May 2026: Thirlwall Inquiry report delayed to at least September 2026 · six-baby inquests relisted to 2027 · CCRC review active · Shoo Lee Panel: no medical evidence of deliberate harm.
Hub · Parliamentary tracker
A running list of UK MPs, Peers and senior silks who have publicly questioned the safety of the Letby convictions. Updated as new interventions are made. Each entry links to the public source (Hansard, broadsheet op-ed, press statement) where available. If you are considering writing to your MP, this page tells you who has already engaged and in what context.
MP for Goole and Pocklington · Conservative · 5 November 2024
Commons adjournment debate on conviction safety in the Letby case. The first formal Parliamentary intervention. Called for CCRC review, independent expert-evidence scrutiny, and consideration of the Donna Anthony precedent.
Crossbench peer; former Justice of the UK Supreme Court · Crossbench · November 2025
Broadsheet intervention on the Letby conviction-safety question. First senior-judiciary figure to publicly question conviction safety. Specifically addressed the statistical-evidence architecture and the Cannings principle application.
Source: Broadsheet op-ed (Telegraph and Spectator coverage)
Labour peer; senior criminal silk · Labour · 2024-2025
Public interventions on conviction safety and expert-evidence reform. Doughty Street Chambers; longstanding advocate of expert-evidence standards reform in UK criminal proceedings.
Source: Doughty Street Chambers public statements; broadsheet coverage
Senior criminal silk (not Parliamentarian, included for Bar-leadership context) · (not applicable) · 2024-2025
Public intervention on conviction safety. Nexus Chambers; longest UK track record of serial-miscarriage-of-justice representation.
Source: Nexus Chambers public statements; broadsheet coverage; Rob Rinder podcast contributions
The ‘email your MP’ action on this site is meaningful only if readers can see that the question is already live in Parliament. The Sir David Davis adjournment debate of 5 November 2024 was the first formal Parliamentary engagement; subsequent interventions by Lord Sumption and Baroness Helena Kennedy KC extend the question into the House of Lords and the senior Bar. This page lets readers see the current state of Parliamentary and senior-legal engagement before composing their own letter.
The pattern of parliamentary engagement on the Letby case has moved through three distinguishable phases. The first — running through 2023 and the first half of 2024 — was a near-complete absence of parliamentary comment, reflecting the conventional reticence of MPs to comment on a live criminal matter where the appellate process has not yet exhausted itself. The second phase — opened by the Sir David Davis adjournment debate of 5 November 2024 — established parliamentary engagement on conviction safety as a permissible posture, drawing explicit on the Donna Anthony, Sally Clark and Angela Cannings precedents in which parliamentary attention preceded successful CCRC referral. The third phase — running through 2025 and into 2026 — has seen the question move from individual-MP intervention into the House of Lords (Lord Sumption, Baroness Helena Kennedy KC), into the senior Bar (the April 2025 Bar Council letter to The Times), and into the public-legal commentary mainstream (Rob Rinder KC, Sir Robert Francis KC).
The Lord Sumption broadsheet intervention of November 2025 marks a discrete shift. Lord Sumption is the first former Justice of the UK Supreme Court to publicly question the safety of the Letby convictions. His specific focus — the statistical-evidence architecture and the application of the Cannings principle (that where natural-cause explanations of the same events have not been displaced beyond reasonable doubt, a deliberate-harm conviction is unsafe) — provides a senior-judiciary anchor for parliamentary engagement that did not previously exist. Subsequent parliamentary contributors have referenced the Sumption analysis as load-bearing for their own engagement; it has functionally legitimised the parliamentary intervention as a senior-legal-establishment-aligned posture rather than a heterodox or campaigning one.
The April 2025 Bar Council letter in The Times — signed by a group of senior criminal silks and legal academics — addressed the expert-evidence-standards questions raised by the case rather than the conviction safety directly. But its publication marks the point at which the senior Bar collectively engaged with the case as an expert-evidence-reform question. Baroness Kennedy and Mansfield KC have subsequently extended that engagement into specific case-by-case commentary. The Bar Council engagement is significant because the Bar is the institutional body whose professional standards on expert-evidence handling were arguably breached in the Crown’s use of Dr Dewi Evans — a methodological question the Bar is uniquely positioned to address.
The constituency-MP engagement element is structurally different from the senior-judiciary or Bar engagement. MPs are accountable to constituents, and a constituent letter raising a public-interest matter creates a documented parliamentary record that the MP must respond to. The aggregate of constituency letters — visible through the volume of MP-by-MP responses over 2024 and 2025 — has built the political space within which the senior-Parliamentarian interventions become possible. The Davis adjournment debate drew explicitly on the constituent-letter volume as part of the case for parliamentary attention.
If your MP has made a public statement questioning the safety of the Letby convictions that is not listed here, please send the source link to us via the contact page and we will add it.
Not in Parliament, but relevant to the legal architecture: