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, 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.'
Flagging up the article, Sir Jeremy wrote on his X social media account: 'Took a lot of soul searching for me to get to this point.'
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

South Wales Guardian

28 minutes ago

• South Wales Guardian

Assisted dying law closer but MPs' support narrows in historic vote

Kim Leadbeater described backing for her Bill in the Commons as 'a convincing majority', after the number was slashed from 55 in November to 23 on Friday. The Labour MP declared 'thank goodness' after the result, but hospices are among those warning of the 'seismic change' for end-of-life care. Staunch supporter Dame Esther Rantzen, who is terminally ill but has said a new law is unlikely to come in time for her, thanked MPs for doing their bit to protect terminally ill people from a 'bad death'. She told the PA news agency: 'This will make a huge positive difference, protecting millions of terminally ill patients and their families from the agony and loss of dignity created by a bad death. 'Thank you, Parliament.' While 314 MPs voted for the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill at third reading, 291 voted against. Some 14 MPs switched from voting in favour to against, while only one MP – Labour's Jack Abbott – switched from voting no to voting yes. The proposed legislation will now move to the House of Lords for further debate and votes, although one peer has already urged her colleagues they 'must oppose a law that puts the vulnerable at risk'. Bishop of London Dame Sarah Mullally, a former chief nursing officer for England, said instead work is needed to better fund access to 'desperately needed palliative care services'. Her sentiment was echoed by a range of end-of-life care organisations including Marie Curie, which said legalising assisted dying will make it 'more crucial than ever' for governments across the UK 'ensure that there is palliative care available for anyone who needs it'. Ahead of the vote, MPs approved a change to the Bill, which will require ministers to assess within a year of any new law coming into effect the quality and distribution of palliative care services currently available and the impact of an assisted dying service on them. The charity said while it welcomed the change, 'this will not on its own make the improvements needed to guarantee everyone is able to access the palliative care they need'. Ms Leadbeater said the vote result was one that 'so many people need', insisting her Bill has enough safeguards and will 'give dying people choice'. Asked about the narrower gap between supporters and opponents, Ms Leadbeater said she knew there would be 'some movement both ways' but insisted the vote showed a 'convincing majority'. She told reporters: 'The will of the House (of Commons) will now be respected by the Lords, and the Bill will go through to its next stage.' Acknowledging those who remain opposed to the Bill, she said she is 'happy to work with them to provide any reassurance or if they've got any questions about the Bill that they want to talk through with me, my door has always been open and remains open'. Conservative MP Danny Kruger, who opposes the Bill, said support 'is ebbing away very fast', telling of his disappointment the Bill passed but adding: 'The fact is, their majority's been cut in half.' Campaigners wept, jumped and hugged each other outside Parliament as the vote result was announced, while some MPs appeared visibly emotional as they left the chamber. Others lined up to shake hands with Ms Leadbeater, the Bill's sponsor through the Commons, with some, including Home Office minister Jess Phillips, stopping to hug the Spen Valley MP. Before a Bill can be signed into law, both the Lords and the Commons must agree the final text. Thanks to the four-year implementation period, it could be 2029 – potentially coinciding with the end of this Government's parliament – before assisted dying is offered. Encouraging or assisting suicide is currently against the law in England and Wales, with a maximum jail sentence of 14 years. Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer remained supportive of the Bill, voting yes on Friday as he had done last year. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch, who had urged MPs to vote against the legislation, describing it as 'a bad Bill' despite being 'previously supportive of assisted suicide', voted no. During an hours-long date on Friday, MPs on both sides of the issue recalled personal stories of loved ones who had died. Conservative former minister Sir James Cleverly, who led the opposition to the Bill in the Commons, spoke of a close friend who died 'painfully' from cancer. He said he comes at the divisive issue 'not from a position of faith nor from a position of ignorance', and was driven in his opposition by 'concerns about the practicalities' of the Bill. MPs had a free vote on the Bill, meaning they decided according to their conscience rather than along party lines. The proposed legislation would allow terminally ill adults in England and Wales, with fewer than six months to live, to apply for an assisted death, subject to approval by two doctors and a panel featuring a social worker, senior legal figure and psychiatrist.

