RCN and BAPM — the institutional silence from the professional bodies
Prosecution claim
Professional nursing and neonatal-medicine bodies have not issued position statements contradicting the verdict, and their silence is consistent with acceptance of the convictions.
Counter-evidence
The Royal College of Nursing (RCN) — the UK nursing profession's principal professional body — has not issued a public position statement on the safety of the Letby convictions. The British Association of Perinatal Medicine (BAPM) — the UK neonatal-medicine specialty body — likewise has not issued a public statement. Institutional silence is not endorsement: it is the institutional caution characteristic of professional bodies whose members include (a) nurses with direct professional interest in the integrity of the conviction-safety process, and (b) nurses and clinicians who may be witnesses in the Thirlwall Inquiry or in future proceedings. The Panel's 14 signatories include BAPM members acting in their individual professional capacities (Neena Modi, Minesh Khashu). The absence of an institutional position statement should be distinguished from the absence of professional engagement: individual members of both bodies, including several in senior roles, have publicly questioned the convictions. Comparable institutional silence has been observed in the Post Office Horizon case and in other high-profile UK criminal cases under review; it is a recognised pattern of professional-body posture rather than a substantive endorsement of a verdict.
Institutional silence is not consent. It is institutional caution. It tells you about the politics of professional bodies, not about the safety of the conviction.
What the jury heard
Not applicable.
What the Panel says
The Panel is an independent body, not an institutional one. Its 14 signatories act in their individual professional capacities; several are BAPM members, and the Panel's existence is itself a form of professional-body engagement with the question, distinct from a formal RCN or BAPM position statement.
What independent experts add
- Professional bodies typically do not comment on the safety of criminal convictions of individual members; this is standard posture.
- The absence of a formal RCN or BAPM statement should be read against this baseline, not against an assumption that professional bodies should or would endorse a CCRC-contested verdict.
- Individual members of both RCN and BAPM, including senior figures, have publicly engaged with the conviction-safety question.
- The Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) has continued Ms Letby's registration-related processes through the criminal-justice framework, which is its statutory function; this is not an RCN/BAPM equivalent statement.
- Comparable institutional silence was observed in the Post Office Horizon case from the Federation of Sub-Postmasters until very late in the process.
- Academic-medical journals (notably editorial commentary in peer-reviewed neonatology journals) have engaged with the Panel's findings in a way that institutional professional bodies have not.
- The long-term post-Letby professional reform picture will likely be led by the Panel's work and the academic-medical literature rather than by RCN or BAPM statements in the short term.