Gransnet forums

News & politics

Lucy Letby trial- Should the jury have been told? Should there be a re trial?

(22 Posts)
LemonJam Tue 03-Mar-26 13:13:56

A doctor who gave crucial expert evidence about insulin poisoning for the prosecution of the nurse Lucy Letby was under investigation by the GMC- medical regulator at the time due to serious concerns about his fitness to practise.

The General Medical Council (GMC) opened an investigation into concerns about Prof Peter Hindmarsh, including that he had harmed patients, on the first day he gave evidence at Letby’s trial in late 2022. The GMC investigation was still continuing when Hindmarsh gave evidence for a second time at the Letby trial three months later. Great Ormond Street hospital reported Hindmarsh to the GMC after a formal investigation led by his main employer, University College London hospitals trust (UCLH).

The jury in the trial of the nurse, who was convicted of murdering babies in the Countess of Chester hospital’s neonatal unit, was never informed about any investigation into Hindmarsh, one of the prosecution’s key witnesses.
While the GMC conducted its investigation, and during some of the period when Hindmarsh gave evidence, a medical tribunal ordered severe restrictions on his work, saying that he “may pose a real risk” to members of the public. The tribunal also considered the allegations about Hindmarsh “may have the potential to impact on his ability to act as an expert witness”.

The Crown Prosecution Service told the defence it would oppose any attempt to inform the jury of the GMC investigation, on the basis that the allegations had not reached a final adjudication. Ultimately the GMC investigation was never concluded, because Hindmarsh removed himself from the GMC register, a process known as “voluntary erasure”. That effectively ended the investigation, and there was no regulatory finding against him.

Letby was convicted of murdering seven babies and attempting to murder seven others, over two trials in 2023 and 2024. She was sentenced to 15 whole-life terms in prison. Court of appeal judges turned down her applications to appeal. She has always maintained she is innocent, and many of her supporters believe she was scapegoated for medical failings on the unit.
Since the convictions, dozens of leading UK and international medical and scientific experts have argued that the prosecution’s medical case, including Hindmarsh’s evidence, was wrong. Dr Shoo Lee, a renowned Canadian neonatologist who argues that the prosecution misrepresented his own research, last year delivered findings of a 14-member expert panel. They found unanimously that the babies died or collapsed due to natural causes and poor care on the unit, that there had been no evidence of murders, nor insulin poisoning or any other deliberate harm.

Hindmarsh appeared twice as a key witness for the prosecution during Letby’s first trial, which took place between October 2022 and August 2023. He was an expert witness for the prosecution’s case that Letby attempted to murder two babies, referred to as F and L. Hindmarsh’s evidence supported the case that both babies had been poisoned with insulin injected into their fluid feed bags. But the jury was never told that in the months leading up to the trial, Hindmarsh had been facing allegations at the two hospitals that threatened to tarnish his reputation and undermine his credibility. He was, by then, still at UCLH, but no longer working at Great Ormond Street; his contract had been terminated four months earlier, in July 2022.

When he was first introduced in court by the prosecution’s lead barrister, Nick Johnson KC, Hindmarsh confirmed he was a consultant at UCLH ( though failed to say his practise was currently subject to investigation as a result of major concerns and was subject to supervision and restrictions). Neither were the jury informed of the allegations of professional misconduct against him. In the months before he gave evidence, UCLH had been leading a formal investigation into Hindmarsh.
Then, on 15 November 2022, Great Ormond Street, which had been feeding into the UCLH-led investigation, referred “multiple and wide-ranging concerns about Prof Hindmarsh’s practice” to the GMC.

Leaked documents detail allegations raised about Hindmarsh include “identified cases where harm to patients has been alleged”, and concerns including his “diagnosis and treatment of patients”, “use of treatments in unusual age groups, without adequate monitoring”, “inappropriate investigations” and inadequate documentation. The GMC tribunal stated: “In all the circumstances the tribunal considers that there is information to suggest that Prof Hindmarsh may pose a real risk to members of the public, if he were permitted to return to unrestricted clinical practice, given the number and nature of the concerns, involving paediatric [child] patients....The tribunal is mindful that the concerns raised about Prof Hindmarsh’s practice include his documentation, his diagnosis and management of patients. It considers that these areas of Prof Hindmarsh’s practice may have the potential to impact on his ability to act as an expert witness.”

