Lucy Letby's life behind bars revealed – from £33-a-week to spend on chocolate & TWICE as many visits as other prisoners
LUCY Letby's enhanced prisoner status gives her a staggering £33 a week to spend on sweets and chocolate.
The former nurse can also receive twice as many visits as other prisoners, after being fast-tracked from standard status.
5
5
5
Letby was convicted of killing seven babies and for attempting to murder another seven.
She is now imprisoned in unit four of the only purpose-built private prison in the UK - HMP Bronzefield.
Now an enhanced prisoner, Letby is given £33 a week to spend in the prison canteen where regular prisoners are only given £19.80.
Some prisoners are bumped down to basic status as a punishment, which gives them only £5.50 per week.
All prisoners are given status reviews every 28 days, but Letby has retained her enhanced position throughout her time at HMP Bronzefiled.
A source told the MailOnline that the killer nurse was upgraded because of fears that she may be attacked by other inmates.
The source said: ' Lucy is reserved and very quiet, she isn't really a problem with staff.
'It grates with officers though - she's committed the worst crimes possible and here she is on the enhanced unit with all the benefits that come with it.
'Again the real reason she is here is safety, she would be attacked on any other unit.'
Letby reportedly has shared a cell with a former prison officer who was jailed after having sex with an inmate.
I defend baby killers like Lucy Letby – bombshell new theory could FREE her but I know real truth… & it's NOT medical
Linda De Sousa Abreu, Letby's cell mate, was fast-tracked to privileged status for her own protection since she is a former guard.
Abreu worked at the famous prison HMP Wandsworth in London.
Letby has been in police custody since November 2020 and was handed a 'whole life order' in August 2023.
The inmate is the fourth woman in British history to be given no hope for parole after committing her string of chilling murders.
Letby has been found to have targeted 17 babies whilst at large between June 2015 and June 2016.
Her first confirmed victim was a boy born in June 2015, who, despite being born prematurely, was described as being "stable".
Letby came on shift at 7.30pm that same day and, by 8.26pm, the boy's condition was "deteriorating rapidly".
He died twenty minutes later after air was deliberately injected into his bloodstream.
That boy's twin sister became ill just 28 hours later after "purple blotches" broke out across her body - symptoms shared with her brother.
Thankfully, that baby survived.
5
However, another two babies died under the nurse's care that same month - one of which ingested air and the other being killed when air was injected into her bloodstream.
More babies - including one in on 4 August and another on October 23 - died from incidents involving air while at Letby's hospital.
Finally, Letby was found to have killed two more babies on June 23 and 24 2016.
The killer nurse was arrested on July 3, 2018, and faced a three-year court battle before finally being jailed for life.
She had been working at the Countess of Chester Hospital while at large.
Despite her conviction, Letby insists that she is innocent and several high profile politicians have called for her case to be re-examined.
Former health secretary Jeremy Hunt said that, although the victim's family must be at the 'forefront' of politician's minds, there is 'doubt on what actually happened'.
He added: 'They are not conspiracy theories dredged up from far-flung reaches of the internet.'
The former health secretary and Tory chancellor said that 14 paediatric specialists ruled that the deaths of the babies had been down to natural causes.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
9 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Man jailed for 40 years for sword murder of London boy Daniel Anjorin
A man has been jailed for at least 40 years for the 'wicked' murder of the schoolboy Daniel Anjorin during a 20-minute rampage in east London. Marcus Monzo, 37, fatally slashed Daniel with a samurai sword minutes after the 14-year-old left his home in Hainault on 30 April last year. In a televised sentencing, Mr Justice Bennathan jailed Monzo for life with a minimum term of 40 years for murder and for attacking three other members of the public and two police officers. Earlier, Daniel's father, Ebenezer Anjorin, condemned Monzo's 'wicked' actions and described losing his son as his 'worst nightmare'. Speaking publicly about it for the first time, Anjorin said in a statement: 'On April 30 2024 at approximately 7am, Daniel left for school. At approximately 7.15am I was informed by my eldest son that Daniel had been stabbed on the road near my house. I ran outside the house and just across the road I saw a hunched-up body by the side of the road. 