 --> 0:12:47.439 I was particularly interested in how the CCRC report would 0:12:47.440 --> 0:12:50.439 deal with the cases of supposed insulin poisoning. 0:12:50.800 --> 0:12:53.960 I've challenged every single element of the prosecution cases been 0:12:53.960 --> 0:12:57.120 put before the trial, every element be it the so 0:12:57.280 --> 0:13:01.160 called confession notes, be it the statistical evidence, be it 0:13:01.320 --> 0:13:04.920 the issues in relation to air embolism, be it the incident. 0:13:05.240 --> 0:13:08.840 I've focused on all of them. I've dismantled every single element. 0:13:09.720 --> 0:13:12.360 But here says the prosecution, this is the smoking gun, 0:13:12.559 --> 0:13:15.800 is the incident cases, because they've got these incident results. 0:13:16.360 --> 0:13:18.520 They put that question to Lucy on trial. 0:13:18.640 --> 0:13:21.960 In cross examination, and quite robust cross examination. She was 0:13:22.400 --> 0:13:26.360 as she conceded the issue in relation to the expert 0:13:26.520 --> 0:13:30.000 evidence that was put to her in questioning and said 0:13:30.040 --> 0:13:33.160 to her, and it's not criticism towards the prosecuting council. 0:13:33.480 --> 0:13:35.240 He did his job and he did it very well 0:13:35.600 --> 0:13:37.920 in the way that he cross examined her, But in 0:13:38.040 --> 0:13:42.280 essence said, Ler, do you accept that, if these experts 0:13:42.280 --> 0:13:46.560 are correct, that these babies are poisoned? Yes, so who 0:13:46.600 --> 0:13:50.040 poisoned them is the issue. I didn't poison them. So 0:13:50.520 --> 0:13:52.880 you can see the way that she was cross examined 0:13:53.040 --> 0:13:55.040 on this is but it was never the defense case 0:13:55.760 --> 0:13:59.200 that they accepted the results of this incident. The defense 0:13:59.240 --> 0:14:02.520 never accepted it was never their case. And now we've 0:14:02.520 --> 0:14:05.200 looked at them, you can see why. You know, the 0:14:05.240 --> 0:14:08.480 seven expert joy report that I put in last year 0:14:08.520 --> 0:14:11.280 in relation to expert completely exposes the whole issue in 0:14:11.320 --> 0:14:17.000 relation to hyperothemia and the essay testing and the reliability 0:14:17.080 --> 0:14:20.120 of the testing, and the report that I'm about to 0:14:20.120 --> 0:14:25.560 put in next week exposes the many issues in relation 0:14:25.680 --> 0:14:30.160 to insulin and the testimony on insulin that was given 0:14:30.480 --> 0:14:35.640 to the jury, the many mistakes that were made, because 0:14:35.640 --> 0:14:36.280 there were many. 0:14:36.760 --> 0:14:39.400 I mean, I think this is a prominent lot of 0:14:39.440 --> 0:14:45.040 wrongful convictions. Is if it's not the convicted person, if 0:14:45.040 --> 0:14:48.720 it's not Lucy, then what was it? What is the 0:14:48.760 --> 0:14:50.000 alternative explanation? 0:14:50.720 --> 0:14:54.040 I think this is what's unique about Lucy Letbe is 0:14:54.120 --> 0:14:59.000 because in most cases you find someone has been murdered, 0:15:00.040 --> 0:15:02.440 there's a gunshot wound or a stab wound, and it's 0:15:02.480 --> 0:15:08.080 who did it. Here, no crime has been committed, and 0:15:08.120 --> 0:15:11.760 when no crime is being committed, it's not who did 0:15:11.800 --> 0:15:16.280 it because there was no crime. But what there was 0:15:16.280 --> 0:15:21.400 was a systemic fading of a unit that was taking 0:15:21.520 --> 0:15:24.840 babies that were too sick for that unit and shouldn't 0:15:24.880 --> 0:15:29.880 have been on that unit, that was overwrapped, overstressed, under resourced, 0:15:30.560 --> 0:15:34.760 and issues in relation to medical care have been raised 0:15:34.760 --> 0:15:39.680 by the medical experts. Issues in relation to not having 0:15:39.760 --> 0:15:43.840 appropriate staff on the unit have been raised by the experts, 0:15:44.960 --> 0:15:49.840 and it's important to say that this actually mirrors over 0:15:50.320 --> 0:15:54.200 neonatal units in the country. It's not unique to the 0:15:54.280 --> 0:15:58.840 Countess of Chester. It's just that the Countess of Chester 0:16:00.080 --> 0:16:04.000 art pointing the finger at somebody. But people in the 0:16:04.040 --> 0:16:10.160 hospital said no, senior people, senior managers said no, there's 0:16:10.160 --> 0:16:12.000 no evidence that Lucy had done something. 0:16:12.680 --> 0:16:13.160 None. 0:16:14.320 --> 0:16:18.000 But then the police were contacted and an investigation started 0:16:18.120 --> 0:16:22.800 and a press release happened, And sitting at home treaking 0:16:22.840 --> 0:16:26.320 his coffee was a man called Dr Darry Evans, who 0:16:26.400 --> 0:16:29.880 then sent an email saying, this sounds like my type 0:16:29.880 --> 0:16:34.520 of case. Within weeks with meeting the police and as 0:16:34.560 --> 0:16:36.760 he would say, and as he said on the podcast, 0:16:37.760 --> 0:16:40.640 I knew within ten minutes that there had been intentional 0:16:40.640 --> 0:16:44.720 harm to a baby. There have been post mortem's, clinical 0:16:44.760 --> 0:16:48.160 reviews for months, if not years, and no one had 0:16:48.200 --> 0:16:53.760 identified anything. But within ten minutes over his coffee Darry 0:16:53.760 --> 0:16:54.440 Evans did. 0:16:57.600 --> 0:17:00.560 There are many who believe that Lucy Let is in 0:17:00.640 --> 0:17:05.600 prison because she was a whistleblower, someone who was bullied 0:17:05.640 --> 0:17:10.359 by senior staff challenged them at tribunal and was retaliated 0:17:10.400 --> 0:17:14.240 against to such an extent that she was accused of murder. 0:17:15.240 --> 0:17:19.480 I asked Mark about his thoughts on whistleblowers in the NHS. 0:17:19.840 --> 0:17:23.040 It's happening almost on a daily basis in our health service. 0:17:24.080 --> 0:17:28.160 There are doctors being sacked for speaking out. There are 0:17:28.520 --> 0:17:32.280 nurses being sacked for speaking out. We have a real 0:17:32.720 --> 0:17:37.120 problem and then not being protected. They're just not being 0:17:37.160 --> 0:17:43.280 protected by our system. Lucy let be epitomizers everything that's 0:17:43.320 --> 0:17:46.240 gone wrong, always going wrong in o for health service. 0:17:47.160 --> 0:17:49.960 Our health service has been broken for a long time 0:17:50.320 --> 0:17:55.879 and nobody would admit it. Our labor units are dangerous, 0:17:56.720 --> 0:18:02.960 neo natal units are dangerous. Of them but many of them, 0:18:03.119 --> 0:18:06.879 and people won't accept it. We put our health service 0:18:06.960 --> 0:18:09.840 upon a pedestal, but it's broken. 0:18:12.160 --> 0:18:15.000 How hopeful are you feeling. 0:18:16.440 --> 0:18:19.960 This conviction will be overturned? Do you think so, lucy Let, 0:18:20.000 --> 0:18:20.760 people will be free? 0:18:21.320 --> 0:18:22.280 What gives you that hope? 0:18:23.359 --> 0:18:27.639 Because I have never seen more expert, most national and 0:18:27.720 --> 0:18:31.320 international expert come forward and say what went on at 0:18:31.320 --> 0:18:34.840 that trial? It was so bad that this is a 0:18:34.960 --> 0:18:38.720 platant mischaracter justice. She's innocent. 0:18:59.520 --> 0:19:03.840 Mark mc donald believes Lucy let be is innocent, and 0:19:03.920 --> 0:19:07.080 though it is his job to argue that point, my 0:19:07.280 --> 0:19:12.240 sense is he'd be fighting this fight regardless. I wanted 0:19:12.280 --> 0:19:15.760 to hear from someone with no brief to argue, someone 0:19:15.880 --> 0:19:19.400 with nothing to gain. So we went to the Palace 0:19:19.480 --> 0:19:24.200 of Westminster, the Houses of Parliament, to be exact, into 0:19:24.320 --> 0:19:28.960 the shadow of Big Ben, past armed police and through security, 0:19:29.400 --> 0:19:31.399 where an aid met us and led us up a 0:19:31.480 --> 0:19:36.520 narrow back staircase to a wood paneled office overflowing with books. 