Leader Live

33 minutes ago

• Leader Live

Assisted dying law closer but MPs' support narrows in historic vote

Kim Leadbeater described backing for her Bill in the Commons as 'a convincing majority', after the number was slashed from 55 in November to 23 on Friday. The Labour MP declared 'thank goodness' after the result, but hospices are among those warning of the 'seismic change' for end-of-life care. Staunch supporter Dame Esther Rantzen, who is terminally ill but has said a new law is unlikely to come in time for her, thanked MPs for doing their bit to protect terminally ill people from a 'bad death'. She told the PA news agency: 'This will make a huge positive difference, protecting millions of terminally ill patients and their families from the agony and loss of dignity created by a bad death. 'Thank you, Parliament.' While 314 MPs voted for the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill at third reading, 291 voted against. Some 14 MPs switched from voting in favour to against, while only one MP – Labour's Jack Abbott – switched from voting no to voting yes. The proposed legislation will now move to the House of Lords for further debate and votes, although one peer has already urged her colleagues they 'must oppose a law that puts the vulnerable at risk'. Bishop of London Dame Sarah Mullally, a former chief nursing officer for England, said instead work is needed to better fund access to 'desperately needed palliative care services'. Her sentiment was echoed by a range of end-of-life care organisations including Marie Curie, which said legalising assisted dying will make it 'more crucial than ever' for governments across the UK 'ensure that there is palliative care available for anyone who needs it'. Ahead of the vote, MPs approved a change to the Bill, which will require ministers to assess within a year of any new law coming into effect the quality and distribution of palliative care services currently available and the impact of an assisted dying service on them. The charity said while it welcomed the change, 'this will not on its own make the improvements needed to guarantee everyone is able to access the palliative care they need'. Ms Leadbeater said the vote result was one that 'so many people need', insisting her Bill has enough safeguards and will 'give dying people choice'. Asked about the narrower gap between supporters and opponents, Ms Leadbeater said she knew there would be 'some movement both ways' but insisted the vote showed a 'convincing majority'. She told reporters: 'The will of the House (of Commons) will now be respected by the Lords, and the Bill will go through to its next stage.' Acknowledging those who remain opposed to the Bill, she said she is 'happy to work with them to provide any reassurance or if they've got any questions about the Bill that they want to talk through with me, my door has always been open and remains open'. Conservative MP Danny Kruger, who opposes the Bill, said support 'is ebbing away very fast', telling of his disappointment the Bill passed but adding: 'The fact is, their majority's been cut in half.' Campaigners wept, jumped and hugged each other outside Parliament as the vote result was announced, while some MPs appeared visibly emotional as they left the chamber. Others lined up to shake hands with Ms Leadbeater, the Bill's sponsor through the Commons, with some, including Home Office minister Jess Phillips, stopping to hug the Spen Valley MP. Before a Bill can be signed into law, both the Lords and the Commons must agree the final text. Thanks to the four-year implementation period, it could be 2029 – potentially coinciding with the end of this Government's parliament – before assisted dying is offered. Encouraging or assisting suicide is currently against the law in England and Wales, with a maximum jail sentence of 14 years. Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer remained supportive of the Bill, voting yes on Friday as he had done last year. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch, who had urged MPs to vote against the legislation, describing it as 'a bad Bill' despite being 'previously supportive of assisted suicide', voted no. During an hours-long date on Friday, MPs on both sides of the issue recalled personal stories of loved ones who had died. Conservative former minister Sir James Cleverly, who led the opposition to the Bill in the Commons, spoke of a close friend who died 'painfully' from cancer. He said he comes at the divisive issue 'not from a position of faith nor from a position of ignorance', and was driven in his opposition by 'concerns about the practicalities' of the Bill. MPs had a free vote on the Bill, meaning they decided according to their conscience rather than along party lines. The proposed legislation would allow terminally ill adults in England and Wales, with fewer than six months to live, to apply for an assisted death, subject to approval by two doctors and a panel featuring a social worker, senior legal figure and psychiatrist.

