Letby, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

Plaintiff was a qualified nurse working at the neonatal unit at The Hospital. In August 2023, Plaintiff was convicted in the Crown Court at The City after a trial lasting over ten months of seven counts of murder and seven counts of attempted murder involving very young babies under her care. Life imprisonment with whole life orders was imposed on each count. The jury was unable to agree on six other counts of attempted murder and acquitted Plaintiff on two counts. The prosecution later sought a retrial on one count of attempted murder, fixed for June 2024. A reporting restriction was imposed to prevent prejudice to the retrial.

On the first day of the retrial, Plaintiff’s counsel applied for a stay of the indictment on grounds of abuse of process, arguing that Plaintiff could not receive a fair trial due to extensive prejudicial publicity. The trial judge refused the stay, and Plaintiff was convicted of attempted murder in July 2024 and sentenced to life imprisonment with a whole life order. Plaintiff now seeks leave to appeal against this conviction solely on the ground that the trial judge erred in refusing to stay the proceedings.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the trial judge erred in refusing to stay the indictment on the basis that Plaintiff could not receive a fair trial due to prejudicial media coverage.
2. Whether the trial judge erred in refusing to stay the indictment on the basis that proceeding with the trial would offend the integrity of the criminal justice system due to alleged prosecutorial and police conduct.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The extensive and emotive media coverage following the first trial created such prejudice that no jury could fairly consider the retrial.
• No jury member’s memory could have faded sufficiently to avoid prejudice despite judicial directions.
• Police officers and Crown Prosecution Service representatives engaged in sustained hostile commentary, amounting to misconduct that offends the integrity of the criminal justice system, justifying a stay.
• The public statements by a key prosecution witness prior to the retrial were "extraordinary" and prejudicial given his role.

Respondent's Arguments

• The trial judge was correct to conclude that any prejudice from media coverage was mitigated by the “fade factor” and jury directions.
• The evidence of Plaintiff’s prior convictions was admissible and properly directed to the jury, reducing the impact of publicity.
• Comments by police and prosecution, although sometimes emotive, were made after a jury verdict and did not amount to misconduct or justify a stay.
• The public interest in trying serious offences outweighs concerns about prosecutorial comments.
• The key issue for the retrial jury was the credibility of a specific witness’s evidence, which was properly challenged during trial.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
BKR [2024] 1 WLR 1327, [2023] EWCA Crim 903	Principles governing when a trial judge may stay proceedings as an abuse of process.	Reviewed comprehensively; court relied on these principles to assess whether a fair trial was possible and whether a stay was justified.
Ng [2024] EWCA Crim 493	Summary of core principles on abuse of process and staying proceedings.	Used to support the framework for assessing the abuse of process arguments.
Norman [2016] EWCA Crim 1564	Clarification that misconduct is not the only basis for staying proceedings; something very out of the ordinary must occur.	Applied to reject the argument that police and prosecutorial comments justified a stay absent misconduct.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by reaffirming the well-established legal principles for staying proceedings as an abuse of process, distinguishing between two limbs: (1) where the accused cannot receive a fair trial, and (2) where proceeding would offend the integrity of the criminal justice system. The court considered the extensive media coverage following the first trial, including emotive language and hostile commentary by police and prosecution representatives. It acknowledged the significant publicity but found that the "fade factor" and judicial directions to the jury sufficiently mitigated prejudice.

The court emphasized the experience and judgment of the trial judge, who had presided over both trials and was best placed to assess the risk of unfairness. It gave substantial weight to his conclusion that the jury could fairly consider the retrial despite the publicity. The court also examined the nature of the retrial evidence, which focused on a specific incident and witness, and found that the publicity's prejudicial effect was outweighed by the probative value of the evidence, including the prior convictions admitted to the jury.

Regarding the second limb of abuse, the court found that although police and prosecutorial comments were sometimes emotive, they did not amount to misconduct and were made after a jury verdict. The court rejected the proposition that such comments, even if "ill-judged," justified a stay, stressing the public interest in prosecuting serious offences and maintaining confidence in the justice system. It noted that the police’s remarks about ongoing investigations were appropriate and did not unfairly prejudice the retrial.

Overall, the court concluded that the trial judge’s refusal to stay the proceedings was a correct exercise of judgment, supported by the evidence and legal principles.

Holding and Implications

The court REFUSED the application for leave to appeal against the conviction of attempted murder in July 2024.

The direct effect is that the conviction and sentence stand, and the retrial process was properly conducted without abuse of process. The decision does not establish any new precedent beyond affirming established principles regarding abuse of process and fair trial rights in the context of extensive media coverage and prosecutorial conduct.