'I did not realise that it was Daniel at first but, as I got closer, I recognised the school sports clothes and saw his face. 'He was lying in a pool of blood and had a deep cut to his face running from the side of his mouth to the back of his neck. He was motionless. I knew at once that he was dead, but I reached down, called his name and held his head.' After a few minutes, he said, he called Daniel's mother, who screamed and cried when she arrived home and saw paramedics trying to resuscitate her son, who died later in hospital. Anjorin said he could not begin to describe the 'pain and anguish' the family felt at losing Daniel, who was academically gifted and enjoyed sports and music. 'We will not see him get married or have children. All the normal things parents hope for their children. All these hopes and aspirations have been cruelly snatched away from us through the wicked actions of Marcus Monzo. 'It has been the worst nightmare experience of our lives. To have to go through the pain of losing a child in such a cruel and savage way. No family should have to go through this.' In his sentencing, Bennathan paid tribute to Anjorin's 'calm dignified' manner throughout the trial and said no sentence would 'begin to temper' the grief of Daniel's family. He added: 'All the police officers behaved with exemplary courage and put their lives on the line to protect the public they served.' Previously, the court heard how Monzo had killed and skinned his pet cat Wizard before running amok in Hainault. He drove his van into Donato Iwule who ran away screaming as Monzo got out of the vehicle and came at him with a sword. Monzo then attacked Daniel from behind, causing unsurvivable neck injuries. When Constable Yasmin Mechem-Whitfield tried to detain Monzo, he repeatedly struck her with 'savage' blows, causing severe injuries. He burst into the home of Henry De Los Rios Polania and Sindy Arias, who had been asleep with their young child nearby. Insp Moloy Campbell cornered Monzo in a car park and ran in with his baton raised but was slashed on the hand. Officers eventually detained the delivery driver who had become psychotic from taking cannabis. Afterwards, Monzo, who had viewed far right and misogynistic content on social media, likened events to the Hollywood film The Hunger Games and claimed to have an alternate persona of a 'professional assassin'. A jury in his Old Bailey trial found Monzo guilty of Daniel's murder, and the attempted murder of Iwule, Arias and Mechem-Whitfield. He was convicted of wounding De Los Rios Polania and Campbell with intent. He was also convicted of aggravated burglary and having an article with a blade or point. He admitted possessing the samurai sword used to kill Daniel and a katana sword found in his van.
The Independent
10 minutes ago
- The Independent
Soldier who raped woman he met on dating app has sentence increased
An army officer who raped a woman he met on a dating app has had his prison sentence increased following a Crown appeal. Calum MacGregor, 30, sexually assaulted and raped his victim in her home in December 2021. He was originally jailed for four-and-a-half years after being found guilty at the High Court in Edinburgh earlier this year. However, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) appealed against the sentence on the basis it was 'unduly lenient' given the serious nature of the offence. COPFS asked the Appeal Court to consider imposing a longer custodial term. On Friday, it was announced that the appeal has been upheld by a panel of three judges at the Appeal Court and that MacGregor's original sentence has been quashed. The soldier will now serve six years and six months in custody. Laura Buchan, deputy crown agent, said: 'Prosecutors have a responsibility to consider appeals based upon undue leniency in sentencing. Such appeals are rare. 'Today's decision to increase Calum MacGregor's sentence for rape provides public reassurance that the impact of sexual offences on victims will be acknowledged by those in the criminal justice system.' COPFS explained that for an appeal to be upheld a sentence must be unduly lenient, meaning it falls outside the range of sentences a judge could 'reasonably' have considered appropriate, having taken all relevant factors into account. It added that while sentencing is 'rightfully' the domain of judges, the Crown is allowed to appeal in limited circumstances to ensure the 'balance of justice' is served. In their ruling, published on Friday, the Appeal Court judges said they were 'not convinced that the sentencing judge applied her mind to all relevant factors'. The ruling said: 'In all the circumstances, even allowing for mitigating circumstances, a sentence of imprisonment for four years and six months was unduly lenient. The judges added that they would 'impose a sentence of imprisonment for six years and six months. As before, sentence is backdated to January 30 2025'.
