--------------------------------------------
SUB-HEADING: "Even in the most harrowing cases, a fair society must allow for review, and the possibility of judicial error."
————————————————-
GIST: 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.
The official inquiry into the Letby case, headed by Lady Justice Thirlwall, is set to report in 2026.
The judge said she could not examine the safety of the conviction.
The decision to continue with the inquiry on those terms, for which the health secretary, Wes Streeting, was also responsible, is regrettable.
While the grief and anger of the families who lost their children must remain central, their pain is not diminished by the state subjecting itself to scrutiny.
On the contrary, trust in public institutions depends on a willingness to confront hard questions – especially the most uncomfortable ones.
A miscarriage of justice may have occurred in this case. It may not. But accepting the possibility that it could have – and allowing a mechanism to guard against error is essential.
The criminal justice system, like all human institutions, makes mistakes. Its integrity depends not on infallibility but on the ability to admit errors and correct them.
The Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) is weighing the merits of an appeal.
The commission has faced justified criticism over its failings in the wrongful conviction of Andrew Malkinson.
As the review of that case warned, justice demands we keep the risk of mistakes firmly in mind.
It is in that spirit that the CCRC’s new chair, Vera Baird KC, should approach this matter.
The commission must demonstrate the independence, transparency and diligence required for justice to be served – even in cases where grief and outrage weigh heavily.
No case, however disturbing, should be exempt from reassessment if evidence demands it.
The commission can only refer cases back to the court of appeal on the narrow ground that there is a realistic possibility that the judges there may overturn a conviction.
The bench has twice declined – in May 2024 and March this year – to re-examine or admit challenges to Letby’s conviction.
Persisting with such a course risks hardening public doubt, not resolving it. In moments like this, it is wise to remember that justice must be done and be seen to be done.
The entire editorial can be read at:https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jun/15/the-guardian-view-on-the-letby-case-justice-cannot-be-immune-from-scrutiny-or-doubt
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue/resource. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com. Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog.
SEE BREAKDOWN OF SOME OF THE ON-GOING INTERNATIONAL CASES (OUTSIDE OF THE CONTINENTAL USA) THAT I AM FOLLOWING ON THIS BLOG, AT THE LINK BELOW: HL:
https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/120008354894645705/4704913685758792985
———————————————————————————————
FINAL WORD: (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases): "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices."
Lawyer Radha Natarajan:
Executive Director: New England Innocence Project;
—————————————————————————————————
FINAL, FINAL WORD: "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions. They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they've exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true!
Christina Swarns: Executive Director: The Innocence Project;
————————————————————————————————----
SEE BREAKDOWN OF SOME OF THE ON-GOING INTERNATIONAL CASES (OUTSIDE OF THE CONTINENTAL USA) THAT I AM FOLLOWING ON THIS BLOG, AT THE LINK BELOW: HL:
https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/120008354894645705/4704913685758792985
———————————————————————————————
FINAL WORD: (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases): "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices."
Lawyer Radha Natarajan:
Executive Director: New England Innocence Project;
—————————————————————————————————
FINAL, FINAL WORD: "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions. They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they've exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true!
Christina Swarns: Executive Director: The Innocence Project;
