Lucy Letby: Former hospital bosses call for Thirlwall Inquiry to be suspended
Lawyers for former bosses of the hospital where killer nurse Lucy Letby murdered babies have asked for the public inquiry into the events surrounding her crimes to be suspended.Inquiry chair Lady Justice Thirlwall said she had received the request from counsel for the management team weeks after a panel of international medical experts blamed the deaths on bad medical care and natural causes.She said she had previously had similar pleas from Letby's legal team and Conservative MP David Davis. Submissions will be heard on the topic later at Liverpool Town Hall, along with the closing statements.
Letby, 35, originally from Hereford, is serving 15 whole-life orders for murdering seven infants and attempting to murder seven others.Lady Justice Thirlwall said that lawyers for the former hospital executives - chief executive Tony Chambers, medical director Ian Harvey, director of nursing Alison Kelly and HR director Sue Hodkinson - had also written to the secretary of state for health to seek a suspension of the inquiry.Why Letby case is under more scrutiny than everThe findings of a panel of 14 international experts in neonatology and paediatrics were revealed by Letby's legal team last month.Chairman of the panel Dr Shoo Lee said the experts had poured over trial transcripts and medical records and they "did not find any murders".Those findings have been passed to the Criminal Cases Review Commission, which investigates potential miscarriages of justice.Letby's legal team hopes the commission will refer her case back to the Court of Appeal. A crowd of about 50 people gathered outside Liverpool Town Hall before the inquiry resumed, holding signs claiming Letby was innocent.
The Thirlwall Inquiry is hearing closing submissions from core participants after it finished hearing evidence in January.In his closing speech, Neil Sheldon KC, who represents the Department of Health and Social Care, said lessons from previous cases where health professionals had harmed babies had not been learnt.In 1991 a nurse, Beverly Allitt, murdered four children at a hospital in Lincolnshire and in 2015 another nurse, Victorino Chua, was jailed for murdering two patients at Stepping Hill Hospital in Stockport.Mr Sheldon said "There has been a long standing failure to learn the lesson of past inquiries and investigations and to implement those lessons. "Recommendation have been made but insufficient action has been taken."The tragic events at the Countess of Chester Hospital should not have been allowed to happen in the first place."Lady Justice Thirlwall is due to publish her final report this autumn.
Read more stories from Cheshire on the BBC, watch BBC North West Tonight on BBC iPlayer and follow BBC North West on X. You can also send story ideas via Whatsapp to 0808 100 2230.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Metro
5 hours ago
- Metro
Harvey Weinstein found guilty of sexual assault after bombshell retrial
Harvey Weinstein has been found guilty of one charge in his sex crimes retrial, after lengthy proceedings in New York. The disgraced film mogul was initially convicted of a criminal sexual act in the first degree and rape in the third degree, in February 2020. However, his 23-year sentence was overturned last year, sparking a three-week retrial in Manhattan. After a second round of hearings, the 73-year-old was convicted of sexually assaulting Miriam Haley. He was also acquitted of a second charge stemming from sexual assault accusations made by Kaja Sokola, with the jury struggling to reach a unanimous verdict on a third count involving Jessica Mann. According to the Guardian, Judge Curtis Farber encouraged them to continue deliberating in the hopes they can find a verdict. Deadline reports that each count of first-degree criminal sexual act carries a maximum sentence of 25 years. Weinstein's previous conviction for sex crimes in New York was overturned last April by the Court of Appeal, after it was ruled that he didn't receive a fair trial in 2020. In September, he was then indicted on new sexual assault charges – but has denied all accusations against him. Earlier today, Weinstein addressed Judge Farber to plead for a mistrial, but was quickly denied. 'This is my life that's on the line, this is not fair,' the former movie producer said. 'I'm not getting a fair trial.' Although the sentencing hearing has not yet taken place, the conviction will be in addition to a 16-year sentence he is yet to serve in LA. Weinstein has been at the center of rape or sexual misconduct allegations from more than 100 people, with some claims dating back to the 1970s. More Trending The allegations sparked the Me Too movement, which highlighted sexual violence in the film industry, as well as worldwide. He has been behind bars for the last few years, and filed a lawsuit against Rikers Island at the end of 2024, calling out the conditions and services at the prison facility after suffering a number of health problems. In documents obtained by Deadline, his legal team confirmed they were seeking 'no less than $5,000,000', and demanding 'monetary damages arising from negligence, carelessness, recklessness, gross negligence, medical malpractice, intentional and/or reckless and/or negligent deprivation of medical treatment, deprivation of civil and constitutional rights, and negligent and intentional torts' that he claimed have been 'committed by officers, agents, and employees of the New York City Department of Correction'. They also named New York City Health & Hospitals Corporation, Rikers Island Correctional Facility, and New York City Health & Hospitals Corporation/Bellevue.' Got a story? If you've got a celebrity story, video or pictures get in touch with the entertainment team by emailing us celebtips@ calling 020 3615 2145 or by visiting our Submit Stuff page – we'd love to hear from you. MORE: Beach Boys co-founder Brian Wilson dies aged 82 MORE: Brooke Shields podcast episode criticising Meghan Markle quietly removed from platforms MORE: Reality TV legend's husband 'deported from US after being detained for 4 months'
