Jeremy Hunt calls for ‘urgent re-examination' of Lucy Letby case

The Conservative MP pleaded for the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), which investigates potential miscarriages of justice, to 'speed up their normally painfully slow process'.
The CCRC is considering evidence presented by Letby's legal team from an international panel of medics who claim poor medical care and natural causes were the reasons for the babies collapsing at the Countess of Chester Hospital's neonatal unit.
The former nurse, 35, is serving 15 whole-life orders after she was convicted across two trials at Manchester Crown Court of murdering seven babies and attempting to murder seven others, with two attempts on one of her victims, between June 2015 and June 2016.
Giving evidence in January at the Thirlwall Inquiry over Letby's crimes, Sir Jeremy – who was Health Secretary between 2012 and 2018 – acknowledged the 'appalling crime' took place under his watch and he bore ultimately responsibility for the NHS ' insofar as lessons were not learned from previous inquiries that could have been or the right systems were not in place'.
He said: 'I want to put on the record my apologies to the families for anything that did not happen that potentially could have prevented such an appalling crime.'
Writing in the Daily Mail newspaper on Wednesday, Sir Jeremy said: 'I am not arguing that Letby is innocent. That is not my place. I believe in the separation of powers. It must never be the role of any politician to second-guess the outcome of any court decision, let alone a jury trial.
'The pain endured by the families affected must also be at the forefront of our minds. Their suffering is beyond our comprehension and they deserve compassion, respect and ongoing support.
'But most of all, they deserve the truth. And recently,y some have begun to cast doubt on what actually happened. Were those tragic deaths caused by an evil woman or were they the result of medical error?
'As someone who has campaigned for more than a decade to reduce avoidable death, that matters to me.
'If Letby really did kill seven babies in their cots and attempted to kill seven more, no punishment short of the death penalty is too harsh. But if they were caused by professional shortcomings, we need to know why.
'More than anything else, we need to make sure other families don't have to go through the same tragedy.'
Sir Jeremy said he had noted the findings of the international panel of paediatric specialists and neonatologists, and had also read a 'wide range of expert concerns about the conduct of the criminal case',
He said: 'Taken together – and it pains me to say it – this analysis raises serious and credible questions about the evidence presented in court, the robustness of expert testimony and the interpretation of statistical data.
'That is why I and parliamentary colleagues such as Sir David Davis, now believe the time has come for these concerns to be addressed as a matter of urgency.'
He continued: 'While there is such a high degree of speculation about the potentially unfair prosecution of a healthcare professional, others will feel much more nervous about coming forward about mistakes they may have made. Lessons will not be learned and more babies will die.
'Justice must be done and seen to be done. And that means the CCRC has to speed up their normally painfully slow process.'
He added that 'none of this should diminish the compassion we owe the families who have already suffered so much'.
He said: 'Re-examination of the evidence is not a denial of their pain. But it will ensure that all of us can have confidence that the truth has been reached through a rigorous and fair process.
'And if medical error was the cause, we can then make sure no more babies die from the same mistakes.'
Lawyers for the families of Letby's victims dismissed the medical panel's conclusions as 'full of analytical holes' and 'a rehash' of the defence case heard at trial.
The mother of a baby boy who Letby attempted to murder said the families 'already have the truth' and they believed in the British justice system and that the jury made the right decision.
While the mother of another boy, Baby C, who Letby was convicted of murdering, told the Thirlwall Inquiry: 'The media PR campaign aimed to garner public sympathy for Letby demonstrates a complete lack of understanding for Letby's crimes and the complexity of the case.
'The misinformed and inaccurate media circus surrounding this case, our son and the other babies is potentiating the distress of all of the families involved.'
Letby, from Hereford, lost two bids last year to challenge her convictions at the Court of Appeal, in May for seven murders and seven attempted murders, and in October for the attempted murder of a baby girl, which she was convicted of by a different jury at a retrial.
Cheshire Constabulary is continuing a review of deaths and non-fatal collapses of babies at the neonatal units of the Countess of Chester and Liverpool Women's Hospital during Letby's time as a nurse from 2012 to 2016.A separate probe by the force into corporate manslaughter and gross negligence manslaughter at the Countess of Chester Hospital also remains ongoing.
Lady Justice Thirlwall is due to publish the findings from her public inquiry in early 2026.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

