⚖️ Trial of Lucy Letby

• David Davis raised concerns about the conviction of Lucy Letby, a nurse sentenced to life for the murder of seven infants and attempted murder of seven others. He warned that his speech would cover distressing events, including infant deaths and potential miscarriages of justice.

• Davis initially accepted the media portrayal of Letby but later questioned it after being approached by numerous experts, including statisticians, neonatal specialists, and forensic scientists. These experts disagreed with the evidence used to convict Letby.

• Historical miscarriages of justice in the UK were mentioned, such as the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four, to underline the frequency of wrongful convictions, especially those involving flawed medical diagnoses.

• The Countess of Chester Hospital faced increased neonatal deaths. From a usual two to four deaths a year, the unit saw 17 deaths in one 13-month period. Hospital management was aware of this, but a report by the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, which noted multiple failings at the unit, was not presented to the jury.

• Consultants accused Letby based on ‘gut feeling’ and her presence during some infant deaths, but this did not account for all cases, and their suspicions led to police involvement. Davis criticized the lack of solid evidence and the reliance on flawed statistics.

• Davis suggested that a Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection in the neonatal unit, which can have high mortality rates, might have been a more likely cause of some infant deaths. This information was also withheld from the jury.

• Statistical evidence used in the trial was criticized. Professor Jane Hutton, a statistician, advised the police that their statistical approach was flawed, but this advice was not followed, and her warnings were not communicated to the jury.

• Expert medical testimony, particularly from Dewi Evans, was scrutinized. Evans’s claims about air embolism being the cause of infant deaths were contested and based on outdated research. His credibility was further questioned due to previous judicial criticism and changes in his testimony.

• Two specific cases, Baby O and Baby C, were reviewed by expert neonatologists who found significant medical errors that were not disclosed during the trial. These errors directly contradicted the prosecution’s narrative and were not presented to the jury.

• Davis argued for a retrial, suggesting that the evidence presented at the initial trial was inadequate and misleading. He pointed out the technical difficulties in securing a retrial due to the need for the defence to have presented this evidence initially.

• The Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) was highlighted as the potential avenue for correcting this miscarriage of justice. Davis urged the CCRC to reassess the case and consider new diagnoses to ensure a retrial, emphasizing the importance of timely justice.

• Alex Davies-Jones, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice, responded. She emphasized the need for closure for the affected families and stressed that the government does not interfere with judicial decisions. She outlined the legal framework for expert witnesses and the appeals process.

• The ongoing Thirlwall inquiry was mentioned, which is examining the events at the hospital but not the conviction itself. Davies-Jones noted the inquiry’s role in identifying lessons for patient safety and future NHS practices.

• Concerns about the impact on NHS staff were raised. Jim Shannon mentioned that some NHS staff have left their jobs due to fears over their culpability in similar cases. Davies-Jones acknowledged the need to restore confidence and mentioned the forthcoming Hillsborough law aimed at ensuring transparency.

• The session concluded with a focus on supporting the affected families and a reminder of the established processes for addressing potential miscarriages of justice.

The transcript indicates a significant level of disagreement, primarily from David Davis who challenges the conviction of Lucy Letby, presenting a detailed critique of the trial’s evidence and processes. He argues for a possible miscarriage of justice, highlighting issues with expert testimony, statistical evidence, and alternative explanations for the infants’ deaths. This view directly contradicts the judicial outcome and the stance of the prosecution, as well as implicitly challenging the views of those who supported the conviction. The Minister’s response, while acknowledging the concerns, firmly upholds the judicial process and the Court of Appeal’s decision, refusing to comment on the specifics of the case due to ongoing inquiries and judicial principles. The direct disagreement between David Davis and the Minister’s position, coupled with the impassioned plea for a retrial, underscores a high level of contention within the session.