Wales Online
8 hours ago
- Wales Online
Company linked to Tory Peer Baroness Mone should pay back £121m for ‘faulty' PPE, High Court hears
Company linked to Tory Peer Baroness Mone should pay back £121m for 'faulty' PPE, High Court hears PPE Medpro is being sued for an alleged breach of contract over the supply of PPE during the Covid pandemic, with the Government claiming the gowns were unusable The company in court is linked to Baroness Mone (Image: PA Archive/PA Images ) A company linked to Tory peer Michelle Mone should pay back more than £121 million for breaching a Government contract for 25 million surgical gowns during the coronavirus pandemic, the High Court has heard. The Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) is suing PPE Medpro for allegedly breaching a deal for the gowns, with lawyers for the Government telling the court they were "faulty" because they were not sterile. The company, a consortium led by Baroness Mone's husband, businessman Doug Barrowman, was awarded Government contracts by the former Conservative administration to supply PPE during the pandemic, after she recommended it to ministers. Any wrongdoing has been denied. For our free daily briefing on the biggest issues facing the nation, sign up to the Wales Matters newsletter here The Government is seeking to recover the costs of the contract, as well as the costs of transporting and storing the items, which amount to an additional £8,648,691. PPE Medpro said it "categorically denies" breaching the contract, and its lawyers claimed the company had been "singled out for unfair treatment". Opening the trial on Wednesday, Paul Stanley KC, for the DHSC, said: "This case is simply about whether 25 million surgical gowns provided by PPE Medpro were faulty. Article continues below "It is, in short, a technical case about detailed legal and industry standards that apply to sterile gowns." Mr Stanley said in written submissions the "initial contact with Medpro came through Baroness Mone", with discussions about the contract then going through one of the company's directors, Anthony Page. Baroness Mone remained "active throughout" the negotiations, Mr Stanley said, with the peer stating Mr Barrowman had "years of experience in manufacturing, procurement and management of supply chains". But he told the court Baroness Mone's communications were "not part of this case", which was "simply about compliance". He said: "The department does not allege anything improper happened, and we are not concerned with any profits made by anybody." In court documents from May this year, the DHSC said the gowns were delivered to the UK in 72 lots between August and October, 2020, with £121,999,219.20 paid to PPE Medpro between July and August that year. The department rejected the gowns in December, 2020, and told the company it would have to repay the money, but this has not happened and the gowns remain in storage, unable to be used. In written submissions for trial, Mr Stanley said 99.9999% of the gowns should have been sterile under the terms of the contract, equating to one in a million being unusable. The DHSC claims the contract also specified PPE Medpro had to sterilise the gowns using a "validated process", attested by CE marking, which indicates a product has met certain medical standards. He said "none of those things happened", with no validated sterilisation process being followed, and the gowns supplied with invalid CE marking. He continued that 140 gowns were later tested for sterility, with 103 failing. He said: "Whatever was done to sterilise the gowns had not achieved its purpose, because more than one in a million of them was contaminated when delivered. "On that basis, DHSC was entitled to reject the gowns, or is entitled to damages, which amount to the full price and storage costs." In his written submissions, Charles Samek KC, for PPE Medpro, said the "only plausible reason" for the gowns becoming contaminated was due to "the transport and storage conditions or events to which the gowns were subject", after they had been delivered to the DHSC. He added the testing did not happen until several months after the gowns were rejected, and the samples selected were not "representative of the whole population", meaning "no proper conclusions may be drawn". He said the DHSC's claim was "contrived and opportunistic" and PPE Medpro had been "made the 'fall guy' for a catalogue of failures and errors" by the department. He said: "It has perhaps been singled out because of the high profiles of those said to be associated with PPE Medpro, and/or because it is perceived to be a supplier with financial resources behind it. "In reality, an archetypal case of 'buyer's remorse', where DHSC simply seeks to get out of a bargain it wished it never entered into, left, as it is, with over £8 billion of purchased and unused PPE as a result of an untrammelled and uncontrolled buying spree with taxpayers' money." He also said there was a "delicious irony" that Baroness Mone was mentioned in the DHSC's written submissions, when she had "zero relevance to the contractual issues in this case". Neither Baroness Mone nor Mr Barrowman is due to give evidence in the trial, and did not attend the first day of the hearing on Wednesday. A PPE Medpro spokesperson said the company "categorically denies breaching its obligations" and will "robustly defend" the claim. Article continues below The trial before Mrs Justice Cockerill is due to last five weeks, with a judgment expected in writing at a later date.