The Herald Scotland

13 minutes ago

• The Herald Scotland

Scotland's future is uncertain. But then so is the here and now

At the same time, many in the mischievous media exaggerate the transient. Who is up, who is down? What is new, what is demanding attention? Always eager to hasten to the next caravanserai. This week, by contrast, there was a glance towards the longer term. Where are we going with our NHS, our services, our fiscal structure? What, an Edinburgh conference asked, will Scotland look like in 2050? Now, even adopting such a perspective may be viewed as courageous, given the perils currently confronting our planet. As Israel and Iran trade missiles, as President Trump ponders, it may seem rash to contemplate anything other than our collective survival. However, we cannot live that way. We cannot flee for the sanctuary of a dark corner whenever Donald J. Trump turns into King Lear: confused and uncertain yet insisting that he is the terror of the earth. And so it is entirely right to cast an eye ahead. However it may appear at first glance that there is a faintly futile tinge to the entire endeavour. Consider. In 1920, did the ravaged continent of Europe discern that, by 1945, they would have endured a second, bloody conflict? They did not. More prosaically, in 1980, did we know that the passing of a further quarter century would lead to a transformation in Information Technology and the creation of a Scottish Parliament? We did not. Yet contemplate a little more deeply. Were not the roots of the Second World War seeded in the aftermath of the First World War? The constraints and financial reparations understandably imposed upon Germany – but resented by their emerging, deadly leader? Read more Brian Taylor Do the Scottish Conservatives have any reason to exist? This is a set-back and an opportunity for the SNP - which one will they embrace? Brian Taylor: The fundamental battle which unites Donald Trump and Nigel Farage And the more modern period? Were there not early prequels for the 21st century information revolution? Further, here in Scotland, was not the cause of Scottish self-government measurably advanced in the wake of the election of Margaret Thatcher in 1979? In short, when we purport to look into the future, we are in reality studying present-day conditions. We are examining how reform might generate a steady transformation which would emerge over that longer period. It is a way of urging impatient voters and the mischievous media to cut a little slack for our elected tribunes. It is about the future, yes, but viewed through the prism of the present. In the context of reform, there was much talk this week about reviving thoughts advanced by the commission on public services, ably chaired by the late and decidedly great Campbell Christie. I recall Campbell for his intellect, his humour, his baffling devotion to Falkirk FC, his fierce competitiveness at golf – and his determination to work with all and sundry to make Scotland a better place. In 2011, his commission urged Scotland to embrace 'empowerment, integration, efficiency and prevention' in transforming the public sector. This week, Ivan McKee, Scotland's Public Finance Minister, set out a programme of reforms and savings – with an explicit nod to those earlier endeavours by the Christie team. Mr McKee is a key figure in the Scottish Government, returning to office alongside his close ally, Kate Forbes. Both advocate a focus upon efficiency – and, perhaps above all, economic growth. In doing so, they are most certainly aligned with the instincts and aims of the First Minister. Now John Swinney displayed another intuitive tendency in his forward-looking remarks this week. His solution to the entrenched problems confronting Scotland? It lay, you will be astonished to learn, with independence. So shifting attention back to independence, rather than the day-to-day concerns of the voters? Was this a U-turn? Not really, no. Indeed, I suspect too much can be made of this apparent change. Firstly, Mr Swinney is a believer, a fervent Nationalist. He yearns for independence. Secondly, he leads a party which contains many whose fervour is undimmed by minor matters such as convincing others. Thirdly, there is an SNP National Council this weekend. Enough, Brian. Away with cynicism. I believe John Swinney is simply sustaining his dual strategy. He feels a little more liberated to advance the option of independence – while simultaneously concentrating for the most part on the anxieties of the people, such as the cost of living and the health service. John Swinney (Image: PA) In short, his attention is drawn by the here and now, even as he offers a potential vision of the future. His opponents are similarly grounded. Labour's Anas Sarwar, for example, glanced forward and concluded that the SNP were only offering 'managed decline.' Still, futurology can be a source of innocent merriment. What might we favour? Ivan McKee is surely right to suggest public services which prioritise customers rather than producers, which share information and thus resources. But how about the health service? The current system is simply unsustainable, unaffordable. Do you see that nurse gesturing to you? That health worker is not waving but drowning. We have to cut waste – but also overall demand. Perhaps, as the Health Secretary Neil Gray suggested, that can be done in part by an emphasis on prevention. However, that will undoubtedly take time – which ministers facing elections do not have. Politically, Mr Swinney's focus will be upon ensuring that the stats are going in the right direction. Education? Our economy, our society, both need the acquisition of useful skills. I recall my school textbook entitled 'Physics is Fun!' This proved to be a brazen lie. However, physics is vital, along with tricky stuff like maths, literature and French irregular verbs. Our universities are struggling financially. But, as they reform, they must maintain the objective of excellence. If they are truly to be world-class, as Scotland advertises, then they must aspire to the very highest standards. And the economy itself? We need growth and prosperity. We need an environmental drive, including renewables, which does not shut down our industry and agriculture. The future? Simple really. Brian Taylor is a former political editor for BBC Scotland and a columnist for The Herald. He cherishes his family, the theatre – and Dundee United FC

