Lucy Letby’s legal team failed in a bid to throw out the evidence of the prosecution’s lead medical expert.

Three months into the murder trial at Manchester Crown Court they applied to exclude the evidence of retired consultant paediatrician Dewi Evans.

Dr Evans was tasked by Cheshire Police to look at a series of collapses on the neonatal unit of the Countess of Chester Hospital in 2015 and 2016.

He wrote a number of reports about his findings and went on to give evidence from last October onwards about many of the children that Letby was said to have harmed.

In January, Ben Myers KC, defending, applied to trial judge Mr Justice Goss – in the absence of the jury – to strike out the evidence Dr Evans had given on seven babies and stop him returning to the witness box.

The barrister submitted that Dr Evans had failed to act with the independence, impartiality and objectivity required of such a witness.

However Mr Justice Goss refused the application and said it was for the jury “to determine, as with any witness, his (Dr Evans’s) reliability, having regard to all the evidence in the case”.

During the trial and under cross-examination from Mr Myers, Dr Evans was accused on several occasions of adopting a partisan approach to the case.

The barrister accused him of repeatedly “reaching for things to support the allegations rather than reflecting the facts” and said he was not independent.

In one exchange, Dr Evans said he found the suggestion “insulting”, adding: “I’m completely independent. I have been giving evidence in court for a long time. I know about impartiality. I know about the rules.

“I’m not here for the prosecution. I’m not here for the defence. I’m here for the court.”

Dr Evans also denied he had “touted” for his role when he sent an email to the National Crime Agency in May 2017, ahead of his involvement with Cheshire Police.

In his message, he wrote: “Incidentally I’ve read about the high rate of babies in Chester and that the police are investigating.

“Do they have a paediatric/neonatal contact? I was involved in neonatal medicine for 30 years including leading the intensive care set-up in Swansea. I’ve also prepared numerous neonatal cases where clinical negligence was alleged.

“If the Chester police had no-one in mind I’d be interested to help. Sounds like my kind of case.”

Mr Myers said to Dr Evans: “This is you putting yourself forward. In effect, touting for this job.”

Dr Evans replied: “I was offering my professional opinion if that was in their interest.”

Mr Myers said: “It’s you ready to give them what they wanted, Dr Evans?”

Dr Evans said: “No, no. I have dealt with several police cases where I have said ‘This case doesn’t cross the threshold of suspicious death or injury’, or whatever.

“My opinions are impartial and independent.”

Dr Evans denied that police had told him about suspicious rashes and air embolus – when blood supply is blocked by a gas bubble or bubbles – before he wrote any of his reports.

In February, jurors were told that a report from Dr Evans in an unrelated civil case had been described by a senior judge as “worthless”.

Dr Evans was criticised over his involvement in an application for permission to appeal against a care order involving two children, the court heard.

Refusing permission for the appeal last December, Court of Appeal judge Lord Justice Jackson said Dr Evans’s report was “worthless” and “makes no effort to provide a balanced opinion”.

The judge went on: “He either knows what his professional colleagues have concluded and disregards it or he has not taken steps to inform himself of their views.

“The report has the hallmarks of an exercise in ‘working out an explanation’ that exculpates the applicants.

“It ends with tendentious and partisan expressions of opinion that are outside Dr Evans’s professional competence and have no place in a reputable expert report.”

Dr Evans told Manchester Crown Court he was “more than happy” to stand by his report.

He said: “This is the first judgment that has gone against me in 30 years.”