I don’t know where I stand on the Lucy Letby case.
For good reason, so much has been written and said since the neonatal nurse’s 2023 convictions for murdering seven infants and attempting to murder seven others. In contrast to the UK’s perfectly justified image of NHS workers, particularly nurses, being angels who put others before self during their every waking hour, this horrific case shocked not only the country but the world.
The investigation took some six years from inception to conviction and was led by the relatively small force of Cheshire Constabulary. Its scale would have tested any police force, including the larger ones, so the impact on the Cheshire detectives must have been unimaginable, as would the scrutiny.
A conviction I can’t quite get comfortable with
As someone whose starting point is one of high confidence in the criminal justice system, my initial reaction to the convictions was that it was a job well done and the families whose devastation must be inconceivable have finally seen some sense of justice. However, having read and watched much about the case since, like so many, my doubts in the safety of those convictions have started to sprout. I’ve not got space here to go through all the details but it’s safe to say that eminent clinicians, statisticians and other experts have called into question the evidence presented to convict Letby or at least the weight afforded to it.
Two men, one case, and a very public disagreement
One of the most vocal critics of the convictions is backbench Conservative MP David Davis. Just before Easter, he said in a parliamentary debate that Cheshire Constabulary made “egregious” failures and did not follow official guidance or best professional practice in investigating Letby. He said the police failed to appoint appropriate medical and statistics experts nor pursue all possible lines of inquiry into why babies died and collapsed on the “failing” neonatal unit. He cites two former senior and experienced police detectives who have reviewed the evidence, saying that “Both policemen believed that Letby was guilty. That is, until they examined the hard facts. Both now agree. They both believe that the Letby case is a serious miscarriage of justice.”
Unsurprisingly, Cheshire Constabulary hit back, notably through their Chief Constable, Mark Roberts who wrote to Mr Davis, The Speaker of the House of Commons, the Police and Crime Commissioner and his local MPs. The letter, made public, pulls no punches and is as robust in defending the Constabulary’s position as Mr Davis was in criticising it.
I have no problem with either men, openly and passionately debating a matter of immense national importance over which they could not be more opposed. The case is not live in the criminal courts (although the Criminal Cases Review Commission is looking at it) so what’s the harm?
My issue is with legal commentator Joshua Rozenberg questioning Mr Roberts’ right to reply. Coming from a journalist, I find this attempt to fetter free speech staggering. Describing the Chief Constable’s letter as “unseemly” he dug in deeper during a podcast saying that the letter demonstrates “… that the Chief Constable is pretty cross at what he’s heard in this debate. Fed up with the criticism of his force.” He goes on to say, “It’s not Roberts’ job to be cross though, it’s not his job to be offended. It’s not his job to be annoyed by public criticism. His job is to investigate crimes, to present evidence and ultimately, to allow the courts to decide where truth lies and justice rests.” He says that a factual public rebuttal would have been more dignified and appropriate. Isn’t that what Roberts provided? I’ve read the letter and find no anger or offence in his words, just a stating of a position.
Free speech has to work both ways
I am not saying that Letby is guilty as the jury found her or that she is not but I am saying that if Mr Davis is able to use the public nature of parliamentary process to vehemently assert that the investigation was flawed then surely on behalf of the victims’ families, the officers involved, the experts being criticised and most of all in the interests of balance, the head of the organisation under fire has an equal right to counter.
Isn’t that the heart of the free speech we cherish, Mr Rozenberg?
I originally wrote this for my weekly column in The Argus, published on Monday, 27 April 2026.
