A former Supreme Court judge has raised serious concerns about the conviction of Lucy Letby, the nurse currently serving life sentences for the murders of seven babies and the attempted murders of seven others.
Jonathan Sumption, who served on the UK’s highest court from 2012 to 2018, has suggested that Letby might be innocent, questioning the validity of her conviction.
A Growing Number of Legal and Scientific Experts Call for Review
Sumption’s remarks come at a time when numerous legal professionals, including lawyers and scientists, have begun to publicly express doubt about Letby’s conviction.
According to Sumption, the individuals who are questioning the verdict are “too numerous and too well-qualified to be dismissed as troublemakers.”
He believes that the concerns raised by these experts cannot be brushed aside easily.
Despite the fact that the judge in Letby’s trial delivered what Sumption describes as an “impeccable” summing up, and the Court of Appeal thoroughly examined the evidence before rejecting her appeals, he points out “serious anomalies” that could undermine the jury’s verdict.
These anomalies, in his view, cast doubt on the safety of the conviction.
Questioning the Circumstantial Evidence in Letby’s Case
Lucy Letby, now 35, was convicted in August 2023 of murdering seven infants and attempting to murder seven others during her time working as a nurse at the Countess of Chester Hospital between 2015 and 2016.
The case against her was based largely on circumstantial evidence, according to Sumption.
He questions the speculative nature of the prosecution’s theories on how Letby allegedly attacked the babies—such as injecting air into their veins or stomachs, poisoning them with insulin, and other bizarre methods like overfeeding or causing throat trauma.
He also criticizes the hospital’s record, citing a report by the Royal College of Paediatrics which flagged “unacceptable standards” in the neonatal unit.
This, Sumption argues, raises further doubts about the adequacy of the investigation.
Alternative Explanations and a Call for a Proper Review
A recent international panel of 14 experts has also cast doubt on Letby’s guilt.
After reviewing the medical notes of the infants involved, they suggested that there could be natural, alternative explanations for the babies’ sudden collapses or deaths.
Sumption highlights this panel’s findings as another reason to reconsider the case against Letby.
If Letby were indeed wrongfully convicted, Sumption warns that the situation would be “horrifying.”
The prospect of an innocent woman spending the rest of her life in prison because the justice system is too rigid to allow a proper review is a deeply troubling scenario, he adds.
The Thirlwall Inquiry and Concerns About Flawed Evidence
Sumption’s comments come just a week after the conclusion of the Thirlwall Inquiry, the public investigation into Letby’s crimes.
In its final submissions, lawyers representing the families of the victims criticized the inquiry panel’s report, claiming it was flawed and overly reliant on the same medical evidence presented at the original trial.
The inquiry panel had largely focused on the medical details of the case while ignoring other crucial factors, such as Letby’s alleged “confession” notes, her odd behavior during the infants’ collapses, and her suspected alteration of medical records.
Richard Baker KC, representing the victims’ families, argued that this narrow focus could prevent the inquiry from considering the “bigger picture” of Letby’s actions and the broader issues within the hospital.
Additionally, concerns raised about potential infection sources, like the hospital’s faulty plumbing, were excluded from the inquiry, leaving several critical questions unanswered.
Ongoing Public Debate and Legal Challenges
The debate over Letby’s conviction is far from over. While some continue to defend the prosecution’s case, others—like Sumption and the international panel—are calling for a deeper, more comprehensive review of the evidence.
Whether this will lead to a re-examination of Letby’s case remains to be seen, but it’s clear that the legal and medical communities are divided on this controversial and heart-wrenching issue.