The Guardian view on the Letby case: justice cannot be immune from scrutiny or doubt | Editorial

Even in the most harrowing cases, a fair society must allow for review, and the possibility of judicial error

When Lucy Letby was found guilty of murdering seven babies, and attempting to murder seven more, the judge sentenced her to multiple whole-life terms for what he said had been “a cruel, calculated and cynical campaign”. The convictions shook public trust in the NHS and demanded a reckoning with a system and culture that had failed to prevent such horrors. In August 2023, this newspaper urged readers to look beyond individual guilt to the institutional failures that allowed such crimes to go undetected for so long. It remains the case that serious questions must be asked of NHS management and clinical staff in relation to the tragic events at the Countess of Chester hospital.

However, justice, like science, should not be afraid to re-examine its conclusions when reasonable doubt or fresh evidence emerge. Since Letby’s conviction, many have questioned the basis of the prosecution case. Leading experts have raised challenges about the reliability of key medical assumptions and the quality of statistical interpretations that led to Letby being jailed. Her guilt or innocence is not for the media to decide. But journalism plays a vital role in scrutinising government, parliament and the courts. When a serious body of concern arises around a conviction, particularly one so grave and emotionally charged, the state has a duty to respond not with defensiveness, but with clear candour.

Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here. Continue reading...