Hindmarsh made his second appearance at the Letby trial on 24 February 2023. The jury remained uninformed about the GMC investigation, the UCLH-led investigation, the restrictions on him practising, or any of the concerns at the two hospitals.

Hindmarsh’s evidence for the prosecution appears to have been pivotal in the trial. The prosecution said that the insulin cases were “incontrovertible” evidence that someone was deliberately endangering the babies and that this could inform the jury’s view about other babies’ deaths. In summing up, the judge also told the jury that if they were sure about deliberate harm in any one case, they were entitled to infer the same in other babies, even if the precise cause was not known. These insulin cases were the first on which the jury reached a guilty verdict, and were two of only three guilty verdicts that were unanimous. The insulin cases stood out for other reasons, too. Unlike other parts of the prosecution, which were based on circumstantial evidence, the case presented to the jury was that the allegations of insulin poisoning were based on scientific blood test results.

BlueBelle Tue 03-Mar-26 13:36:01

Strangely enough I ve just got round to watching a recent documentary and in fact finished watching about 15 minutes ago
I feel it is a very very unsafe conviction
I hope they will push for a retrial I don’t think she’s guilty going by everything I watched

Tuliptree Tue 03-Mar-26 15:12:43

I’m surprised that the prosecution thought he was an acceptable expert witness. It was bound to come out eventually and lead to calls for a mistrial. That doesn’t serve anyone - the parents, LL, justice in general and imo adds to the issues about the whole expert witness scenario. Meadows was mentioned on another thread. And he’s not the only one.

Oreo Tue 03-Mar-26 15:15:01

He wasn’t the only witness for the prosecution and there was ample evidence to convict her.

Tuliptree Tue 03-Mar-26 15:29:57

Oreo

He wasn’t the only witness for the prosecution and there was ample evidence to convict her.

Not all witnesses are equal

Oreo Tue 03-Mar-26 15:37:15

It wasn’t just about witnesses tho there were plenty.The evidence against her and her own diaries proved her guilt overwhelmingly.

Oreo Tue 03-Mar-26 15:38:02

It’s highly unlikely there will be any re-trials.

keepingquiet Tue 03-Mar-26 15:38:03

Oreo

He wasn’t the only witness for the prosecution and there was ample evidence to convict her.

This is how I feel. I listened to all the details of the trial on BBC podcast and feel the evidence against her was quite overwhelming.

LemonJam Tue 03-Mar-26 16:32:51

He wasn't the only witness for the prosecution but he was a key witness on issue to insulin injections. There were concerns about other protection expert witness testimony also. The key for me is to what extent the jury relied on his evidence in conjunction with the judge's direction specific direction. Plus juries convict on the basis they are sure beyond reasonable doubt- and now doubt about this expert witness has come to light.

If not a retrial at least an appeal should be allowed I feel because:

1) concerns about Hindmarsh's safe practice and expert witness status- a key expert witness for the prosecution in relation to insulin issues- casts some doubt on his evidence
2) jury unaware of these concerns and most probably deemed his witness evidence as sound and reliable
3) judge then directing the jury; that if they were sure about deliberate harm in any one case, they were entitled to infer the same in other babies, even if the precise cause was not known.
4) multiple other, world renown expert witnesses disagreed with prosecution expert witness evidence, they are not subject to professional concerns about their practice, have gone on record that a miscarriage of justice has occurred and call for retrial - even before concerns about Hindmarsh came to public light.
5) I think the CPS service made an error of judgement- either inform jury there were restrictions to H's practice etc or should not have used him as an expert witness
6) to show that justice needs to be seen to be done and address these concerns on appeal- whatever the outcome.

