Peter Hitchens on Lucy Letby – 'I am uncomfortable about this trial' | SpectatorTV

[Music] [Music] hello and welcome to the view from 22 I'm Michael Simmons now normally on this show we tend to look at slightly more light-hearted issues but today we're looking at something really quite serious and that's the trial and retrial of the convicted baby killer Lucy Ley now she's just been convicted again in a on a ret trial for another count and had another full life sentence added to the sentences that she's already serving she's also had her requests for an appeal denied one person who's been writing about this and calling into question the safety of her conviction is the mail on Sundays Peter Hitchens he joins me now Peter Lucy let me sat through what was the longest murder trial in English legal history she's now been convicted by two juries and had her request for appeal denied by a panel of Judges what is the issue here well the issue is the issue which is always the case with our justice system which is of course because of the the huge power of jury verdicts because you have actually been convicted by a jury of your peers the force of the conviction is much greater than if it had just been done by some appointed State panel and immediately most people will consider the issue to be closed which is not unreasonable that's the purpose in some ways of having juries that it's it's fairer and more independent but things can still go wrong with jury trial and we have most recently had the case of Andrew malkinson who endured 17 years in prison for a crime he simply did not commit and which there was a lot of evidence which showed he did not commit it which some or other didn't get considered and enormous efforts were necessary before he was released and even then the system was quite grudging about it so I don't much as I would love to say that the the English justice system is perfect because I am myself a great defender of jury trial and of everything about the English system I know that it's not from experience there are the other cases of course the the particularly the Birmingham 6 uh which took very very long periods for people to to recognize uh were were extremely faly the system initially will Circle its wagons and generally say no there's nothing particularly new about that and jurist can get it wrong and therefore if you think that they have because it tends to take a very long time to get anywhere with this and because the the idea to me I imagine to you as well of an innocent person possibly innocent person suffering in a prison particularly under the circumstances in which a convicted child killer would suffer is unendurable and to wake each morning and go to bed each night and to know that someone is in in that condition is unendurable to the Civilized conscience so you have to say I need to know is this conviction safe or not and I think it needs to be reexamined this was the the longest murder trial in English criminal history it went it went on for 10 months there was there was loads and loads of of evidence there was there was witnesses that the jury sat all through this what we have is the the decision of that jury the decision of two juries the decision of Judges Now versus speculation from parts of the media speculation from the internet what why why do you think it's on more than speculation I I think if you read Rachel aviv's long article in New Yorker which is now available in this country you can see much more than speculation I she actually got hold of the the transcript of the entire trial and read it and did a number of other very serious investigations and well and I I don't think anyone can really impeach the New Yorker for being a frivolous publication it has very very intensive factchecking even after all that is done and I think the article makes extremely persuasive case for reopening the for reopening the conviction and I think anybody who reads it does and then this has now been followed because after the end of the second trial there's a downburst of criticism of the of the way in which the trial was conducted and the way in which evidence was presented has has appeared in both the guardian and the Daily Telegraph two newspapers at the opposite hands of our political Spectrum both of them seem fit to publish lengthy uh how shall I put it uh dissent and criticism of the way the trial is conducted I think there is a there is a major problem here and I think it would be idle to ignore it what could possibly be wrong with allowing an appeal Lucy ley's defense asked to appeal on on four four different grounds including attacking the prosecution's expert Witnesses expert witness sorry including saying that one juror's potential biases were not properly examined the judges went through all four of those points and and found no issue shouldn't we have more faith in the system that actually they've got this right well the right of appeal at all has and existed for quite a short time in English legal history the when it was suggested that we should have such a a process a lot of people say well this called into question uh the safety of jury verdicts and eventually we came around the area we could have appeals it's quite reasonable for judges and appeal courts to be reluctant uh to to accept that anything's gone wrong and they will in my view generally do so unless some huge uh error by the judge has been too which it hasn't uh and I'm not particularly surprised by this in fact in almost any case you care to name uh the initial response of the justice system to any suggestion that's got it wrong say no we didn't I'm not bothered by that I still think that the the evidence against m letby is unsatisfactory for a conviction and particularly unsatisfactory for for keeping this person locked up until she dies which is the sentence of the court and uh it's not changeable but what what what is unsatisfactory about the evidence because oh right okay now we get to the point what sounds out actually about the evidence is that it is so speculative uh that we have we have theories being put forward about how the babies might have been uh murdered babies which in many cases not all cases were the subject of autopsies and in which no sign of Foul Play was found and we have uh also the statistical point on which the prosecution relied quite heavily of Lucy Le is Presence at so many of the occasions where where babies died but this is also come under considerable criticism from statisticians indeed before the trial began following the very similar trial of Lucia de Burke in the Netherlands uh pediatric nurse who was also sent to prison for a very long time for killing babies which it later turn out she had not done or he could not be proved to have done uh the the Royal statistical Society actually produced a a a quite lengthy pamphlet saying that there was a danger in Trials of this kind that people would get it wrong and urging them to adopt procedures which were