LUCY LETBY CASE FACES FRESH SCRUTINY AS NEW EVIDENCE RAISES QUESTIONS OVER MEDICAL EVIDENCE

The convictions of former neonatal nurse Lucy Letby are facing renewed scrutiny as new medical evidence and previously undisclosed maternity records become part of an ongoing review of her case.

Letby is currently serving 15 whole-life orders after being convicted of murdering seven babies and attempting to murder seven others at the Countess of Chester Hospital between 2015 and 2016.

She has denied the offences.

Her legal team is now seeking to persuade the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) that new evidence could justify sending her convictions back to the Court of Appeal.

NEW EXPERT EVIDENCE CHALLENGES PROSECUTION CASE

The latest challenge centres heavily on the medical evidence presented during Letby’s trials.

A panel of international medical experts has argued that there was no medical evidence supporting deliberate harm in the cases they reviewed.

Dr Shoo Lee, a Canadian neonatologist who convened the panel, has publicly questioned the prosecution’s explanations for some of the babies’ deaths and collapses.

The panel’s conclusions have been strongly disputed, however, and they do not overturn Letby’s convictions. The CCRC has stressed that determining guilt or innocence is ultimately a matter for the courts.

The issue has become particularly significant in relation to the two babies whom prosecutors alleged were poisoned with insulin.

Two experts who previously produced a report supporting Letby’s defence recently withdrew from her legal team after saying that some arguments now being advanced were not scientifically credible.

They nevertheless maintained their assessment that it was “very unlikely” that the two babies had been poisoned with insulin.

Letby’s barrister Mark McDonald has argued that other independent specialists have identified fundamental problems with the scientific evidence used at trial.

MATERNITY RECORDS WERE NOT GIVEN TO THE DEFENCE

A separate investigation by BBC File on 4 has raised another question about material available during the original proceedings.

According to the BBC, maternity notes relating to babies involved in the case had been seized by Cheshire Police.

The records contained information about the mothers’ pregnancies, labour and births.

However, the BBC reported that the documents were not reviewed by the prosecution’s chief medical expert and were not disclosed to Letby’s defence before trial.

The discovery has prompted further questions about whether potentially relevant medical information was fully considered during the prosecution and defence processes.

It is important to distinguish this from the claim that the records were deliberately concealed from the jury. The available reporting does not establish that such a deliberate decision was made.

THE CCRC IS STILL REVIEWING THE CASE

The Criminal Cases Review Commission has been examining Letby’s case since receiving an initial application in February 2025.

The commission said it had received further expert reports and submissions throughout 2025 and into January 2026.

It emphasized that its role is not to decide whether Letby is innocent or guilty. Instead, it must determine whether new evidence or arguments create a real possibility that the convictions would not be upheld, or that her sentence could be reduced.

There is currently no guarantee that the case will be referred back to the Court of Appeal.

Letby has already lost two previous attempts to challenge her convictions.

THE THIRLWALL INQUIRY DID NOT RE-TRY THE CONVICTIONS

The renewed debate comes after the publication of the final report of the Thirlwall Inquiry in September 2026.

The inquiry examined how the Countess of Chester Hospital responded to concerns about the deaths and collapses of babies, including failures in management, governance and safeguarding.

Lady Justice Kathryn Thirlwall said the inquiry found failures at multiple levels of the hospital and a failure to invoke safeguarding procedures when concerns arose about the possibility of deliberate harm.

The inquiry was not a criminal appeal and did not determine whether Letby’s convictions were correct.

That distinction has become important as the separate legal review continues.

For now, Letby’s convictions remain in force.

The CCRC is continuing to assess the new material, while questions over the medical evidence, the handling of records and the interpretation of events on the neonatal unit remain at the centre of an increasingly complex legal and scientific debate.