Where the evidence stands

The snapshot

Lucy Letby is serving two whole-life orders imposed in 2023 and 2024 for the murder of seven babies and the attempted murder of eight more. Those convictions stand. A fourteen-member international panel of neonatologists convened by Dr Shoo Lee reported in February 2025 that they found no medical evidence of deliberate harm in any of the cases reviewed. The CCRC received the application on behalf of Ms Letby on the evening of Monday 3 February 2025 (publicly announced 4 February 2025), accompanied by more than thirty independent expert reports; further expert material and supplementary submissions have been publicly referenced since (including in October 2025). The Thirlwall Inquiry — a separate process, about institutional response rather than guilt — has concluded its evidence phase; its final report is now expected after the summer recess of Parliament. In July 2025, three former senior executives of the Trust were arrested on suspicion of gross negligence manslaughter; no charging decisions have been announced.

What currently stands

• Two whole-life orders. Imposed August 2023 and July 2024 (Child K retrial). Letby is in HMP Low Newton.
• Court of Appeal refusal (May 2024). Pre-dates the Panel report and the bulk of the post-conviction expert evidence. See our summary of that judgment.
• No fresh legal decision has been issued since the Panel reported. The CCRC review is the current procedural path.

What has been added since conviction

Five things, in rough order of weight:

1. The Shoo Lee International Expert Panel report, February 2025. Case by case, fourteen senior neonatologists conclude no medical evidence of deliberate harm. The single most significant development. See our summary of the press conference.
2. Direct statement by Dr Lee himself on the 1989 paper. The co-author of the paper the prosecution relied on for air-embolism diagnosis has said his work was misapplied. See our Dr Shoo Lee biography and the air-embolism evidence page.
3. Statistical rebuttal of the shift-rota chart. The Royal Statistical Society and Prof. Richard Gill (Leiden) have characterised the chart as a textbook selection-bias fallacy. See the shift-chart page.
4. Endocrinology commentary on the insulin evidence. Independent biochemists note the screening Immunoassay used was never validated for forensic purposes, that the Roche Cobas Hook effect at high C-peptide concentrations distorts readings, and that confirmatory Mass spectrometry testing was not performed. See the insulin page.
5. Discrepancies between Dr Jayaram’s 2016 contemporaneous notes and his 2024 retrial testimony. A single-eyewitness conviction (Child K) where the 2024 account is materially fuller than the 2016 note. See the Child K page.

What the jury did not hear

Some of the post-conviction evidence did not exist at trial (it was authored after 2023). Other points were available but were not put fully to the jury:

• The unit’s full Datix record — staffing gaps, plumbing failures, pharmacy errors — was not foregrounded. See our Datix page.
• The Royal Statistical Society’s formal commentary on the shift chart came after conviction.
• The 1989 author’s own view that his paper had been misapplied became public post-conviction.
• The full fourteen-member panel review did not exist at trial.
• The Facebook-searches pattern was presented selectively; the base-rate context came later. See our Facebook-searches page.

What the CCRC has in front of it

The CCRC application (received 3 February 2025; publicly announced 4 February) is accompanied by over thirty independent expert reports. The CCRC’s own published chronology records nine further filings between February 2025 and January 2026 (see CCRC submission timeline). At minimum the material addresses:

• The Panel report itself (medical causation, case by case).
• Statistical methodology of the shift-rota chart.
• Insulin-assay interference and the absence of confirmatory testing.
• Paediatric radiology re-readings of the X-rays cited at trial.
• Independent post-mortem review.
• Forensic psychology commentary on the handwritten notes.

The legal test for a CCRC referral to the Court of Appeal is “real possibility” that the Court of Appeal would overturn the conviction. See our plain-English CCRC explainer.

What is still unresolved

• The CCRC decision. No timetable has been published. In complex medical- evidence cases the review can take 12–24 months from filing.
• The Thirlwall Inquiry final report. Originally expected after Easter 2026; on 13 May 2026 the Inquiry confirmed publication will not occur until at least after Parliament’s summer recess (i.e. September 2026 at the earliest). The report will address institutional failure, not conviction safety — but its findings on how the Trust handled the consultants’ escalation will shape public understanding of the case even though they do not bind the Court of Appeal. See our Thirlwall delays timeline.
• The six-baby inquests. Relisted on 13 May 2026 to provisionally begin 10 May 2027 (originally September 2026), pending the Thirlwall findings, with a review in November 2026. See our inquests-delayed-to-2027 analysis.
• Charging decisions on the three former executives arrested in July 2025. On 23 April 2026 one of those three was re-arrested on suspicion of perverting the course of justice (search warrant executed 22 April). No charges yet brought publicly. See our April 2026 arrest analysis and Operation Duet vs Hummingbird.
• Whether any new prosecution witnesses come forward. Media coverage since the Panel report has opened up questions that may draw fresh evidence from parties who did not previously speak.

Near-term milestones

• Thirlwall final report — now not before September 2026 (third successive delay, confirmed 13 May 2026); will be published at thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk.
• Six-baby inquests review hearing — November 2026, to confirm the relisted 10 May 2027 full-hearing date or relist again depending on Thirlwall.
• CCRC provisional or final decision — no date. The CCRC publishes decisions on its own site at ccrc.gov.uk.
• Any Court-of-Appeal rehearing (if referred). Several months after referral.

Subscribe to our email updates and you’ll be notified on the day any of these lands.