0:19:37.520 --> 0:19:41.520 Tea was poured. Big Ben chimed through a window looking 0:19:41.560 --> 0:19:45.080 down on the courtyard, and here, in the heart of 0:19:45.119 --> 0:19:49.200 the British establishment, sat one of the most persistent thorns 0:19:49.320 --> 0:19:52.960 in its side. Sir David Davis MP. 0:19:55.400 --> 0:19:56.680 So you want to talk about Lucy, let me. 0:19:57.119 --> 0:19:59.159 I would love to know what initially drew you to 0:19:59.240 --> 0:20:03.640 the case, because it's not, you know, politically opportune. 0:20:03.960 --> 0:20:07.399 I might think, yeah, my hate mails went up by 0:20:07.440 --> 0:20:09.080 the small amount of I imagine, I don't know. I mean, 0:20:09.080 --> 0:20:11.800 I asked mat, I never read it, Yeah, exactly. It 0:20:11.920 --> 0:20:14.679 is not my first radio. People tend to see me 0:20:14.720 --> 0:20:18.439 as sort of missed and miscarriage of justice or the obverse. 0:20:18.480 --> 0:20:19.679 One hopes the. 0:20:19.560 --> 0:20:24.439 Sort of classical pattern for a miscarriage is that the 0:20:24.600 --> 0:20:26.159 person who turns out to be the victim of the 0:20:26.200 --> 0:20:28.720 miscarriage is hated by everybody. 0:20:29.119 --> 0:20:31.320 And the first thing you must have come across this yourself. 0:20:31.400 --> 0:20:32.240 I don't know what you mean. 0:20:32.359 --> 0:20:36.119 Yeah, exactly, It's hated by everybody, and so everybody else 0:20:36.280 --> 0:20:38.760 is terrorized out of doing anything about it. 0:20:39.720 --> 0:20:42.120 So my role, in many. 0:20:41.880 --> 0:20:45.560 Ways is to be the icebreaker for that right. 0:20:45.600 --> 0:20:47.399 And you were seen with this that. 0:20:47.760 --> 0:20:50.400 Once I'd spoken in Parliament and so on, once I'd 0:20:50.400 --> 0:20:53.040 said publicly various things about it. There was a a 0:20:53.119 --> 0:20:57.159 cascade of witnesses, mostly experts, but not just experts, the 0:20:57.240 --> 0:20:58.320 nineteen nurses. 0:20:58.000 --> 0:21:02.000 And someone among the people reaching out to Davis was 0:21:02.040 --> 0:21:05.560 a friend in New York, the old science advisor of 0:21:05.680 --> 0:21:07.240 number ten Downing Street. 0:21:08.080 --> 0:21:09.879 It just read the article in the New York at 0:21:09.880 --> 0:21:11.680 the thirteen thousand worder. You know the what I mean, 0:21:13.240 --> 0:21:15.359 And he says, you know this is your territory, David, 0:21:15.400 --> 0:21:16.240 you we should have a. 0:21:16.160 --> 0:21:16.600 Look at this. 0:21:16.800 --> 0:21:20.480 It makes it look as though the case is very flawed. 0:21:21.040 --> 0:21:22.600 Didn't say wrong, we just said flawed. 0:21:22.680 --> 0:21:24.919 So I went online trunk get it and it was 0:21:24.960 --> 0:21:28.000 suppressed by a court order. Right, So I got it 0:21:28.040 --> 0:21:33.000 another way read it so hmm. Like everybody else, I'd 0:21:33.040 --> 0:21:35.879 sort of accepted the monster nurse headlines up til then 0:21:36.520 --> 0:21:38.879 I thought this looks worrisome. 0:21:39.320 --> 0:21:42.400 At that point, no more than that, it's just worrisome. 0:21:43.400 --> 0:21:46.879 He raises the question in parliament, why is it that 0:21:46.960 --> 0:21:50.199 we can't read about court cases in our own jurisdiction. 0:21:51.200 --> 0:21:53.760 He wasn't trying to get an answer, he was just 0:21:53.840 --> 0:21:56.679 trying to make a point we should be able to 0:21:56.840 --> 0:22:01.359 access this information. But very quickly people started to take 0:22:01.440 --> 0:22:04.400 notice of Davis's doubts of the let be convictions. 0:22:05.119 --> 0:22:07.920 And then in the next two weeks I had sixteen 0:22:08.119 --> 0:22:11.199 different people get in touch with me. Nobody was a 0:22:11.240 --> 0:22:14.440 conspiracy theorist for a start, and not that sort of territory. 