GEOFFREY ROBERTSON KC CRITICISES ANONYMITY FOR WITNESSES IN LUCY LETBY TRIAL

The prominent human rights barrister has renewed debate over open justice after nine medical professionals who testified in the case were granted anonymity, raising questions about transparency, accountability and witness protection.

A fresh debate over transparency in the Lucy Letby case has emerged after leading barrister Geoffrey Robertson KC criticised court decisions allowing medical professionals who testified during the trial to remain anonymous.

Robertson argued that professional witnesses in major criminal proceedings should generally be publicly accountable for the evidence they provide. His comments have reignited wider questions about how courts should balance the principle of open justice against concerns about witness safety and the risk of harassment.

The controversy follows reporting that nine doctors and nurses involved in Letby’s trial were granted lifelong anonymity, with concerns reportedly raised about the potential impact of public identification on their mental health and working lives.

WHY WERE MEDICAL WITNESSES GRANTED ANONYMITY?

According to reporting by The Sun, the anonymity orders were granted amid concerns that identifying the medical professionals could expose them to intense public scrutiny and cause significant distress.

Robertson strongly criticised the decision, arguing that open justice is a fundamental principle and that professional witnesses should ordinarily be prepared to explain their evidence publicly.

Other commentators have also warned that concealing the identities of key witnesses can make it harder for the public to understand the people whose testimony helped shape a high-profile criminal case.

However, anonymity orders are legal protections—not evidence in themselves of misconduct or wrongdoing. Courts must consider the circumstances of each application, including the potential risks to witnesses and the importance of maintaining public confidence in judicial proceedings.

THE DEBATE OVER OPEN JUSTICE

The principle of open justice allows the public and the media to scrutinise court proceedings and understand how decisions are reached.

Supporters of greater transparency argue that identifying professional witnesses can help the public assess their qualifications, experience and potential conflicts of interest. They say accountability is particularly important when expert evidence plays a significant role in a criminal prosecution.

Others caution that witnesses can face threats, online abuse and persistent harassment in cases that attract intense public attention. They argue that protective measures may sometimes be necessary to ensure people can give evidence without unreasonable fear or pressure.

The central question is how courts can protect witnesses where necessary without placing unnecessary restrictions on public scrutiny.

Importantly, an order protecting a witness’s identity does not automatically mean the evidence was heard in secret. The precise scope of a restriction depends on the terms of the court order.

WHY THE LUCY LETBY CASE CONTINUES TO ATTRACT ATTENTION

Letby, a former neonatal nurse at the Countess of Chester Hospital, was convicted of murdering seven babies and attempting to murder seven others. She is serving whole-life sentences.

The case has remained the subject of intense public discussion, particularly over the medical evidence presented during the trials and continuing questions raised by some experts about aspects of the prosecution’s interpretation of the evidence.

In September 2026, reporting also renewed attention on the use of anonymous witnesses and wider concerns about public confidence in the legal process.

But criticism of the anonymity orders should be distinguished from questions about the verdicts themselves. The fact that witnesses were granted anonymity does not establish that their evidence was false, that the trial was unfair or that the convictions were unsafe.

Those questions must be assessed through the relevant evidence and legal procedures.

A WIDER QUESTION FOR THE JUSTICE SYSTEM

The controversy extends beyond the Letby case. Courts regularly face difficult decisions about when a witness’s identity should be protected and when the public interest in transparency should take priority.

Some legal commentators argue that anonymity should remain exceptional, particularly for professionals giving evidence in serious criminal trials. Others say the possibility of harassment can be a genuine obstacle to witnesses participating freely.

The challenge is to strike a balance that protects legitimate safety and welfare concerns while preserving the public’s ability to scrutinise the justice system.

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?

The debate over witness anonymity does not, by itself, change Letby’s convictions. Any challenge to those convictions must proceed through the established legal process and be assessed on its merits.

The case continues to prompt difficult questions about expert evidence, institutional accountability and the role of transparency in maintaining public trust.

Robertson’s criticism has brought one of those questions back into focus: when professional witnesses help shape the outcome of a major criminal trial, how much protection should they receive—and how much of their role should remain open to public scrutiny?

For now, the issue remains a debate about the proper balance between open justice and witness protection, rather than proof of a cover-up or wrongdoing by any individual witness.