Few things shake us as deeply as the betrayal of trust in places meant for care and healing — especially when it involves the most vulnerable among us: newborn babies.
The story of Lucy Letby, a neonatal nurse convicted of killing seven babies and attempting to kill seven more in a hospital setting, has gripped the nation with shock and horror.
The idea that someone tasked with protecting fragile infants could be responsible for such horrific acts is almost unimaginable.
It rattles not just the NHS but the very belief we hold in human decency.
Naturally, this case stirred intense emotions and a strong desire for justice.
Justice Delivered but Doubts Linger
When Lucy Letby was handed 15 life sentences, many felt a sense of grim relief.
Justice, it seemed, had been served for the families devastated by the loss of their babies.
But as time has passed, whispers of doubt have grown louder.
Nearly two years on, new evidence and expert opinions have emerged that could challenge the original verdict. This has sparked a crucial question: should the case be reopened for a fresh look?
Voices Divided on Letby’s Guilt
It’s important to be clear — the Daily Mail doesn’t take sides on whether Lucy Letby is innocent or guilty.
Even within our own ranks, opinions vary. Columnists like Peter Hitchens and Nadine Dorries have expressed serious doubts about the safety of the conviction, while our Northern Editor Liz Hull, who covered the trial extensively, believes the conviction was sound.
The bigger issue is this: with mounting concerns, is it right to ignore the possibility that a miscarriage of justice might have taken place?
Lessons from Past Wrongful Convictions
We’re painfully aware of cases where people were convicted with what seemed like airtight evidence — only for that to be overturned later.
Think of the Horizon scandal, where hundreds of sub-postmasters were wrongly accused, or Andrew Malkinson, who spent 17 years behind bars for a crime he did not commit before DNA evidence cleared his name.
Could Lucy Letby also be in this unfortunate position?
Lord Sumption Calls for a Second Look
One of the most compelling voices urging caution is Lord Sumption, a former Supreme Court judge.
After thoroughly examining the case, he has suggested that Letby might be “probably innocent” and called on the Criminal Cases Review Commission and Court of Appeal to reconsider.
He warns it would be devastating if a possibly innocent woman remains imprisoned for life without hope of release.
The Case’s Lack of Direct Evidence
The main problem raised by critics is that no one actually saw Lucy Letby harm any babies. There’s no direct forensic proof.
Instead, the case rested largely on circumstantial evidence and theories.
The spike in baby deaths at the Countess of Chester Hospital — from around four a year to 17 in just over a year — was unprecedented.
Because Letby was the nurse present for all the incidents, prosecutors argued she must be responsible.
The Controversial Confession and Allegations
Letby also wrote a confusing note that prosecutors say was a confession, ending with “I am evil. I did this.”
She was accused of causing harm by injecting air into veins, adding insulin to IV bags, and forcing air into babies’ stomachs.
Experts testified that the babies’ symptoms matched these supposed attacks, claiming no other explanation fit.
Crown Prosecution Service’s Firm Stance
At sentencing, Crown Prosecutor Pascale Jones insisted that Letby had turned her nursing skills into weapons, inflicting “harm, grief, and death.” The jury agreed and convicted her.
Experts and Statisticians Now Question the Evidence
But things have changed since then. A group of 14 senior clinicians from several countries reviewed the medical evidence and called it inconclusive.
The group, led by Dr. Shoo Lee from Toronto University, suggested the deaths might have natural or accidental causes.
Even the key statistical chart linking Letby to every baby collapse has been criticized for cherry-picking incidents and excluding other relevant data, undermining its reliability.
Additional Doubts About the Evidence
No tests were done on the insulin-spiked fluid bags, and Letby’s “confession” may have come from therapeutic writing during counselling, not a genuine admission.
There were also broader concerns about problems in the neonatal unit that could have contributed to the tragedies.
The Case Deserves a Proper Re-examination
None of this proves innocence outright, but it raises enough serious questions to demand a fresh review.
The Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), responsible for investigating such doubts, is now looking at the new evidence — though the commission itself faces criticism for delays and internal problems.
Its new interim chair, Dame Vera Baird, needs to prioritize the Letby case and push for it to return to the Court of Appeal quickly.
The Stakes Could Not Be Higher
Overturning convictions is rare because the courts are reluctant to question jury decisions.
But Lucy Letby’s case is fundamental to our justice system’s integrity.
If she is guilty, she should remain in prison.
But if there is even a hint of reasonable doubt that wasn’t properly considered, failing to act would be a tragic miscarriage of justice — cruel beyond words.
Justice is supposed to be blind, but it is not perfect. Sometimes, it makes mistakes — and this case may be one of them.