not adopted at this trial but do you not think that those those advocating for for Lucy Ley or the idea that this may have been a miscarriage of Justice are actually relying too heavily on this statistical evidence the um the the the idea of the work schedule that she was always there because you know for two reasons as as we keep saying this was a a a 10-month trial they didn't spend 10 months looking at a spreadsheet there was other evidence yes there was but it it was it it was all pretty much on the basis that if you accepted that you was guilty then everything was Advanced by the prosecution made sense if you didn't accept it was guilty then it isn't quite so clear and also on the on the statistical side of things I don't think it's very much doubt that the for there were there were other deaths uh on that war at the time which he was not present which are not included in the spreadsheet so how on Earth how on Earth can the thing be made to work and it's it's not it's not really in question that the the spreadsheet evidence is dubious I'm I'm not attempting here to attack anybody uh but I think you can't the spreadsheet evidence I think can be defended because e even if you say you know Co coincidences statical coincidences happen which they of course do this this just seems It's a coincidence upon a coin when she moved from her night shifts to the day shifts the the deaths moved with her when she went on on holiday on annual Eve the the deaths the things C down on the ward how do you explain well I can only say that that that people far more qualifi I'm not an expert I'm a journalist and just as I would point out the judge was not an expert the jury were not experts Prosecuting Council weren't experts and but I would say that as I say particularly in the uh the Articles published in the The Guardian Telegraph in the past few days uh the the stat the validity of the spreadsheet statistics is called into question in a way which it it wasn't in my view called it a question during the trial but even if we look before the trial the the people who you know were experts investigating this the police when they were finally called in they didn't come in and say you know some issues have been concerns have been raised about about Lucy letby we're going to look at her cases they had individual separate officers looking at each suspicion death not talking to each other they all separately came to the conclusion that there was suspicions about Lucy leby and then the case built from there that's okay I I completely accept that and there were suspicions and there can be suspicions against anybody many people could fall under suspicion and once people start investigating matters which appear to be suspicious then they will pursue them and that's that's the nature of inquiries these things then come to trial because at trial we're supposed to examine these suspicions and see whether they add up to enough to send somebody to prison as I say I don't at the moment think that I've seen enough evidence to suggest that she should have gone to prison I'm not in any of these cases anybody who who takes up any sort of case of Injustice has to have in his or her mind the possibility that the person they're defending is guilty you have to have an open mind I don't I no point am I going to say to you Lucy leby is innocent or even that I think Lucy leby is innocent I'm in no position to to to know either of those things I'm not I'm not even aing it the point is in the in the English justice system and it is one of its glories she doesn't have to prove that she's innocent the crown has to prove that she is guilty Beyond Reasonable Doubt and my suspicion is that they haven't actually done so and I think that there no harm whatever would be done given the the huge amount of Suspicion not from not from conspiracy theorists or marginal people but as I say from from mathematicians scientists and all kinds of and doctors that the there are faults in this trial there's absolutely no harm to be done in re-examining it and and allowing an appeal but isn't isn't it it actually you know this a lot of this has come from very online people be be they scientist scientists mathematicians it's still come from online reporting of the case it's not come from no I don't I simply don't agree with that uh I think that the say that particularly the the the New York article and the the the lengthy coverage in the guardian and the telegraph this week it simply can't be categorized as that just serious people none of the the pieces that have been written about it none of the commentary about it can go into every stage so inevitably they you know they miss out little bit and certain things are not addressed such as the fact that Lucy ley's defense and Lucy leby herself conceded at trial on the stand that at least some of the babies had been harmed just not by her well I'm puzzled by this I don't see what evidential value it has for her to say that uh how how could she know well in in her medical opinion now they how could should know if they'd been harmed I mean it's it's it's it's it doesn't seem to me to be Central to the point I'm not proposing that all the people who are in who in favor of Lucy let be having an appeal should gather together with pitchforks and Advance upon the prison where she's held en forcibly freeer I'm saying that our justice system has both the criminal case review commission and the appeal court through which cases which are causing concern can be reexamined and I'm saying this is a case where reexamination seems to me to be very much called for I don't see how that can possibly be unreasonable but should we not have more faith you know in in this system our jury system where absolutely not it's not faith is for God uh and faith is also for the unknowable the what we can examine in these cases the evidence which is put forward and we can say does this evidence add up to to prove beond reasonable doubt that the person involved is guilty I think there are serious doubts have been raised in serious places about this and that those doubts should actually be the subject of a proper appeal separate from the Lucy leby case and separate to whether she is granted an appeal or not do you think there are this has highlighted you know wider problems with our prosecution system with the court system or is this very unique oh I think there are problems I think there have been for some time I I I think there's been a tendency increasingly for um particularly for prosecutors to rely very heavily upon emotion andless and less heavily upon forensic fact uh but that's a personal feeling I've had watching I I cut my teeth in journalism reporting uh court cases and magistrates and Crown courts and it seems to me to be different from the way it was when I was doing it back in the 1970s uh and I I think there there's certain other bits of procedure which which which tend towards that I'm not entirely sure uh that things