SALLY CLARK: TRIAL AND ERROR BY JUDGE AND JURY

Co-authored with barrister Charles Feeny, this article examines the evidential failures that contributed to the wrongful conviction of Sally Clark. It analyses the misuse of statistical evidence, errors in probabilistic reasoning, the treatment of expert testimony and the legal and scientific lessons that continue to shape the evaluation of complex evidence in criminal proceedings. The article highlights why statistical evidence must be interpreted within its proper evidential context and the importance of rigorous scientific reasoning in the administration of justice. 

Using the High Court decision in De Francisci v Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust as a case study, this article examines how courts evaluate competing scientific evidence in causation disputes. It explores methodological issues including evidence hierarchies, aggregate versus individual participant data meta-analyses, subgroup analyses, biological plausibility and the distinction between statistical association and proof of causation. 

Published in the Law Society Gazette, this commentary argues that meaningful reform of clinical negligence cannot focus solely on legal procedure and costs. It considers whether greater attention should also be given to the methodological quality, interpretation and application of scientific evidence underpinning causation disputes.  

Published in Medico-Legal Magazine, this article examines one of the most common methodological challenges in clinical negligence litigation: applying population-level medical research to individual patients. It explains why evidence supporting earlier diagnosis at the population level does not necessarily establish that an earlier diagnosis would have changed the outcome for a particular claimant and outlines a more rigorous framework for evaluating causation.