Trial by Media: Moral Panic, Medical Evidence and Fair Trial Rights in the Lucy Letby Case

Cassie Connolly

Introduction

In the modern world, criminal trials often capture increased media attention due to high-profile cases that involve sensational facts, perceived societal threat or dramatic narratives. The R v Letby case in 2024 concluded with Lucy Letby, a neonatal nurse, being found guilty of the murder of multiple babies in her care in the hospital. The British and International press repeatedly deployed dramatic frames such as ‘serial killer’ and ‘murderer’ during her trial. These labels raise profound questions about the compatibility of modern media practices with the right to a fair trial. This article will discuss the impact that the intense media focus had on the trial and the legal protections afforded by article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR).

Background of the Case

Lucy Letby was a neonatal nurse employed at the Countess of Chester Hospital in Chesire, England, where she worked on the hospital’s neonatal intensive care unit between 2012 and 2016. Concerns were raised after a series of unexplained deaths among premature and seriously ill infants occurred during 2015 and 2016. Following an extensive police investigation, Letby was sentenced to life and charged with seven counts of murder and seven counts of attempted murder.

The prosecution case against Letby was constructed primarily from circumstantial and expert evidence rather than direct observation. Prosecutors alleged that a series of sudden and unexplained collapses among infants had been deliberately caused through various forms of interference, including the injection of air or insulin and the disruption of breathing or feeding. These allegations were supported by expert medical testimony which concluded that the patterns observed were inconsistent with natural causes. Letby was linked through shift data and medical records. The jury accepted the prosecution’s evidence.

The Media’s Framing of Letby

From the outset, the media coverage depicted Letby in stark terms. She was named an ‘angel of death’ and a ‘cruel, calculated’ person. Beyond the print headlines, broadcast and online reporting highlighted Letby’s demeanour, speculated on her psychology, and underscored emotionally charged details of infant deaths. Pre-trial and post-convictioncommentary by public figures and police officers described her conduct in highly motivated terms. The defence counsel cited such commentary in appellate submissions highlighting the risk that such reporting could embed a narrative of guilt in the public mind.

The Media’s Interest in the Letby Case  

The press has long taken a particular interest in criminal trials because they combine conflict and moral judgement, both of which can be easily translated into compelling narratives for a mass audience. The Letby trial was significantly potent because it involved a nurse, a figure entrusted with a duty of care to society’s most vulnerable. The press used her role and the vulnerability of the babies to create a narrative which can be understood through the moral panic theory. This involves a person being framed as a devil, symbolising broader societal fears. The press’ portrayal of Letby closely resembles the narrative structure commonly found in popular villain dramas. Plots feature a person occupying normal society who is then revealed to be dangerous. The emotional force does not arise solely from the crime itself but from the betrayal of trust. Cohen’s theory of moral panic explains how this structure often migrates from fiction to real world reporting. Once a defendant is cast in this role, individual items of evidence are no longer assessed in isolation but are interpreted through the overarching story of hidden evil.

In Letby’s case, the media repeatedly emphasised her identity as a neonatal nurse, a role usually associated with nurture and protection, thereby amplifying the emotional impact of the allegations against her and transforming the case from a legal dispute into a trial of betrayal. This kind of framing risks encouraging jurors and the public to question their character rather than the evidence shown, undermining the core presumption of innocence that is enshrined in criminal law.

Scientific Research and Public Debate

Furthermore the trial also received significant media attention as it was an unusual legal case. The prosecution’s case relied heavily on medical interpretation, statistical inference and expert opinion rather than a stereotypical case involving witnesses. Research shows that trials involving scientific or forensic complexity often generate prolonged and sensationalised attention because outlets must translate technical evidence into stories that readers will understand, which further blurs the line between legal nuance and a dramatic storyline.

Moreover, a significant strand of media commentary and expert opinion challenged aspects of the prosecution’s case and suggested the possibility of a miscarriage of justice. In 2025, a panel of 14 leading medical specialists publicly stated that there was no medical evidence to support the prosecution’s decision and argued that natural causes or poor care could explain the outcomes. The findings were submitted to the Criminal Cases Review Commission to review the conviction.

Legal Framework

Article 6(1) ECHR guarantees the right to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal. The European Court of Human Rights previously held that prejudicial media coverage can infringe this right, particularly when this coverage suggests a guilty verdict before or during the trial. An example of this can be seen in the case of Paulikas v. Lithuania. Although there had been extensive news coverage involving the objective language such as ‘the killer of children’, judges were trained to overlook bias commentary. This affirmed the need to protect the presumption of innocence where media commentary is extensive.

In UK law, courts may address prejudicial publicity through reporting restrictions under the Contempt of Court Act 1981.Previously courts have grappled with balancing open justice against the risk of prejudicial publicity. In R v Taylor 1993,convictions were quashed due to adverse press coverage which compromised a fair trial.

The Letby trial illustrates both legal responses to media influence and judicial limits. The  defence counsel argued that the pre-trial media commentary, including public statements by police and prosecutors, created “overwhelming and irremediable prejudice”, but the judge rejected this, finding that the jury directions and steps taken rendered the media impact manageable.

Challenges of Controlling Media across Jurisdictions

One of the most significant difficulties in safeguarding a fair trial in the Letby case was the global reach of media reporting. The gripping facts of the case allowed it to reach an international stage with media in countries like France and the US actively reporting on the trial. While the UK relies on Contempt of Court Act 1981 (COCA) to impose restrictions on reporting, these powers are territorially limited and cannot prevent publication by foreign media organisations. This problem was highlighted when the publication of an article in the New Yorker was blocked from online access in the UK, however was still available to UK readers on the New Yorker App. MP David Davis criticised the restriction as being “in defiance of open justice”, illustrating the tension between freedom of expression and the right to a fair trial. Furthermore, The Guardian criticised the COCA, stating that the act no longer fulfils its core function in the modern world. This shows how high-profile cases such as Letby’s struggle to contain the influence of transitional media narrative, leaving courts increasingly reliant on jurors to be self-disciplined.

Conclusion

The Letby case underscores the growing challenge of ensuring fair trials in media-intensive criminal proceedings. Legal safeguards and reporting restrictions remain crucial but may not fully counter the pervasive effects of modern media narratives. As media environments evolve, so too must legal and ethical frameworks that govern both reporting and courtroom procedure. While open reporting is a cornerstone of democracy, media coverage emphasises that character, emotion and moral certitude pose real risks to the impartiality required by Article 6 ECHR. The trial highlights how the legal system must consider the impact of modern media on trials.