“TENDER-HEARTED JUDGES” — TOP BARRISTER GEOFFREY ROBERTSON KC SPARKS FRESH DEBATE OVER LUCY LETBY TRIAL SECRECY

The leading human rights barrister has criticised the decision to grant anonymity to medical professionals who testified in the case, reigniting questions about transparency, public accountability and confidence in the justice system.

A fresh debate has erupted over the trial of former neonatal nurse Lucy Letby after leading barrister Geoffrey Robertson KC criticised judges for allowing several medical professionals who testified against her to remain anonymous.

Robertson condemned what he described as “tender-hearted judges”, arguing that professional witnesses should generally be identified publicly unless there are compelling reasons to protect them.

His comments have renewed scrutiny of a controversial feature of Letby’s trial: the decision to grant lifelong anonymity to nine doctors and nurses who worked at the Countess of Chester Hospital.

The issue has become a focal point in a wider discussion about open justice, particularly when a criminal case attracts intense public attention and the evidence of professional witnesses plays a significant role.

WHY WERE NINE MEDICAL WITNESSES GRANTED ANONYMITY?

During Letby’s trial, nine medical professionals were granted protection from being publicly identified.

According to reporting by The Irish Sun, the witnesses argued that revealing their identities could cause significant distress and affect their ability to give evidence.

The court allowed the protections to remain in place after the trial and during the subsequent Thirlwall Inquiry, which examined the circumstances surrounding the events at the hospital.

Robertson argued that the decision was wrong, particularly in relation to professional witnesses who, in his view, have a responsibility to explain their evidence publicly.

He maintained that open justice is a fundamental principle of criminal proceedings and that anonymity should not be granted simply because witnesses fear negative attention from the media or the public.

Other legal and media commentators have raised similar concerns, warning that extensive secrecy can undermine public confidence in the justice system.

However, supporters of witness protection argue that anonymity can be necessary where there are genuine concerns about safety, harassment or a witness’s ability to participate effectively in proceedings.

THE DEBATE OVER OPEN JUSTICE

The controversy extends beyond the Letby case.

The principle of open justice is intended to allow the public and media to scrutinise court proceedings, understand the evidence presented and examine how judicial decisions are reached.

Robertson’s criticism centres on whether the balance between transparency and witness protection was struck correctly.

Media specialist Martin Soames has also warned that anonymity can create the impression that professionals are not being held accountable.

Meanwhile, media professor Tim Crook has argued that excessive secrecy risks undermining the credibility of criminal proceedings by limiting the information available to the public.

Others take a more cautious position, pointing out that witnesses may face threats, online harassment or serious personal consequences if their identities are disclosed.

The central question is not whether anonymity should always be granted or always rejected, but how courts should assess each request while preserving the public’s right to understand the justice process.

LUCY LETBY’S CONVICTIONS REMAIN UNDER REVIEW

Letby was convicted of murdering seven babies and attempting to murder seven others in connection with incidents at the Countess of Chester Hospital in 2015 and 2016. She is serving 15 whole-life sentences.

She has maintained her innocence, and her legal team has submitted an application to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), asking it to examine her convictions.

In a statement published on February 13, 2026, the CCRC confirmed that its review was underway and explained that additional material had been submitted by Letby’s representatives.

The commission stressed that its role is to investigate potential miscarriages of justice and, where appropriate, refer cases to the appeal courts. It does not itself determine guilt or innocence.

The existence of the review does not mean that Letby’s convictions have been overturned or that a retrial has been ordered.

SEPARATE QUESTIONS ABOUT EXPERT EVIDENCE

Debate over witness anonymity has also emerged alongside questions about the handling of expert evidence in the case.

In March 2026, The Guardian reported that Professor Peter Hindmarsh, a prosecution expert who gave evidence concerning the insulin allegations, had been subject to a hospital investigation into aspects of his medical work before testifying.

Cheshire Police and the Crown Prosecution Service told the newspaper they had not been informed of that investigation before he first gave evidence. Hindmarsh later disclosed that he was under investigation by the General Medical Council.

The allegations concerning his professional conduct were not finally adjudicated, and the report does not by itself establish that his evidence in Letby’s trial was incorrect.

Nevertheless, the issue has prompted further discussion about the disclosure obligations of expert witnesses and the information available to prosecutors and defence lawyers.

These questions are distinct from the anonymity orders, although both have contributed to public scrutiny of the proceedings.

A WIDER QUESTION ABOUT ACCOUNTABILITY

Robertson’s intervention has intensified an already sensitive debate about how courts should balance the need for transparency with the protection of witnesses.

For critics of the anonymity orders, identifying professional witnesses is an important part of ensuring that their evidence can be scrutinised and that the public can better understand the basis of a verdict.

For those who support protective measures, removing anonymity without carefully considering the risks could expose witnesses to harassment and discourage others from coming forward in future cases.

Neither position automatically resolves the legal questions surrounding Letby’s convictions.

The proper assessment of those convictions depends on the evidence, the applicable legal standards and the outcome of the established review and appeal processes.

As the CCRC continues its work, the controversy surrounding witness anonymity is likely to remain part of the broader conversation about public confidence in criminal justice.

The debate raises a fundamental question: how can the justice system protect witnesses while ensuring that the public can scrutinise the evidence and decisions on which verdicts depend?

👇 READ THE FULL STORY IN THE COMMENTS.