0:22:15.320 --> 0:22:19.359 They varied from well, a whole range of expert people, 0:22:20.040 --> 0:22:23.320 the past president or All Statistical Society, the past president 0:22:23.400 --> 0:22:26.760 or All College of Pediatric and Child Healthcare, a Nobel 0:22:26.840 --> 0:22:33.040 Prize winner, a professor of legal statistics, a forensics professor, 0:22:33.200 --> 0:22:36.040 and so on, and all these people were saying the 0:22:36.080 --> 0:22:39.800 same thing. None of them was saying she's innocent. 0:22:40.640 --> 0:22:41.960 They were all saying. 0:22:41.920 --> 0:22:44.639 I can't speak for the rest of the trial. But 0:22:44.760 --> 0:22:48.639 the bit I know about is rubbish, right, So he 0:22:48.720 --> 0:22:52.840 had this trial resting on a dozen pillars of evidence 0:22:52.920 --> 0:22:55.600 of court, and each of those pillars being knocked down 0:22:55.640 --> 0:22:59.920 by the most authority person in the country on that subject. 0:23:00.080 --> 0:23:03.760 That was far more persuasive to me than if somebody 0:23:03.760 --> 0:23:05.080 write up seats she's innocent. 0:23:06.080 --> 0:23:08.439 In most of the interviews I've done into this case, 0:23:08.680 --> 0:23:11.359 I've asked the interviewee if they think Lucy let Be 0:23:11.640 --> 0:23:16.199 is guilty or innocent. But David Davis, he wastes no 0:23:16.359 --> 0:23:19.000 time in making his position clear. 0:23:19.560 --> 0:23:22.480 People often say to me, do you think she's innocent? 0:23:23.200 --> 0:23:25.199 And I say yes to that. Now, if all I 0:23:25.200 --> 0:23:27.320 had done is what I've just described, I would have 0:23:27.320 --> 0:23:30.080 said I don't know, but she's not being proven guilty. 0:23:30.080 --> 0:23:32.119 That would have been my normal response. But I do 0:23:32.240 --> 0:23:34.440 say yes, she's innocent. Now why do I say that? 0:23:34.920 --> 0:23:38.560 I say that because I think there's a demonstrable alternative cause, 0:23:39.560 --> 0:23:42.480 and the demonstrable alternative cause is a very very poor 0:23:42.520 --> 0:23:44.800 standard of care in this hospital. 0:23:45.800 --> 0:23:50.439 David Davis, mister miscarriage of justice, knows the process for 0:23:50.520 --> 0:23:53.280 these kinds of cases can be long. 0:23:54.200 --> 0:23:58.680 A typical miscarriage case for me, will swallow roughly ten 0:23:58.760 --> 0:24:04.160 years start to finish. Right, the Post Office cases took 0:24:04.200 --> 0:24:07.439 fifteen years. I was involved in that as well, not 0:24:07.640 --> 0:24:11.160 actually from the complete beginning, but nevertheless it took fifteen years. 0:24:11.160 --> 0:24:13.360 From the beginning, I didn't realize, Oh, well, you. 0:24:13.320 --> 0:24:17.879 See, my reputation is civil liberty's rule of law, limitation 0:24:18.200 --> 0:24:23.320 of the powers of the state, free speech. They've all 0:24:23.320 --> 0:24:26.520 become topical again. I am mister civil liberties in this place. 0:24:26.560 --> 0:24:31.159 That's how I'm seeing. So that also lends people to 0:24:31.160 --> 0:24:33.280 come to me when they think the States done something wrong, 0:24:33.720 --> 0:24:37.560 whether it's a legal miscarriage or an oppressive treatment of 0:24:37.600 --> 0:24:39.000 a whistleblower or whatever. 0:24:39.440 --> 0:24:40.240 I've company view. 0:24:40.600 --> 0:24:43.600 This is plainly a mistrial in the sense that a 0:24:43.720 --> 0:24:47.600 number of pieces of fundamental evidence were wrong and has 0:24:47.640 --> 0:24:48.960 such been presented wrongly. 0:24:49.080 --> 0:24:51.160 The jury had believed them when they were not true. 0:24:52.080 --> 0:24:54.600 But I didn't know whether she was guilty of any 0:24:54.640 --> 0:24:57.320 of them because my view, I mean, she was convicted 0:24:57.400 --> 0:25:00.560 or whatever it was fourteenth cases. My view was, if 0:25:00.600 --> 0:25:02.480 she's guilty of one of these cases, she's in the 0:25:02.560 --> 0:25:06.280 right place. And I was not going to invest ten 0:25:06.359 --> 0:25:12.560 years in proving a technical mistrial, right right, So we 0:25:12.880 --> 0:25:15.520