LUCY LETBY CASE BACK IN THE SPOTLIGHT: UNDISCLOSED MATERNITY RECORDS AND NEW EXPERT QUESTIONS FUEL LEGAL REVIEW

Fresh scrutiny is being directed at the evidence used to convict former neonatal nurse Lucy Letby. But as the Criminal Cases Review Commission examines new material, her convictions remain in force—and disagreements within her own expert team have added another layer of complexity.

The case of Lucy Letby, the former nurse convicted of murdering seven babies and attempting to murder seven others, is facing renewed scrutiny following reports that maternity records seized during the police investigation were not disclosed to her defence before trial.

The BBC reported in July 2026 that records containing details of the mothers’ pregnancies, labour and births had been seized by Cheshire Police but were not reviewed by the prosecution’s chief medical expert or disclosed to Letby’s defence. The discovery has intensified questions about whether all potentially relevant medical information was available during the proceedings.

However, the significance of those records—and whether they could affect the convictions—has yet to be determined through the legal review process.

NEW QUESTIONS OVER THE MEDICAL EVIDENCE

Letby is serving 15 whole-life prison terms following her convictions for the deaths of seven infants and attempted murders involving seven others at the Countess of Chester Hospital in 2015 and 2016.

She has consistently maintained her innocence. Her legal team has submitted new material to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), the independent body responsible for investigating potential miscarriages of justice and referring cases to the appeal courts when the legal threshold is met.

In February 2025, an international group of medical specialists challenged the interpretation of evidence presented at trial. The experts argued that the babies’ collapses and deaths could be explained by natural causes or failures in medical care, rather than deliberate harm.

Those conclusions remain contested. The fact that experts have questioned the prosecution’s interpretation does not, by itself, establish that the convictions were unsafe.

THE CCRC REVIEW: WHAT IS KNOWN?

The CCRC confirmed in February 2026 that its review of Letby’s convictions was underway. Its published timeline showed that it had received expert reports, legal submissions and defence material over several stages, with further submissions arriving in January 2026.

The commission stressed that its role is not to decide whether Letby is innocent or guilty. Instead, it assesses whether new evidence or arguments create a real possibility that a conviction would not be upheld, or that a sentence should be reduced. <Cite refs={[“turn711873search0”]}/>

No decision to refer Letby’s convictions to the Court of Appeal had been announced in the information cited here. Her convictions therefore remain in force.

A COMPLICATION FOR THE DEFENCE TEAM

The renewed legal effort has also encountered disagreement among experts.

In September 2026, engineering expert Helen Shannon and bioengineering professor Geoff Chase withdrew from Letby’s defence team. They raised concerns about what they described as fundamental problems with some arguments being advanced, while continuing to stand by their own report challenging the insulin-poisoning evidence in two cases.

Letby’s barrister, Mark McDonald, disputed the suggestion that their withdrawal undermined the wider application, saying the experts did not know the full contents of the submissions sent to the CCRC.

The dispute highlights the complexity of the case: different experts may disagree over particular scientific claims, and those disagreements must be assessed on their evidence rather than treated as proof of either guilt or innocence.

WHAT ABOUT THE THIRLWALL INQUIRY?

A separate investigation, the Thirlwall Inquiry, examined how concerns about Letby were handled at the hospital and what lessons could be learned from the events.

Its report, published in September 2026, identified serious failings in the hospital’s response to concerns raised by doctors and made recommendations aimed at improving neonatal care and safeguarding. The inquiry was concerned with the institutional response and the circumstances surrounding the events; it was not an appeal court and did not overturn Letby’s criminal convictions. <Cite refs={[“turn711873search4″,”turn711873search21”]}/>

The inquiry’s findings and the CCRC’s review serve different purposes. One examines institutional actions and lessons for the health service, while the other considers whether the convictions meet the threshold for referral back to the courts.

WILL THE NEW MATERIAL CHANGE THE CASE?

The undisclosed maternity records and the challenges to the medical evidence have added important questions to an already complex case. But the answers depend on what the records contain, how relevant they are to the original trials, and whether the legal review finds grounds for an appeal.

For now, no reversal of Letby’s convictions has been confirmed. The CCRC has not declared her innocent, and the claims made by experts supporting her application should not be confused with a judicial finding.

The case continues to carry profound consequences for the families of the babies involved, as well as for public confidence in medical investigations and the criminal justice system.

The central question remains whether the new material provides a sufficient legal basis for the convictions to be reconsidered. Until the review reaches a decision and any subsequent court proceedings take place, the outcome remains unresolved.

Sources

• BBC News — Maternity notes seized but not given to Lucy Letby’s defence
• Criminal Cases Review Commission — Chair’s statement on Lucy Letby application review
• The Guardian — Experts challenge the evidence in Lucy Letby’s case
• ITV News — Experts withdraw from Lucy Letby’s defence team
• UK Government — Thirlwall Inquiry report