|Barrister comments after giving evidence at GMC Tribunal (August 2023)|
Counsel felt that you did a very good job and that your evidence was excellent. More specifically he felt that you were articulate and that you responded directly to questions.
|Solicitor comments on Case Conference with Trust Clinicians (August 2023)|
Thank you for your help and for dealing with the conference so sensitively. It is not always easy to say what you need to say when the clinician is there so we were very grateful for your efforts in this regard
|Barrister’s comments on GMC case (January 2023)|
Prof Gupta strikes me as a very good expert applying the correct test.
Oxford Crown Court (April 2022)
Your evidence was very important to us. Your knowledge of process/procedure (in particular relation to the operation that was actually carried out) was crucial in assisting the jurors in understanding her physical condition at the time of the offence.
Solicitor’s comments after hearing with Defendant (March 2022)
‘Thank you also for the excellent contribution in the meeting especially the sensitive way in which you addressed Dr S. I thought the way you described it probably provided a lot of comfort to him’.
Coroner’s Court (January 2022)
I am writing to thank you for attending the inquest into Baby xx’s death yesterday and the work that you have put into this case.
I found your explanation of complicated medicine very helpful and the compassionate manner in which you dealt with the question from xx’s mum. xx was very much appreciated.
GMC Medical Practitioners Tribunal (MPTS) (February 2020)
Professor Janesh Gupta provided expert opinion on a Consultant Obstetrician and Gynaecologist’s practice.
Instructing Medical Protection Society Solicitor said, ‘May I say that your evidence was particularly well delivered; it was clearly persuasive as following your evidence, the GMC amended the charges to remove reference to assessment of the lie of the fetus’.
Lincoln Crown Court (Case number: OP1268xx, T20177081) (May 2019)
The Police Officer in charge of the case said, ‘… gratitude for your fantastic evidence that you gave and for the way you dealt with the cross examination from Defence. You were amazing and I thank you for all your hard work and time. The outcome was that he was found unanimously guilty by the jury on all 4 counts and was convicted to 15 years’.
Birmingham Crown Court (November 2018)
Professor Janesh Gupta provided an expert prosecution gynaecology opinion on this complex, well publicised manslaughter case, which was covered by several media outlets.
Instructing Police Officer said, ‘The evidence you provided both in your reports and in your oral evidence was excellent and you have been extremely helpful throughout the case. We were all impressed, including the prosecution Barrister and Judge. If I ever have an investigation in this area of work again, you will be my first call’.
County Court at Liverpool (Case number: B27YP640) (November 2018)
The Judge said that, ‘… insofar as one opinion must be preferred over another, it seems to me that Professor Gupta’s postulation as to the cause of the disease is far more conventional and plausible’, and ‘I prefer the evidence of Professor Gupta which was consistent and logical’.
The Defendant said: ‘The whole legal team were impressed by your manner, but I’m sure this is simply a reflection of your effect on an operating theatre, when things are going badly the staff can be a bit more confident when you arrive. Fortunately for me at no point in this case did things seem to be going badly. If you read the full judgement you can see that the Judge accepted all your points’.
Leicestershire Constabulary (OP11911xx) (September 2018)
Professor Janesh Gupta provided expert Gynaecology opinion on a historic sexual abuse case from 1988. His comprehensive report resulted in ‘The matter was not referred to the courts’.
Carlisle Crown Court (August 2018)
The Judge said that as the experts could not agree because you were both from very different fields it could not be left to the jury to safely come to any conclusions about the evidence to the standard required. He also had concerns about Prosecutor’s expert evidence of moderately strong: moderate findings, which he felt were not conclusive. There was no criticism of your conclusions it was just the difference in your specialties which was an issue. In fact the judge said he had concerns after hearing what you had said about the quantities of semen found in a human, and the quantity which had allegedly been found on the panty liner. There is little doubt that your testimony was vital in securing the right outcome for our client.
Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) (OP1004xx) (September 2017)
Prof Janesh Gupta provided expert Gynaecology opinion on trauma to the injured party. This provided some incite to causation and force regarding injury. Service was thorough and Professor extremely professional. No experts gave evidence in court due to plea submitted on first day of trial.
Durham Constabulary (OP0978xx) (April 2017)
My investigation was a historical rape allegation. The victim had sustained a serious injury to her vagina which required surgery. The expert was asked to comment on whether the injury would have been caused during consensual or non-consensual sex. Prof Gupta stated that the injury described has been recorded in cases of consensual sex previously. It had only been recorded once for non-consensual and ruled that it, on the balance of probabilities, would have been caused by consensual sex. This report meant that CPS NFA the case. The report was detailed and was clear in its findings which ultimately assisted CPS in their decision.
Leicestershire Constabulary (OP0885xx) (March 2016)
The CVs of the experts were reviewed by myself and then discussed with our CPS lawyer. Following consultation the CPS approached Prof Gupta and asked for their findings on the information provided. Prof Gupta completed a report. Prof Gupta and the defence expert then reviewed their findings and agreed on them. Due to the fact that the experts agreed upon their findings, Prof Gupta was not called to give evidence.
Devon and Cornwall Constabulary (OP0817xx) (September 2015)
I conducted a telephone conversation with the expert adviser who was able to answer my investigative questions during this single conversation without the need for further review, discussion or statement. The conversation was sufficient to allow me to close an investigation and he was able to answer previously unanswered questions that arose from a medical statement that police had obtained. The expert practitioner did not push the issue to take it further and he was realistic, helpful and professional.
|Lincoln Crown Court (May 2012)|
I gave key evidence in Landmark Case of a drink-driver who caused the death of a baby girl who was born 20 days after a car crash in which her pregnant mother survived. He was been jailed for six years (See media coverage).