A neonatal nurse killed two out of three triplet boys and smiled after killing another premature baby girl on the fourth attempt, a court has heard.
Lucy Letby is charged with 22 counts of murder and attempted murder, involving 17 babies, and is alleged to have gone on a year-long killing spree at the Countess of Chester Hospital between 2015 and 2016.
Letby, of Arran Avenue, Hereford, has pleaded not guilty to all counts.
Nurse ‘smiled’ after death – and sent sympathy card to victim’s family
“Cold-blooded” Lucy Letby tried to kill one “resilient” newborn girl four times “before succeeding”, the court was told.
Letby was also questioned by police about why she had sent a sympathy card to the baby’s parents.
She had said this was the only time she had done it, “but it is not often the nurses got to know a family as well as they had known Child I’s.”
She accepted to officers that she had kept an image of the card on her phone.
Following Child I’s death on 23 October, Letby asked her parents if they wanted to bathe their baby daughter.
Mr Johnson told the court as the baby’s mother “bathed her recently departed child, Lucy Letby came into the room and in the words of the mother was ‘smiling and kept going on about how she was present at Child I’s first bath and how much Child I had loved it’.”
An independent medical expert concluded the “constellation of findings would strongly indicate Child I died due to unnatural causes”.
Image: Letby is charged with 22 counts of murder and attempted murder
Consultants at hospital had grown suspicious of Letby
By the time Child L was attacked, in April 2016, doctors at the hospital had grown suspicious of Letby.
“By this time Letby was supposed only to be working day shifts because the consultants were concerned about the correlation between her presence and unexpected deaths/life-threatening episodes on the night shifts,” the prosecution told the court.
One consultant walked in on Letby trying to kill Child K after he had grown concerned about the baby being left alone with her, the prosecution said.
The consultant began to feel “uncomfortable” when he realised Letby was alone with the child “because he was beginning to notice the coincidence between the unexplained deaths/serious collapses and the presence of Lucy Letby”.
When he walked into the room, he noted that the infant’s breathing tube was dislodged.
“We alleged she was trying to kill Child K when the paediatric consultant walked in on her,” Mr Johnson told the court.
Pre-term baby ‘screamed’ for 30 minutes
Letby allegedly used the haemophilia of one child – known as Child N – as a cover under which to attack him.
The disease, which causes bleeding for no reason, was attributed to many of the episodes involving the infant boy.
In one instance, the infant’s throat was so swollen and covered with “fresh blood” that a consultant was unable to get a breathing tube down.
There were more attempts made to reintubate Child N, as he was so unwell, but doctors were “unable to see down Child N’s throat because the view was obscured by fresh blood” and a specialist team had to be called in.
“Something – somebody, we say – had caused Child N to bleed again,” the prosecution said.
Child N experienced a “sudden deterioration” which was consistent with some kind of “inflicted injury which caused severe pain, distress and destabilised him”, the court heard.
Independent medical experts said this was “consistent with inflicted injury or having received an injection of air”, jurors were told.
One of the medical experts wrote: “This is life-threatening. He was also noted to be… ‘screaming’ and apparently cried for 30 minutes.
“This is most unusual.
“I have never observed a premature neonate to scream.”
A former Labour MP who quit the party over Sir Keir Starmer’s leadership has welcomed the landmark Supreme Court ruling on the definition of a woman as a “victory for feminists”.
Rosie Duffield, now the independent MP for Canterbury, said the judgment helped resolve the “lack of clarity” that has existed in the politics around the issue “for years”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:19
How do you define a woman in law?
The judges were asked to rule on how “sex” is defined in the 2010 Equality Act – whether that means biological sex or “certificated” sex, as legally defined by the 2004 Gender Recognition Act.
Their unanimous decision was that the definition of a “woman” and “sex” in the Equality Act 2010 refers to “a biological woman and biological sex”.
Asked what she made about comments by fellow independent MP John McDonnell – who said the court “failed to hear the voice of a single trans person” and that the decision “lacked humanity and fairness” as a result, she said: “This ruling doesn’t affect trans people in the slightest.
“It’s about women’s rights – women’s rights to single sex spaces, women’s rights, not to be discriminated against.
