New expert knowledge may lead to nurse’s murder conviction being unsafe

New expert knowledge may mean the conviction of a former nurse for the murders of four elderly patients in Leeds is unsafe, the Court of Appeal has heard.

Colin Campbell (pictured), formerly known as Colin Norris, was found guilty in 2008 of killing four women and attempting to kill a fifth by injecting them with insulin.

All were elderly inpatients in 2002 on orthopaedic wards where Campbell worked and each developed severe, unexplained hypoglycemia.

Prosecutors relied on a “wholly circumstantial” case, the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) said after referring the case to the Court of Appeal in London four years ago.

Campbell was alleged to have been present when or shortly before each of the patients suffered hypoglycemia and, because of the rarity of such a cluster of cases happening within a short space of time, prosecutors said the nurse must have been responsible.

A total of 20 experts gave evidence during a five-month trial at Newcastle Crown Court after which Campbell was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 30 years.

Campbell denied any wrongdoing and said he did nothing to cause hypoglycemia in any of the patients.

He unsuccessfully appealed against his conviction in 2009 and applied to the CCRC in 2011.

Michael Mansfield KC, for Campbell, told a Court of Appeal hearing on Tuesday: “The nature of the prosecution case was that this appellant, Colin Campbell, was a nurse, recently qualified, who was at two teaching hospitals in Leeds – the General Infirmary and St James’s.

“The prosecution case was that he injected the five individuals with insulin and as a result of that injection they all suffered a sudden and severe episode of hypoglycemia, namely, low blood sugar.”

He said there was a consensus among the experts at trial that a sudden and severe onset of hypoglycemia was extremely rare.

But new developments in medical knowledge mean there is now more evidence to support the argument that the patients may have died from natural causes, Mr Mansfield said.

He told the court: “The approach of the witnesses we intend to call on behalf of the appellant indicates an evolution of understanding, of knowledge, about hypoglycemia and about glucose generally.

“So we say there is now a range of possibilities relating to natural causes.”

He also said that, towards the end of Campbell’s trial, the jury had asked whether there were other cases of patients suffering from “sudden and profound” hypoglycemia in any of the Leeds teaching hospitals after Campbell stopped working.

Four such cases have since been identified, Mr Mansfield told the court, with the deaths recorded between January 2003 and August 2005, and that “no-one is suggesting that these cases were anything other than natural causes”.

The barrister also noted the “remarkably similar” ages in all nine cases, with the patients being between 78 and 93 years old, but this “was not discussed” at the trial.

In referring the case, the CCRC said new expert evidence suggests the women may have died from natural causes and so there is a real possibility that the Court of Appeal may find the conviction unsafe.

There have also been other developments in the understanding of hypoglycemia that cast doubt on the expert evidence given at trial, the CCRC said.

James Curtis KC, for the Crown Prosecution Service, which is opposing the appeal, is due to give oral submissions at a later date.

The appeal, before Lady Justice Macur, Sir Stephen Irwin and Mr Justice Picken, is expected to last three weeks.

Copyright (c) PA Media Ltd. 2024, All Rights Reserved. Picture (c) PA.