Campaigners backing Lucy Letby's bid to have her conviction for murdering seven babies thrown out have today presented 'medical evidence' from a panel of 14 world renowned experts. But a legal expert has revealed how complex cases featuring so much medical evidence fail in the UK's legal system which is set up to pit one witness against the other, with one side winning having produced the best and most dramatic evidence.

Lawyer David Hardstaff believes we should move away from the adversarial style in our courtrooms for complex cases and instead involve a panel of experts to get to the bottom of what actually happened. Letby, 35, from Hereford, is serving 15 whole-life orders after she was convicted at Manchester Crown Court of murdering seven infants and attempting to murder seven others, with two attempts on one of her victims, between June 2015 and June 2016. Today, her convictions were branded 'one of major injustices of modern times by MP and supporter Sir David Davis.

Retired medic Dr Shoo Lee, who co-authored a 1989 academic paper on air embolism in babies, presented the findings of a panel of 14 leading experts who said they had compiled an “impartial evidence-based report”. Dr Lee criticised of the care provided at Countess of Chester Hospital, claiming that if it were in Canada, where he is based, it would have been shut down. He went on to give seven examples of how the care of each baby had, he claimed, wrongly been blamed on Letby, when there was "clear evidence" something else "really happened".

He went through seven of the cases were children died or were harmed and gave an alternative opinion about what took place. Dr Lee concluded the 70-minute press conference, by saying: “In summary then, ladies and gentlemen, we did not find murders. In all cases, death or injury were due to natural causes or just bad medical care. "Lucy was charged with seven murders and seven attempted murders. In our opinion, the medical opinion, the medical evidence doesn’t support murder in any of these cases, just natural causes and bad medical care.”.

Mr Hardstaff, who is a partner at BCL Solicitors, told the Mirror: "There will be suggestions that cases where there is substantial medical evidence, we shouldn't be relying on one expert, especially in cases as complex as this. I'm a big fan of the jury trial and its always seen as the best, worst option, but it's different if we are dealing with a burglary or a rape. This is a case where there is so much medical evidence.

"In a trial it's all about who wins, who has the best, witness, it's all about the drama of it. The best expert isn't necessarily the best witness in a trial as we have it now. They can be a great witness but are not necessarily the best expert in their field and this strikes at the issue. "We need a way for a panel of experts to look at the evidence independently, that the prosecution, defence and judge agrees on, when cases are as medically complex as this. What the jury see is a very controlled part of the evidence. It seems that cases like this are really pushing at the seams of what the justice system can take. Surely a panel of 14 independent experts is better than a single person.".

Mark McDonald, the barrister leading Lucy Letby’s legal team said they would be back in the Court of Appeal “very soon.” He said: “There is overwhelming evidence that the conviction is unsafe. And if Dr Shoo Lee and the panel are correct, no crime was committed. And if no crime was committed, that means a 34-year-old woman is currently sitting in prison for the rest of her life for a crime that just never happened.”.