Log In
Search
UnHerd brings together sceptics and supporters of the much-discussed Lucy Letby case: Ben Cole is a risk analyst and supporter of the original verdict. Lawyer Adam King specialises in complex jury trials and has written extensively on the case. A vocal supporter of the original conviction, Dr Christopher Snowdon, joins to defend the guilty verdict. David Rose, UnHerd’s investigations editor, hosts this evening of deliberation and debate.
wait, what was the count at the end?
Not a very enlightening discussion. I doubt if either side would have drawn much value from it. For what it is worth I believe that, at the very least, Letby has been subjected to two mistrials and now the obduracy of the appeals process.
In the Lucy Letby trial the pro-conviction argument largely rests on the belief that, because a long and thorough trial has taken place and due process was followed, the verdict must necessarily be correct. Yet history warns against such complacency. British justice has long been held up as a gold standard, but cases like the Birmingham Six show this reputation is too often not deserved.
Lord Denning infamously wrote that “it is better that some innocent men remain in jail than that the integrity of the English judicial system be impugned.” Later, he went further, suggesting that had the Birmingham Six been hanged, there would have been no controversy. Such remarks reveal a troubling readiness to sacrifice individual justice in the name of preserving institutional authority. I see the same happening here.
I think the pro-guilt got away with too much here – almost like a repetition of the trial itself espousing nonsense – so much value placed upon the trials – not enough of a spotlight upon the bias of Dewi, his outrageous claims, blatant blurring of the facts to suit the tale he’d already concocted – his overtly tribal/corrupt/backside-covering reputation – blindly accepting the views of his counterparts then creating a narrative to support (or frame) the accused –