Lucy Letby defence expert slams 'unfair' justice system and says he is 'appalled' he wasn't called to give evidence

A doctor who was asked to review the medical records of babies harmed and murdered by Lucy Letby says it was appalling that he was never called to testify in her defence. Letby, 35, is serving 15 whole-life terms after being found guilty of murdering seven babies and attempting to murder seven more across two Manchester Crown Court trials in August 2023 and July last year. Since the convictions, a panel of experts has questioned parts of the medical evidence, and Letby’s original defence team has faced criticism for not calling medical witnesses during the defence case. The case has also been referred to the Criminal Cases Review Commission by Letby’s new legal team as part of ongoing attempts to obtain a third appeal.

Dr Mike Hall, the retired paediatrician who served as the defence's primary medical expert, told the Mail's Trial podcast that while not calling him might not breach legal rules, it undermined natural justice. “In terms of natural justice, it seems appalling that Lucy Letby did not have the opportunity of having her case presented,” Hall said. He did not go as far as declaring Letby innocent, but he said he did not believe the jury heard enough evidence to meet the threshold of certainty required to convict. He noted that the jury's verdicts included seven murder convictions and seven attempted-murder convictions, including the insulin cases involving twin boys known in court as Baby F and Baby L. He suggested the defence could have offered a counterpoint on the medical evidence that might have changed how some jurors weighed the medical testimony.

Hall stressed that, under typical trial directions, the jury was told that the defence barrister's arguments are not evidence and should not count as part of the case. He argued that this approach is insufficient when a counter-narrative from an independent medical expert could clarify clinical events that the prosecution’s experts described. “What the judge said to the jury was you have to ignore what Mr Myers said because it doesn't count; it has to be a witness that says that,” Hall said, adding that “Dr Evans and Dr Bohin made some statements which were, certainly in my opinion, incorrect.” He said that, had someone from the defence testified, it could have helped jurors who were uncertain about Letby’s guilt to reach a firmer conclusion. “I thought the medical evidence was very weak. But I also found the circumstantial evidence in some respects quite weak,” he said, noting that jurors ultimately relied heavily on circumstantial factors in a case with no direct observation of harm.

Letby’s legal team has twice sought appeals but failed. New medical reports prepared by an expert panel have been submitted to the Criminal Cases Review Commission, which investigates potential miscarriages of justice, in a bid to persuade the Court of Appeal to revisit Letby’s convictions. Hall said he agreed with the panel that there was no evidence Letby killed babies by injecting air to cause fatal air embolisms, though he acknowledged he could not completely rule out the possibility. “There was no evidence of any of the babies being injected with air,” he said, but he cautioned that the absence of evidence does not entirely exclude such a theory. He added that some statements by prosecution experts were not fully accurate in his view, and that a counter-perspective would be important if a new appeal were pursued.

Hall criticized the public handling of the new expert-panel findings by Letby’s current barrister, Mark McDonald, saying airing conclusions at press conferences before a potential appeal could complicate a retrial or appeal if errors are later found. He noted that some of the expert-panel conclusions did not align perfectly with what the court heard during Letby’s trials and warned that this public airing might hinder the appeal process. The defence team says the panel’s conclusions deserve proper judicial consideration, and the Commission’s review will determine whether a further appeal is warranted.

Among the panel’s questions is Baby O, a triplet Letby was alleged to have harmed after a return from Ibiza in 2016. The panel suggested a post-mortem liver injury was not caused by Letby; Hall challenged that interpretation as not credible and argued that the pattern of the child’s haemoglobin and other findings did not fit the panel’s explanation. He stressed that the reasons for the child’s collapse and unsuccessful resuscitation remain uncertain, and that speculation should not be taken as evidence of homicide. He said he did not have a definitive explanation for Baby O’s death but that the case warranted careful, fact-based reconsideration in a potential appeal.

Letby’s case continues to move through the Commission’s process, and a Court of Appeal ruling remains the path to a third appeal. Hall said he did not know how much influence a new medical voice would have on a retrial, but he emphasized the importance of the defence having the opportunity to present comprehensive evidence in court. The public discussion of the medical panel’s findings is part of a broader debate about whether Letby’s convictions should ever be revisited.

Details of the interview and further discussion are available on The Trial of Lucy Letby: The Inquiry Now podcast.