Daily Record
10 hours ago
- Daily Record
Michelle Mone-linked company should pay back £121m for 'faulty PPE'
The Department of Health and Social Care is suing the firm for allegedly breaching a deal for the gowns. A company linked to Tory peer Michelle Mone should pay back more than £121 million for breaching a Government contract for 25 million surgical gowns during the coronavirus pandemic, the High Court has heard. The Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) is suing PPE Medpro for allegedly breaching a deal for the gowns, with lawyers for the Government telling the court they were "faulty" because they were not sterile. The company, a consortium led by Baroness Mone's husband, businessman Doug Barrowman, was awarded Government contracts by the former Conservative administration to supply PPE during the pandemic, after she recommended it to ministers. Both have denied wrongdoing. The Government is seeking to recover the costs of the contract, as well as the costs of transporting and storing the items, which amount to an additional £8,648,691. PPE Medpro said it "categorically denies" breaching the contract, and its lawyers claimed the company has been "singled out for unfair treatment". Opening the trial on Wednesday, Paul Stanley KC, for the DHSC, said: "This case is simply about whether 25 million surgical gowns provided by PPE Medpro were faulty. It is, in short, a technical case about detailed legal and industry standards that apply to sterile gowns." Mr Stanley said in written submissions the "initial contact with Medpro came through Baroness Mone", with discussions about the contract then going through one of the company's directors, Anthony Page. Baroness Mone remained "active throughout" the negotiations, Mr Stanley said, with the peer stating Mr Barrowman had "years of experience in manufacturing, procurement and management of supply chains". But he told the court Baroness Mone's communications were "not part of this case", which was "simply about compliance". He said: "The department does not allege anything improper happened, and we are not concerned with any profits made by anybody." In court documents from May this year, the DHSC said the gowns were delivered to the UK in 72 lots between August and October 2020, with £121,999,219.20 paid to PPE Medpro between July and August that year. The department rejected the gowns in December 2020 and told the company it would have to repay the money, but this has not happened and the gowns remain in storage, unable to be used. In written submissions for trial, Mr Stanley said 99.9999% of the gowns should have been sterile under the terms of the contract, equating to one in a million being unusable. The DHSC claims the contract also specified PPE Medpro had to sterilise the gowns using a "validated process", attested by CE marking, which indicates a product has met certain medical standards. He said "none of those things happened", with no validated sterilisation process being followed, and the gowns supplied with invalid CE marking. He continued that 140 gowns were later tested for sterility, with 103 failing. He said: "Whatever was done to sterilise the gowns had not achieved its purpose, because more than one in a million of them was contaminated when delivered. On that basis, DHSC was entitled to reject the gowns, or is entitled to damages, which amount to the full price and storage costs." In his written submissions, Charles Samek KC, for PPE Medpro, said the "only plausible reason" for the gowns becoming contaminated was due to "the transport and storage conditions or events to which the gowns were subject", after they had been delivered to the DHSC. He added the testing did not happen until several months after the gowns were rejected, and the samples selected were not "representative of the whole population", meaning "no proper conclusions may be drawn". He said the DHSC's claim was "contrived and opportunistic" and PPE Medpro had been "made the 'fall guy' for a catalogue of failures and errors" by the department. He said: "It has perhaps been singled out because of the high profiles of those said to be associated with PPE Medpro, and/or because it is perceived to be a supplier with financial resources behind it. "In reality, an archetypal case of 'buyer's remorse', where DHSC simply seeks to get out of a bargain it wished it never entered into, left, as it is, with over £8 billion of purchased and unused PPE as a result of an untrammelled and uncontrolled buying spree with taxpayers' money." He also said there was a "delicious irony" that Baroness Mone was mentioned in the DHSC's written submissions, when she had "zero relevance to the contractual issues in this case". Neither Baroness Mone nor Mr Barrowman is due to give evidence in the trial, and Baroness Mone did not attend the first day of the hearing on Wednesday. A PPE Medpro spokesperson said the company "categorically denies breaching its obligations" and will "robustly defend" the claim. The trial before Mrs Justice Cockerill is due to last five weeks, with a judgment expected in writing at a later date.
