Call for retrial in Lucy Letby case

By the Editorial Team · Wednesday, July 29, 2026

Retired obstetrician Chris Fitzpatrick has called for a retrial in Lucy Letby's case due to the defence team's lack of access to maternity notes, which are crucial to understanding the newborns' conditions. Advocates argue that this missing evidence may have prevented a full assessment of whether Letby's actions alone caused the infant deaths, raising concerns about the trial's fairness.

Calls for a retrial have emerged in the case of Lucy Letby following concerns about the availability of key evidence during her original trial. Chris Fitzpatrick, a retired consultant obstetrician and former maternity hospital CEO from Dublin, highlighted the absence of maternity notes for the defence team as a significant issue that undermines the fairness of the proceedings.

According to Fitzpatrick, the condition of a newborn is closely linked to the course of pregnancy, labour, and delivery, a fact well understood by medical professionals including midwives, paediatricians, neonatologists, and neonatal nurses. He emphasized that this relationship is also taught to medical and legal trainees, particularly in the context of medical negligence cases. Fitzpatrick argued that the failure to provide Letby’s defence team with access to maternity records obstructed a comprehensive examination of the circumstances surrounding the cases involved.

Lucy Letby, a former neonatal nurse, was convicted of multiple counts related to the deaths and injuries of babies under her care. The case attracted wide attention due to the rarity and severity of the allegations. However, the recent disclosure regarding the non-disclosure of maternity notes has fueled concern over the completeness of the evidence considered at trial.

Supporters of a retrial contend that without full access to medical records, it is impossible to determine whether Letby’s actions were the sole cause of the tragic outcomes or if underlying medical factors related to pregnancy and delivery played a role. They argue that a new hearing would ensure all relevant facts are thoroughly examined, thereby safeguarding the principle of a fair trial.

No official response has been disclosed from the prosecution or the court regarding the claims of withheld evidence or the prospect of a retrial. The case continues to evoke debate within both medical and legal communities about the standards of evidence disclosure and the intersection of medical knowledge and legal proceedings.

This article was reported by synthesizing coverage from multiple independent news outlets to present a balanced, unbiased account. Read about our editorial standards. Spotted an error? Let us know.