When Lucy Letby was found guilty of murdering seven babies, and attempting to murder seven more, the judge sentenced her to multiple whole-life terms for what he said had been “a cruel, calculated and cynical campaign”. The convictions shook public trust in the NHS and demanded a reckoning with a system and culture that had failed to prevent such horrors. In August 2023, this newspaper urged readers to look beyond individual guilt to the institutional failures that allowed such crimes to go undetected for so long. It remains the case that serious questions must be asked of NHS management and clinical staff in relation to the tragic events at the Countess of Chester hospital.
However, justice, like science, should not be afraid to re-examine its conclusions when reasonable doubt or fresh evidence emerge. Since Letby’s conviction, many have questioned the basis of the prosecution case. Leading experts have raised challenges about the reliability of key medical assumptions and the quality of statistical interpretations that led to Letby being jailed. Her guilt or innocence is not for the media to decide. But journalism plays a vital role in scrutinising government, parliament and the courts. When a serious body of concern arises around a conviction, particularly one so grave and emotionally charged, the state has a duty to respond not with defensiveness, but with clear candour.
The official inquiry into the Letby case, headed by Lady Justice Thirlwall, is set to report in 2026. The judge said she could not examine the safety of the conviction. The decision to continue with the inquiry on those terms, for which the health secretary, Wes Streeting, was also responsible, is regrettable. While the grief and anger of the families who lost their children must remain central, their pain is not diminished by the state subjecting itself to scrutiny. On the contrary, trust in public institutions depends on a willingness to confront hard questions – especially the most uncomfortable ones.
A miscarriage of justice may have occurred in this case. It may not. But accepting the possibility that it could have – and allowing a mechanism to guard against error is essential. The criminal justice system, like all human institutions, makes mistakes. Its integrity depends not on infallibility but on the ability to admit errors and correct them. The Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) is weighing the merits of an appeal. The commission has faced justified criticism over its failings in the wrongful conviction of Andrew Malkinson. As the review of that case warned, justice demands we keep the risk of mistakes firmly in mind.
It is in that spirit that the CCRC’s new chair, Vera Baird KC, should approach this matter. The commission must demonstrate the independence, transparency and diligence required for justice to be served – even in cases where grief and outrage weigh heavily. No case, however disturbing, should be exempt from reassessment if evidence demands it. The commission can only refer cases back to the court of appeal on the narrow ground that there is a realistic possibility that the judges there may overturn a conviction. The bench has twice declined – in May 2024 and March this year – to re-examine or admit challenges to Letby’s conviction. Persisting with such a course risks hardening public doubt, not resolving it. In moments like this, it is wise to remember that justice must be done and be seen to be done.
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
