header-logo header-logo

05 February 2025
Categories: Legal News , Criminal , Health , Expert Witness
printer mail-detail

Medical panel disputes Lucy Letby evidence

An application on behalf of former nurse Lucy Letby has been received by the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), which reviews suspected miscarriages of justice.

Letby, who is serving 15 whole-life prison terms, was convicted of murdering seven babies and attempting to murder seven others between June 2015 and June 2016 on the neonatal unit at the Countess of Chester Hospital.

As part of its investigation, the CCRC is likely to consider a major report on the case by an international panel of medical specialists, who presented a summary of their findings this week. The panel was chaired by Dr Shoo Lee, a retired Canadian doctor who specialises in the treatment of young children. It examined 17 cases involved in the Letby trial, and concluded that no murders occurred.

Speaking at a press conference in London this week, Dr Lee said the panel believed that ‘in all cases death or injury were due to natural causes or just bad medical care’. He added: ‘In our opinion, the medical evidence doesn’t support murder in any of these babies.’

During Letby’s trial in 2023, the prosecution referred to an academic paper on air embolism co-authored by Dr Lee. Last July, Letby appealed against her conviction, seeking leave to present as ‘fresh evidence’ two reports by Dr Lee supporting the view that the prosecution experts used his academic paper outside any reliable basis for doing so. However, the appeal was dismissed, at R v Letby [2024] EWCA Crim 748.

A CCRC spokesperson said: ‘We are aware that there has been a great deal of speculation and commentary surrounding Lucy Letby’s case, much of it from parties with only a partial view of the evidence.

‘At this stage it is not possible to determine how long it will take to review this application. A significant volume of complicated evidence was presented to the court in Ms Letby’s trials.’

The CCRC can refer potential miscarriages of justice to the Court of Appeal if new evidence or new argument means there is a real possibility that a conviction will not be upheld, or a sentence will be reduced.

RELATED ARTICLES

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll