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

NLJ Career Profile: Ling Ong, London Market FOIL

NLJ Career Profile: Ling Ong, London Market FOIL

Ling Ong, partner at Weightmans and president of London Market FOIL, discusses her biggest inspirations, the challenges of AI and the importance of tackling unconscious bias

DWF—Imogen Francis

DWF—Imogen Francis

Director and head of IP team joins in Birmingham

Penningtons Manches Cooper—five promotions

Penningtons Manches Cooper—five promotions

Firm boosts partnership and costs practice with five senior promotions

NEWS

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
back-to-top-scroll