The conviction of Lucy Letby, the fourth woman in UK history to receive a whole-life order, has come under scrutiny from an unexpected source. James Phillips, a former science adviser to Boris Johnson, has raised concerns about the safety of the verdict, citing potential flaws in the presentation of scientific evidence during the trial.
Phillips, who served as a special adviser during the Covid-19 pandemic, drew parallels between the handling of the Letby case and the government's approach to the global health crisis. He highlighted issues such as group think, poor scientific literacy, and a lack of mathematical or statistical reasoning among experts.
"My view is that the presentation of data and expert evidence was so flawed as to render the conviction unsafe."
The former adviser's comments come on the eve of the Thirlwall Inquiry, set to begin on 2024-09-10. This investigation aims to examine how Letby was able to commit her alleged crimes at the Countess of Chester Hospital between 2015 and 2016.
Phillips emphasized the need for reform in how trials involving critical scientific evidence are conducted. He expressed doubts about whether the judicial system is adequately equipped to handle cases that hinge on complex scientific data.
The case has sparked debate among medical professionals and scientists, who question whether the spike in deaths at the neonatal unit was statistically significant given the prematurity and health conditions of the infants, as well as chronic understaffing issues.
Phillips, now a senior policy adviser at the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change, drew from his experience during the Covid-19 crisis. He observed similarities in how well-meaning groups can make dramatic mistakes and the difficulties in detecting such errors.
Letby has appointed Mark McDonald, a barrister specializing in miscarriages of justice, to represent her case before the Criminal Cases Review Commission. This independent organization investigates suspected wrongful convictions in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland.
However, the ongoing speculation surrounding the case has caused distress for the victims' families. Tamlin Bolton, representing six of the families, expressed their devastation over the recent reporting and emphasized the importance of having all the information before offering expert opinions.
As the debate continues, the case raises broader questions about the intersection of science, medicine, law, and governance in complex criminal trials. The outcome of this discussion may have far-reaching implications for the UK judicial system and its approach to cases involving intricate scientific evidence.