Child killer Lucy Letby’s case could be the “biggest miscarriage of justice in the history of the United Kingdom”, the lawyer behind a bid to overturn her convictions said.
Former nurse Letby is serving 15 whole-life orders after being found guilty of murdering seven babies and attempting to end the lives of seven more between 2015 and 2016. Her attacks on babies at Countess of Chester Hospital’s neonatal unit made her one of the country’s deadliest child serial killers.
On Tuesday, a public inquiry began into how the former nurse was able to carry out her crimes, the conduct of staff at the hospital during 2015-16, and whether suspicions about Letby’s behaviour should have been raised earlier.
To follow today’s public inquiry, see our live blog by clicking here
Separately Letby has appointed a new barrister, Mark McDonald, who has told The Independent he was working unpaid, night and day, to compile fresh medical evidence to secure an appeal hearing.
Last week he pulled together a team of 22 experts – including statisticians, forensic pathologists and anaesthetists – to review the evidence put before the jury at Letby’s trial.
“[They told me] that the science, the medical evidence that was presented to the jury by the prosecution was unreliable,” he told The Independent.
He claimed to have the evidence of experts and whistleblowers to challenge Letby’s guilty verdict.
He said it would be for the benefit of the families of the babies, and not just Letby, if the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) deals with his upcoming request for an appeal efficiently and refer it to the Court of Appeal.
“It is not just right for Lucy Letby that they look at this as a matter of priority, but it is right for the families of those poor children that have died that they get a resolution, a final resolution to this,” he said.
A solicitor representing the families of six victims said news of a fresh appeal has caused upset among his clients as they turn their focus toward the inquiry.
But Mr McDonald said: “[They are] right to be angry. I understand that. I have got evidence. I have clinicians that have come forward, senior clinicians that are questioning evidence that has come before the jury.
“It would be remiss of me, it would be wrong of me, not to do something with it.”
Mr McDonald has experience working on high-profile appeals. He still represents Michael Stone, who was convicted for a second time following the murders of Lin Russell and her daughter Megan in 1996.
He has also represented Benjamin Geen, a nurse who was jailed for life in 2006 for murdering two of his patients. Green has had one application denied by the Court of Appeal, and one by the CCRC.
Referring to Letby, he said: “If I am right, and the convictions are unsafe, then this would be the biggest miscarriage of justice in the history of the United Kingdom.
“Someone’s got to do it. I’m working pro bono, I’m not going to be paid a penny for this … I’m doing this because I think there’s an injustice here.”
Mr McDonald’s appointment follows two attempts by Letby to appeal against convictions from the first trial, the latest being thrown out by three judges in May this year. The Court of Appeal is still considering an appeal for the conviction of attempted murder at the retrial this year.
It follows a wave of questions about the evidence used to convict Letby, with a number of doctors, scientists and statisticians publicly challenging the evidence presented to jurors.
A letter signed by 24 doctors, nurses and scientists to the health secretary, Wes Streeting, warned that important lessons could be missed at the inquiry from a “failure in understanding and examining alternative, potentially complex causes for the deaths”.
Mr McDonald said he was now working through numerous court documents and boxes of evidence as part of his case to put to the CCRC – the only route now for Letby to appeal against her convictions.
He said statistical evidence was set to play a part in his argument.
For example, a staff rota presented to the jury showed Letby was present at the 25 deaths or collapses for which she was charged, while other nurses were only present at a few of the incidents. However, jurors were not told about six more deaths and numerous other collapses at the unit during the 2015-16 period.
He also claimed to have received evidence of the neonatal unit being understaffed and short on intensive unit beds.
He said: “There was a narrative of this trial, we know what that narrative was. It was very one-sided, and it was that she was guilty. I think that narrative now is changing and there are people that have come forward questioning whether or not this is a safe conviction.”