Scotsman

24 minutes ago

• Scotsman

Regime change in Iran? Be careful what you wish for

Getty Images History tells us that we will all pay the price for a rush to war, especially Iranian civilians Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... Ten years ago, in a very different world, the SNP was adapting to life as Westminster's third party and the resulting new responsibilities. The EU Referendum Bill was still rattling its way through Parliament, with the mayhem it unleashed yet to come. As the SNP's first member of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, I was working with colleagues as then Prime Minister David Cameron mulled the expansion of air strikes against Daesh. The so-called Islamic State had unleashed a wave of horrifying violence across the region that they were publicising through social media channels. The Committee had investigated the implications of any such military action taking evidence from a range of actors and experts in the UK and region. The proposed action was one of extending UK airstrikes from Iraq, where the RAF was already in action against Daesh, across the border into Syria. That would have meant the UK joining other states, as well as countless armed groups, in becoming a participant, however limited, in the ongoing conflicts across Syria. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Comparatively this was a modest proposal. Daesh was not a state actor, the UK was already involved in military action against them and there was unanimity around wanting to see an end to Daesh's murderous reign. However, there was reluctance across Parliament to sanction intervention. Even in 2015, the implications of the toppling of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, hung heavy over MPs, mindful of the consequences of the Iraq war, pursued by a Labour Prime Minister, that had led to regional destabilisation, an undermining of the international rules-based system and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis in the subsequent civil war. There were also the more recent consequences of 'regime change' in Libya where a Conservative Prime Minister had sanctioned action that led to the fall of Colonel Qaddafi's administration. Many of the mistakes that had been made on the run up to Iraq were repeated in the Franco-British led actions in Libya. The consequences of those mistakes were again felt most keenly by the innocent civilians. Given that recent history our Committee was asked to come up with a set of criteria for the House to consider ahead of the vote. Our report, written by the very talented team of clerks who assisted us, was published in November 2015. It bears re- reading today especially the short, one page section 'Enabling the House to reach a decision' that effectively provides a 'check list' for war. When teaching first years at the University of St Andrews I used to ask them to read the report, and if not the whole thing, then that one-page provided a good cheat sheet of what policy makers should look for when considering whether to sanction military intervention. It is as useful a read today as it was then. Some of the questions around international law, the role of ground troops, agreement of regional actors and the overall strategic goals meant that the Committee could not, initially, agree military action. Today as Trump considers action, and the UK is coming under pressure, I feel that the questions we posed then are relevant today and again have not been answered. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Don't get me wrong, the Iranian regime is deeply unpleasant, threatening its neighbours, murdering opponents and oppressing its citizens. The same was true for the regimes in Tripoli and Baghdad. Furthermore a nuclear armed Iran would be dangerous for the region and the rest of the world. Iran has absolutely no problem in visiting death and destruction on its citizens and neighbours including providing an arsenal for Russia and the drones that target families in their homes in Ukraine. An Iran that respects international law has huge potential as I saw for myself in 2015 when the Committee visited. Sitting around the table in the British Embassy where Churchill had celebrated his 65 th birthday with Stalin and Roosevelt during the Tehran Conference in 1943, the British chargé d'affairs and other senior diplomats updated us on the progress with the JCPOA diplomatic negotiations to limit Iran's nuclear capabilities. They were clearly making some progress until Trump brought them to an end. We were also briefed, and could see for ourselves, the economic potential of the country where ordinary Iranians were keen to rejoin the international mainstream. Iran is a complex and deeply diverse country of well over 90 million a critical part of the world. Any war and upheaval in the country would have massive implications for us all. It could also further destabilise the Middle East convulsed by the humanitarian catastrophe caused by Israeli actions in Gaza and the years of war in Syria. Over the next few days Donald Trump is considering joining Israel's military action against Iran. For now, Keir Starmer is calling for a diplomatic solution, joining President Macron, who mindful of past failures such as in Libya, warned 'the biggest mistake today would be to try to do a regime change in Iran through military means because that would lead to chaos'. The High Representative for Foreign Affairs, and no friend of Iran, Kaja Kallas also remarked that Iran must not be allowed nuclear weapons but that 'lasting security is built through diplomacy, not military action'. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad However, pressure could well be brought to bear on the British by the White House. The lessons of Iraq and Libya hung heavy over MPs ten years ago. As the situation in the Middle East evolves rapidly, those lessons seem as pertinent today as they did then. Like then, we shouldn't recommend war and regime change without answering the questions we posed a decade ago. History tells us that we will all pay the price for a rush to war, especially Iranian civilians.

BBC News

36 minutes ago

• BBC News

NHS plans to DNA test all babies in England to assess disease risk

Every newborn baby in England will have their DNA mapped to assess their risk of hundreds of diseases, under NHS plans for the next 10 scheme, first reported by the Daily Telegraph, is part of a government drive towards predicting and preventing illness, which will also see £650m invested in DNA research for all patients by Secretary Wes Streeting said gene technology would enable the health service to "leapfrog disease, so we're in front of it rather than reacting to it".It comes after a study analysing the genetic code of up to 100,000 babies was announced in October. The government's 10-year plan for the NHS, which is set to be revealed over the next few weeks is aimed at easing pressure on Department for Health and Social Care said that genomics - the study of genes - and AI would be used to "revolutionise prevention" and provide faster diagnoses and an "early warning signal for disease".Screening newborn babies for rare diseases will involve sequencing their complete DNA using blood samples from their umbilical are approximately 7,000 single gene disorders. The NHS study which began in October only looked for gene disorders that develop in early childhood and for which there are effective newborn babies are only given a heelprick blood test that checks for nine serious conditions, including cystic health secretary said in a statement: "With the power of this new technology, patients will be able to receive personalised healthcare to prevent ill-health before symptoms begin, reducing the pressure on NHS services and helping people live longer, healthier lives."