“It literally doesn’t change a single thing for trans rights and that lack of understanding from a senior politician about the law is a bit worrying, actually.”
However, Maggie Chapman, a Scottish Green MSP, disagreed with Ms Duffield and said she was “concerned” about the impact the ruling would have on trans people “and for the services and facilities they have been using and have had access to for decades now”.
Image: Susan Smith and Marion Calder, directors of For Women Scotland celebrate after the ruling. Pic: Reuters
“One of the grave concerns that we have with this ruling is that it will embolden people to challenge trans people who have every right to access services,” she said.
“We know that over the last few years… their [trans people’s] lives have become increasingly difficult, they have been blocked from accessing services they need.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:12
‘Today’s ruling only stokes the culture war further’
Delivering the ruling at the London court on Wednesday, Lord Hodge said: “But we counsel against reading this judgment as a triumph of one or more groups in our society at the expense of another. It is not.
Image: Campaigners celebrate outside the Supreme Court. Pic: PA
“The Equality Act 2010 gives transgender people protection, not only against discrimination through the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, but also against direct discrimination, indirect discrimination and harassment in substance in their acquired gender.
“This is the application of the principle of discrimination by association. Those statutory protections are available to transgender people, whether or not they possess a gender recognition certificate.”
Asked whether she believed the judgment could “draw a line” under the culture war, Ms Chapman told Fortescue: “Today’s judgment only stokes that culture war further.”
And she said that while Lord Hodge was correct to say there were protections in law for trans people in the 2020 Equality Act, the judgment “doesn’t prevent things happening”.
Apple Podcasts
This content is provided by Apple Podcasts, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Apple Podcasts cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Apple Podcasts cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Apple Podcasts cookies for this session only.
“It may offer protections once bad things have happened, once harassment, once discrimination, once bigotry, once assaults have happened,” she said.
She also warned some groups “aren’t going to be satisfied with today’s ruling”.
“We know that there are individuals and there are groups who actually want to roll back even further – they want to get rid of the Gender Recognition Act from 2004,” she said.
“I think today’s ruling just emboldens those views.”
Arsenal have reached the semi-finals of the Champions League after a dramatic victory over holders Real Madrid in Spain.
The north London side, who became the first English team to win twice at the Bernabeu following their triumph there 19 years ago, will face Paris Saint-Germain in the last four after the French side beat Aston Villa on Tuesday.
It is the third time the Gunners have made it through to the semis of the top club football tournament in Europe, and the first since 2009.
Arsenal went into the second leg of their quarter-final clash on Wednesday with a 3-0 lead.
Backed by a raucous home crowd, Madrid tried to get off to a strong start and Kylian Mbappe scored after two minutes. However, the goal was disallowed for a clear offside.
Arsenal had the chance to go ahead in the 13th minute but winger Bukayo Saka missed a penalty.
The Spanish hosts were awarded a penalty of their own about 10 minutes later when Mbappe stumbled under pressure from Declan Rice in the box – but the decision was overturned by VAR.
More on Arsenal
Related Topics:
Saka atoned for his tepid penalty as he chipped the ball past Madrid’s keeper Thibaut Courtois when put through on goal by auxiliary striker Mikel Merino in the 65th minute.
But Arsenal were pegged back just two minutes later as Vinicius Junior caught William Saliba dawdling on the ball and fired Real Madrid level.
Arsenal’s resolute defending kept the home side at bay until Gabriel Martinelli made a late break through the home side’s defence to put his side 2-1 ahead three minutes into injury time, as the Gunners made it 5-1 on aggregate.
Image: (L-R) Arsenal’s Declan Rice and Mikel Merino celebrate after the defeat against Real Madrid. Pic: AP
‘We knew we were going to win’, says Rice
Arsenal midfielder Declan Rice has insisted his team are intent on winning the Champions League after their victory in Madrid.
Speaking to TNT Sport, Rice, who was named player of the match, said: “It’s such a special night, a historic one for the club. We have the objective of playing the best and winning the competition.
“We had so much belief and confidence from that first leg and came here to win the game. We knew we were going to suffer but we knew we were going to win. We had it in our minds, then we did it [in] real life. What a night.