were as good as they ought to be no but that's that's a much more General point I make no particular point about this case and is there and and on the general point is is there an alternative is there a better system I mean a totally different kind of case but the the Scottish government have been for some time trying to bring in Jurish trials for sexual offense that would be terrible and the jury the jury is the only thing that stops a trial from being a committee set up by the state to decide how long to send you to prison for the jury introduces into the trial the element of of uh of of of actual descent which allows there to be a serious defense which has to be listened to I I would absolutely oppose any attempt to get rid of rid of juries and I I don't think that would be the point at all no but that doesn't that you know that brings us back to the core of this that this jury saw more evidence than anyone writing for the New Yorker anyone in the guardian or anyone in the telegraph you or I and they have made this decision and they they didn't you know unanimously convict on all counts they they clearly considered no I'm I'm not I have no criticism of the jury i i i hugely sympathize with them face face with this awful case and I I I don't I don't attempt to criticize them but I I would maintain that it's perfectly possible and this has happened in history for juries to get things wrong just as it's possible for judges to get things wrong and indeed for the police to get things wrong and we shouldn't close our minds to the possibility and we have lawful functioning mechanisms to deal with it when there is a widespread feeling that something has gone wrong and we should use them I think I say I'm disappointed by the appeal court I hope that they can be persuaded otherwise and do you do you have hope for that do you think I don't know I the the the great problem with cases like this is that sometimes it can take years that the the the other Injustice in which I was involved uh which was over the the false accusation made against a dead Bishop took ages simply to get to the first base of anybody admitting there might be something wrong with it I'm used to the fact that this thing takes time uh but I'm not by any means the only person is's concerned about this case and I think if enough head of steam growery then I think eventually we will and quite rightly uh see that it's re-examined and a good thing too I can see no argument against re-examining it absolutely none I there's no you should never never begrudge any time or effort into making sure the people who are who are being punished in our prisons are there because they ought to be but we can't automatically you know reexamining reexamine everything just as just as before conviction there's rightly a presumption of innocence there surely has to be after conv conviction you know a presumption of well that was the case before the appeal court got going I I think in the 19th century that was presumed that was it if you were guilty you were guilty I think we've had enough miscarriages and I raise again the case of Andrew malkinson had enough miscarriages both in in the distant past and in the recent past to know that juries can get it wrong and the police can get it wrong not out of malice uh but but simply they can get it wrong forms of group think there are ways in which people once they've decided that that that a case is is uh is is of a certain character they pursue that they become single-minded about it this is this is well known and it's important it's important that we have people who who are single-minded about pursuing cases because otherwise prosecutions would never happen but sometimes this can go wrong but there's a there's an established bar for for re-examining a case which is there has to be absent of some legal error of the judge or something legally wrong in the trial there has to be new evidence that wasn't available at the time that you know that dis dis SK do you think there is there is there is some new evidence that was that was presented to the appeal court about the the discoloration uh supposedly being evidence of air embolism let's not get too technical here uh but I I think that the view of the appeal court was that the or was that the um defense should have presented this at the time yeah and and if if but it seems to me to be new evidence but if it was I mean it just does and so so that comes down to the phrase new the phrase new evidence is the appeal Court decides what is and what isn't new evidence is it but it's new evidence if it was not available to the defense if the defense had it at the time and chose not to use it then it's that's an interesting it's an interesting concept that isn't it I mean you say so for instance if you'd been put into jail for what the next 25 years and you were sitting there and you discovered that your lawyers during your trial had not put forward a vital piece of evidence which might have got you quitted and the appeal court said well it's it's very interesting but because they didn't present at the time uh it doesn't count what would you think well I think yeah you think hang on a minute am I am I here because I'm guilty or am I here because it would upset the procedures of the English justice system to let me go but she Lucy letby is entitled to to make an argument that she had an incompetent defense but she's not she's I don't imagine that would I don't imagine that would um I don't imagine that would produce much good for her or anybody else so you can see why anybody wouldn't want to do that and I'm not suggesting that defense is incompetent the only conclusion then is that any evidence they had which they didn't use at trial was because they thought it would not help their case well maybe so well what I'm saying is uh look at the evidence that that we're talking about which the appeal court judges I believe heard from a Canadian uh a Canadian Doctor Who's expert on this particular area and ask yourself uh whether it oughtn't to have been before the jury this this case more than sort of many others seems to have very quickly had you know this media coverage you talk about of skepticism of the case earlier on than we have seen in other miscarriages of Justice do you think that's a healthy new skepticism or are people just completely losing faith in the British system I have no idea I I just felt uh that I just felt uncomfortable about it during the trial and when the trial was over I was able to say so and then for many months I wasn't able to say so and now I am again I am uncomfortable about this trial I am uncomfortable about the verdict I think it would be very very wise for a justice system to reexamine it Peter thank you [Music]

Channel: The Spectator

Views: 8,185

Keywords: The Spectator, Spectator, SpectatorTV, Spectator TV, SpecTV, The Week in 60 Minutes, TWI60

Id: gNB0CaKI3IM

Length: 21min 0sec (1260 seconds)

Published: Sat Jul 13 2024