The Independent
10 minutes ago
- The Independent
Keir Starmer used to stand up for the kinds of protesters he now labels terrorists
Two days before the missiles started raining down on Baghdad in March 2003, Josh Richards packed a mixture of petrol and washing-up liquid into his rucksack and headed off to RAF Fairford base in Gloucestershire. His plan was to set fire to the wheels of a B-52 USAF bomber to prevent it from joining in the imminent shock and awe. He was caught before he could act, but he was not the only person with the idea of mounting a last-ditch attempt to hinder a war which many considered illegal. A few days earlier, Margaret Jones and Paul Milling had cut their way into the same airbase and damaged a number of fuel tankers and bomb trailers. Another two men in their thirties, Phil Pritchard and Toby Olditch, armed themselves with paint, nuts and bolts, with the intention of damaging the bombers' engines. Today, this group of five would be labelled terrorists. See the government's reaction last week when pro-Palestinian activists broke into RAF Brize Norton and – just like their earlier counterparts at Fairford – damaged two military planes with red paint. "A disgraceful act of vandalism," said the prime minister, Keir Starmer. Within days, home secretary Yvette Cooper was on her feet in the House of Commons announcing that the group involved, Palestine Action, would be added to the list of organisations proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000. If you dare donate so much as a fiver to it in future, you will be committing a crime. Twenty-odd years ago, we lived in a kinder, gentler age. Society was not so harsh in their judgements about the group which became known as the Fairford Five. The protestors lawyered up and their briefs decided on an original defence, arguing that their actions were justified, morally and legally, because they were aimed at preventing a greater evil – ie. the war in Iraq and its probable consequences. They were, in short, willing to commit crimes in order to prevent greater crimes. Among the barristers who came up with this intriguing defence was a rising star of the human rights bar, Keir Starmer QC. He argued the case on behalf of Josh Richards, first at the Court of Appeal in June 2004 and then again before the House of Lords in March 2006. The presiding judge, Lord Bingham, went out of his way to praise the "erudition" involved. The appeal did not totally succeed, but in his judgment Lord Hoffmann articulated a humane view of how, in the UK, he believed we have traditionally regarded such acts of protest. "Civil disobedience on conscientious grounds has a long and honourable history in this country," he wrote (at paragraph 89). "People who break the law to affirm their belief in the injustice of a law or government action are sometimes vindicated by history. The suffragettes are an example which comes immediately to mind. It is the mark of a civilised community that it can accommodate protests and demonstrations of this kind." Hoffman outlined the "conventions" he thought should govern such acts of civil disobedience in his "civilised community". The law-breakers had to behave with a sense of proportion and avoid excessive damage. The law-enforcers, on the other hand, should "behave with restraint [and] … take the conscientious motives of the protesters into account". I imagine Mr Starmer QC read those words with some pleasure at the time: they have been quoted many times in courts over the years by his learned friends in defending clients acting on conscientious grounds. But now, at the behest of his government, such people are to be defined as terrorists. Forget trying to understand their conscientious motives. Lock them up and ban them. What happened? Let's try some hypotheses. The first possible explanation is that Starmer in 2004 was just operating on the "cab rank" principle. He didn't actually believe all that stuff he argued in the posh courts: he was just making the best case he could. But one former Doughty Street Chambers colleague told me Starmer "totally" believed in the right to protest. Some argue he is simply a massive hypocrite. He couldn't care less that there's a yawning gulf between what he then argued and what he now advocates. Or maybe he has just changed his mind? Perhaps he had some sympathy with the Fairford cause (Iraq) and less for the Brize Norton protests (Palestine)? Perhaps he still holds the same views he expressed 20 years ago, but has been advised it would be politically unwise to voice them. Reform is storming ahead in the polls and is demanding tough action. Now's not the time to out yourself as a bleeding-heart liberal. So you can show your toughness by outlawing the very sort of people you once defended. And, while you're about it, tell Glastonbury to drop another "terrorist" – in this case, the Irish language rap group Kneecap. Or maybe he believes in nothing? That, after all, is what a significant slew of even his own backbenchers are coming to assume. Twenty years ago, the public took a more forgiving view of protestors. Juries initially failed to agree on a verdict on charges against four of the Fairford defendants. Olditch and Pritchard were subsequently cleared of all charges after two trials. Josh Richards was also tried twice after admitting he wanted to set fire to a B-52 bomber. Twice, he walked free. Only Margaret Jones and Paul Milling were found guilty – at the second attempt – and were treated relatively leniently. Milling was given a conditional discharge and a £250 fine. Dr Jones was given a five-month curfew order. So perhaps this explains what's going on in Starmer's mind. He, of all people, knows that juries are quite likely to side with conscientious protestors on an issue like Gaza. So it is cleaner simply to outlaw protest groups from the start. For someone who believes in the rule of law, it's a clever way of getting round the rule of law. "Yes, they should stand trial. Yes, they've committed criminal damage," Baroness Helena Kennedy, a fellow civil rights lawyer told me. "But to label them terrorists seems extraordinary to me. It's going down the old Trump road, and I don't like it at all. There's a sense in which you have a US government which has no respect for the rule of law and there's now a kind of poison seeping into our own legal aquifer." As I write, another four protestors have been arrested by counter-terror police at Brize Norton. You can't help wondering whether the concept of terrorism itself is being somewhat watered down by the Starmer government. And you can't help wonder at the philosophical somersaults taking place in Starmer's mind as he stands everything he argued for 20 years ago on its head.
