Nurse Lucy Letby, convicted of murdering seven babies and attempting to kill six others, will be sentenced today but is not expected to attend the hearing

Nurse Lucy Letby, 33, is set to be sentenced today after being found guilty of the cold-blooded murder of seven newborns, making her the most prolific child serial killer in modern UK history. Letby was also convicted of attempting to kill six other infants during her time at the Countess of Chester Hospital between June 2015 and June 2016.

The trial, which spanned more than 10 months, is believed to be the longest murder trial in the UK. Despite the gravity of the charges, Letby has indicated that she will not attend the sentencing hearing at Manchester Crown Court, either in person or via video link from prison. The reasons behind her decision to be absent from the courtroom have not been disclosed.

If Letby does not attend the hearing, she will miss the victim impact statements, where families of the victims have the opportunity to describe how the horrific crimes have affected their lives. She will also forfeit the chance to hear Judge Mr. Justice James Goss deliver the sentencing remarks, which will outline the reasoning behind her sentence.

The case has horrified the nation as details emerged of how Letby deliberately injected babies with air, force-fed others milk, and poisoned two infants with insulin. The jury delivered their verdicts across several hearings, with the first set of guilty verdicts announced on August 8 after 76 hours of deliberation. Letby, originally from Hereford, broke down in tears as these verdicts were read, and she wept with her head bowed when more guilty verdicts were returned on August 11.

Letby’s refusal to attend court has reignited calls for legislation to compel convicted criminals to be present for their sentencing hearings. This is the latest in a series of high-profile cases where murderers have chosen not to appear in court, including the killers of Zara Aleena in London and nine-year-old Olivia Pratt-Korbel in Liverpool.

Former prison governor Prof Ian Acheson expressed his view on BBC that judges should have the authority to compel criminals to attend their sentencing, ensuring they face the people they have harmed. Earlier this year, the government committed to introducing laws that would require offenders to be present in the dock for their sentencing. Former Justice Secretary Sir Robert Buckland supported this move, suggesting that defendants who refuse to attend should face harsher penalties, including longer sentences. He also recommended exploring technological solutions, such as using videolinks, to ensure defendants cannot avoid hearing their sentence.

Families of the victims have expressed their deep gratitude to the jurors who endured 145 days of grueling evidence. Despite the conviction on multiple counts, Letby was found not guilty of two charges of attempted murder, and the jury was unable to reach a verdict on additional attempted murder charges related to four other babies. Prosecutor Nicholas Johnson KC has requested 28 days to consider whether to seek a retrial for these unresolved charges.

Letby was convicted following a meticulous two-year investigation by Cheshire Police, which was triggered by a disturbing and unexplained rise in deaths and near-fatal collapses of premature babies at the hospital. The government has since ordered an independent inquiry to investigate the circumstances surrounding the murders, aiming to prevent such a horrific tragedy from occurring again.

Analysis:

Political:
The case of Lucy Letby has profound political implications, particularly in the context of how the justice system handles sentencing and the rights of victims. The fact that Letby, like other high-profile criminals before her, has chosen not to attend her sentencing has sparked widespread outrage. This has put pressure on the government to take swift legislative action to ensure that convicted individuals cannot avoid facing the consequences of their actions. The government’s commitment to introducing laws to mandate the presence of offenders in court reflects a response to growing public and political demand for accountability and justice. Such legislation would not only uphold the rights of victims and their families but also reinforce the authority of the judiciary. Politicians from across the spectrum have voiced their support for this initiative, highlighting the need to restore public confidence in the criminal justice system. The case also raises questions about the adequacy of current oversight and regulatory measures in healthcare settings, prompting calls for stricter policies and greater scrutiny to prevent such tragedies in the future.

Social:
Socially, the Letby case has sent shockwaves through the UK, prompting a deep reflection on the responsibilities of those entrusted with the care of vulnerable individuals. The revelation that a nurse could commit such heinous acts against defenceless infants has shattered the trust that society places in healthcare professionals. This breach of trust has led to widespread fear and anxiety, particularly among parents and families who rely on the healthcare system to protect their loved ones. The case has also sparked a broader conversation about the warning signs that were missed or ignored, and the systemic failures that allowed Letby to continue her deadly spree. The impact on the hospital staff, who unknowingly worked alongside a murderer, is profound, with many likely experiencing feelings of guilt, betrayal, and trauma. The case serves as a grim reminder of the importance of vigilance, transparency, and accountability in all aspects of healthcare, as well as the need for robust mechanisms to identify and address potential threats before they escalate.

Racial:
While the Letby case does not have an overt racial component, it nevertheless contributes to ongoing discussions about how race and bias can influence perceptions of criminality and justice. In cases involving perpetrators from minority backgrounds, media coverage and public discourse often emphasize racial or ethnic factors, which can lead to the perpetuation of harmful stereotypes. In contrast, when the perpetrator is from the majority racial group, as in Letby’s case, there is often a greater focus on the individual’s psychological state or personal history. This disparity in coverage can contribute to skewed perceptions of crime and criminal behaviour, reinforcing biases and potentially influencing the outcomes of investigations and trials. The Letby case thus serves as a point of reflection on the need for equitable and unbiased treatment of all individuals in the criminal justice system, regardless of race or background.

Gender:
The Letby case also touches on gender dynamics, particularly in how society perceives and reacts to female perpetrators of violent crimes. Female serial killers are rare, and when such cases arise, they often attract intense public interest and media scrutiny. There is a tendency to focus on the perceived incongruity of a woman, particularly one in a nurturing profession like nursing, committing such brutal acts. This focus can sometimes overshadow the crimes themselves, as the narrative shifts to explore the psychological or societal factors that might have led a woman to engage in such behavior. In Letby’s case, the shock and disbelief that accompanied the revelations of her crimes may be partly rooted in traditional gender norms that view women, especially those in caregiving roles, as inherently nurturing and incapable of such violence. The case challenges these norms and prompts a reevaluation of how gender influences both the commission of crimes and the societal response to them.

Economic:
Economically, the Letby case has significant implications for the healthcare sector and the broader economy. The hospital where Letby committed her crimes will likely face lawsuits and compensation claims from the families of the victims, potentially amounting to millions of pounds. These financial burdens, combined with the costs of the lengthy investigation and trial, could strain the resources of the healthcare system. Moreover, the case may lead to increased regulatory scrutiny and the implementation of more stringent safety protocols in hospitals, which could require additional funding and resources. In the long term, the case could also impact the reputation of the NHS, both domestically and internationally, potentially affecting the recruitment of healthcare professionals and the trust of patients in the system. The broader economic impact includes the potential for decreased public confidence in the safety and reliability of healthcare services, which could lead to greater reliance on private healthcare options, further straining public resources.