Powys County Times

2 hours ago

• Powys County Times

Chris Hoy calls for systemic change in testing for prostate cancer

Six-time Olympic champion Sir Chris Hoy has called for systemic change in the ways men get tested for prostate cancer. The 49-year old cyclist was diagnosed with stage four prostate cancer in 2023 and was told last year that it has spread to his bones and is terminal. NHS guidance says men over the age of 50 are at highest risk of developing prostate cancer, but Sir Chris wants to help men get screened earlier. He said: 'I was diagnosed with stage four prostate cancer at 47. By this age, my prostate cancer was advanced and could have been progressing from when I was 45 or even younger. 'With prostate cancer, the earlier you find it, the easier it is to treat. We need the system to change to enable more men to get diagnosed earlier, and stop them getting the news I got.' One option is a PSA blood test which checks the level of prostate-specific antigens in the blood, A high reading may be a sign of a prostate condition. NHS guidance says these tests are not routinely used as they are not reliable, but men over 50 can ask GPs for one. Sir Chris's comments came after Prostate Cancer UK urged the UK Government for an overhaul of NHS guidelines to encourage GPs to proactively speak to men at high risk from 45 years old. #ProstateCancer has become the most common cancer in England. However, for a disease that affects 1 in 8 men, there's still no screening programme and outdated NHS guidelines prevent lifesaving conversations with men at highest risk. ➡️ Read more: — Prostate Cancer UK (@ProstateUK) January 28, 2025 According to the charity, around one in eight men in the UK will get prostate cancer, which occurs when cells in the prostate start to grow in an uncontrolled way and, if not detected early, risks spreading. Sir Chris added: 'I believe men at highest risk, for example men with a family history like me or black men, should be contacted by their GP earlier on to discuss a simple PSA blood test that can check for signs of prostate cancer. Then if there are any issues, they can get it treated it at an earlier stage. 'I've told my story to help raise awareness about the most common cancer in men and get more thinking about their risk and what they can do, but it shouldn't all be men's responsibility. 'I've faced many challenges in my life, and going public with my prostate cancer diagnosis was certainly one of them. 'I've been incredibly lucky to have so much support from my family, friends and the general public. The kindness has lifted me up and given me a sense of purpose, and I'm committed to taking that forward and using my platform to raise awareness of the most common cancer in men and help more men at risk to come forward and get tested.' The Scottish cyclist has launched his own charity cycling challenge, Tour de 4, with the aim of changing perceptions around stage four cancer. The challenge will take place on September 7 in Glasgow with a final registration phase open for riders to sign up. Speaking about Sir Chris, Laura Kerby, chief executive at Prostate Cancer UK, said: 'His bravery and tireless work to raise awareness has already made a huge impact. 'In just a few months after Sir Chris went public with his diagnosis last year, over 286,000 people used our online risk checker to learn more about the disease, find out their own risk and learn what they can choose to do about it. 'His bravery has inspired so many men to take action, and he has undoubtedly saved lives. 'One in eight men will get prostate cancer. The earlier it's found, the easier it is to treat — but there's currently no screening programme in the UK. So if, like Sir Chris, you have a family history of the disease, or if you're black, we strongly encourage you to speak to your GP about testing from the age of 45. 'We don't think it's right that the responsibility is all on men's shoulders, so we're calling on the Health Secretary to overhaul outdated NHS guidelines so that GPs are empowered to actually start conversations with these men at highest risk.' A Government spokesperson said: 'This Government has been clear we would like to see screening in place but the decision must be evidence-led, which is why the UK National Screening Committee is looking at this as a priority – including reviewing the evidence for screening men with a family history of prostate cancer. 'While the review is taking place we are getting on with improving cancer treatment and prevention, as well as funding tens of millions of pounds of research.'