“I knew when I signed, this club was on an upward trajectory. It’s been tough in the Premier League but in this competition we’ve done amazingly well.
“It’s PSG next, who are an amazing team.”
‘We have to be very proud of ourselves’, says Arteta
Arsenal boss Mikel Arteta told TNT Sport: “One of the best nights in my football career.
“We played against a team with the biggest history.
“To be able to win the tie in the manner we have done, I think we have to be very proud of ourselves.”
He added: “The history we have in this competition is so short. The third time in our history of what we have just done and we have to build on that. All this experience is going to help us, for sure.”
Real Madrid were seeking their third Champions League title in four seasons.
Mbappe twisted ankle
Their forward Mbappe twisted his right ankle during the game and was jeered by part of the crowd when his substitution was announced after a lacklustre performance.
The French star, who is still looking for his first Champions League title, was replaced by Brahim Diaz in the 75th minute following his injury. He was able to walk off the pitch by himself, but was limping slightly.
The other semi-final will be between Barcelona and Inter Milan.
The first legs are set to be played on 29 and 30 April, with the second legs on 6 and 7 May.
After a dramatic weekend with ministers passing legislation to wrest control of British Steel from its Chinese owners, Labour’s China policy is under the spotlight.
Sir Keir Starmer’s government came in, promising a “strategic and long term” relationship with Beijing, after years of “inconsistency” under the Conservatives.
Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds appeared to turn the tables this weekend, suggesting Chinese parent company Jingye had neglected or even sabotaged British Steel after buying it five years ago. He told Sky News he would not personally “bring a Chinese company into our steel sector”.
He changed his tune on Tuesday, while visiting Scunthorpe to oversee the delivery of a shipment of materials, saying the row was just with one company.
It’s now emerged he is expected to travel to China later this year, to restart a joint economic and trade commission which has been on ice since 2018.
But this is no return to the golden age of some years back.
Tensions in government over China may well emerge in the coming months – as the Treasury’s drive for investment and growth jars with concerns over security.
Ministers are discussing whether parts of the Chinese state should be designated a national security threat, under new rules on foreign influence, due to come in this summer.
Russia and Iran will be covered by the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme – but ministers are yet to say anything about China.
Applying it even in a limited way would be controversial with large companies and within government – seen as a barrier to doing business.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:52
Reynolds rows back on China comments
The Treasury’s view is that engagement with the world’s second largest economy is essential to economic growth.
Ed Miliband’s energy department is pursuing big clean energy projects, many of them backed by Chinese investment.
Wholly state-owned companies already own stakes in Heathrow Airport and Thames Water.
While Huawei was dramatically banned from the UK’s 5G network back in 2020, Chinese companies fund nuclear power, and the National Grid network.
Senior Conservatives, some sanctioned by the Chinese government, have been vocal about what they see as national security risks from this approach.
A report by parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee in 2023 said China had penetrated “every sector” of the UK economy. It warned that “Chinese money was readily accepted by HM Government with few questions asked”.
Spreaker
This content is provided by Spreaker, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Spreaker cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Spreaker cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Spreaker cookies for this session only.
Some Labour MPs view this with growing concern. One senior MP, speaking privately, said: “The problem is it costs billions of pounds to build reservoirs and nuclear reactors, and we’re not raising that from taxes, so China is where we get that investment.
“There are significant concerns in the party – whether it’s about the security of critical sectors, espionage, or concerns about the use of slave labour in their products.”
Liam Byrne, the Labour chair of the business and trade committee, said there needed to be clearer ground rules on Chinese investment.
“If we want to stay ahead of our adversaries, we’ve got to make sure that we’re not handing the most advanced technology to our adversaries,” he said.
“We need a clear definition of economic security from the government, we need a clear threat assessment, and we need a clear way in which business and government are going to work hand in hand to keep our country safe in what are now very different and more dangerous times.”
After a rebuke from the Chinese embassy, which defended the actions of Jingye, the government insists nothing has changed in the relationship.
China is now embroiled in a trade war with the US, and the global trade rules are changing.
The tension emerging is whether economic growth overrides security concerns.