LemonJam Tue 03-Mar-26 16:33:26

protection = prosecution

BlueBelle Tue 03-Mar-26 16:46:27

What was brought up was that she was having therapy and was told to write every word and thought which came into her head, which could account for a lot of the words that appeared in those diaries and paper
I don’t feel at all sure she committed those killings certainly not sure enough

Tuliptree Tue 03-Mar-26 17:57:05

You don’t have to think LL is innocent to believe that keeping that information from the jury was wrong. We all benefit from properly conducted trials. When there have been miscarriages of justice, it can mean a guilty person has gone free and that must be awful for the family /friends left behind - as well as for the wrongly convicted. Nobody wins when justice isn’t served.

keepingquiet Tue 03-Mar-26 21:03:29

It is the parents of those poor dead babies I feel for- listen to what they had to say in court please.

25Avalon Tue 03-Mar-26 22:22:50

Justice not only has to be done but has to be seen to be done. There are enough queries imo for a retrial to be called. I originally thought she was guilty but now I’m not sure. As for the parents of those poor dear babies they deserve the truth.

eazybee Wed 04-Mar-26 09:27:16

Two concerns.
Who is funding all this?
If released, would she be allowed to work in health care again?

nanna8 Wed 04-Mar-26 09:37:09

Hate to say it but I think whilst there is a shadow of doubt there should be a re trial. I was convinced of her guilt but now not so sure.

LemonJam Wed 04-Mar-26 10:06:23

eazybee: "If released, would she be allowed to work in health care again?"

Two scenarios- work as a Registered Nurse again v work as a care assistant again:

Registered Nurse (RN) The Nursing and Midwifery Council -NMC- struck Letby off the Nursing Register- that is removed her licence, i.e. her legal right to call herself a Registered Nurse and to be employed as a RN.

IF Letby was found not innocent ( step 1) as a result of retrial/appeal- she would necessarily need to apply to the NMC to be restored to the Nursing Register. Five years must have elapsed since the strike off decision to make an application. The case would be put before an Independent Restoration Panel for a decision. Submissions would be made by Letby - its her restoration application- stating her reasons why she should be restored to the NMC Register plus any evidence, statements, references to support her case that she would not be a risk to patient safety if restored and why the public interest would be served. Similarly an NMC Barrister puts the NMC case to the Restoration Panel in support/or objecting to restoration, submitting NMC reasons why there would/would not be a risk to patient safety and/or the public interest if Letby was restored to NMC Register.

The Restoration Panel (three independent members- Chair, Lay member and RN member) weighs up all the submissions and evidence provided then makes decision to restore or not. Thus a steep hill for Letby to climb.

The Panel and restoration decision no doubt will make the front pages of the newspapers the following morning. Letby, if restored would still need to find an employer to take her on. If she has been out of practice more than 3 years (a RN must revalidate their practice every 3 years) she may also be required to undertake some further training before the NMC allows her to practise.

Care Assistant: whether or not restored on Nursing Register Letby is legally able to apply for care assistant roles, as are all members of the public- subject to an employer willing to offer her a job.

LemonJam Wed 04-Mar-26 10:07:07

option 1- delete not, i.e. innocent

BlueBelle Wed 04-Mar-26 10:10:40

I m the same Nanna8 the more I see and read the more unsure I am
Definitely should be a retrial

Tuliptree Wed 04-Mar-26 10:21:49

eazybee

Two concerns.
Who is funding all this?
If released, would she be allowed to work in health care again?

What’s the funding got to do with it?

LemonJam Wed 04-Mar-26 10:34:33

Tuliptree- absolutely agree. I am sure every single Gransnet poster- if accused of a crime, any crime, and it went to court/trial would expect and hope for a fair trial as funded by the government, in the interests of justice.

If of any interest the 2026/7 courts and tribunal budget apparently is £2.785 billion, a comparatively small sum in annual government public spending pie.

LemonJam Wed 04-Mar-26 10:37:09

Another spin- all Gransnet posters are beneficiaries of court decisions and convictions made in the public interest and safety that result in a custodial sentence. Without courts and tribunals such offenders would still be posing a risk in the community.