The Lucy Letby case leaves me uncertain where I stand.

Given the extensive coverage since the neonatal nurse’s 2023 convictions for killing seven babies and attempting to kill seven others, this uncertainty is understandable. The case shocked both the nation and the international community, contrasting sharply with the UK’s well-earned perception of NHS staff, especially nurses, as dedicated individuals who prioritize others above themselves.

The inquiry spanned approximately six years from beginning to verdict and was conducted by the modest-sized Cheshire Constabulary. The scope would have challenged any police force, even larger ones, so the pressure on Cheshire’s detectives must have been immense, alongside the intense public examination.

As someone who inherently trusts the criminal justice system, my initial response to the convictions was that justice had been served and the families who suffered unimaginable loss finally received some measure of fairness. Yet, after consuming considerable material about the case, my confidence in those convictions has eroded, as it has for many others. I lack the space to examine every detail, but it’s reasonable to note that respected clinicians, statisticians and other specialists have challenged the evidence used to secure Letby’s conviction, or at least questioned how heavily it was weighted.

One of the most prominent voices against the verdict is Conservative backbench MP David Davis. Shortly before Easter, he asserted in Parliament that Cheshire Constabulary committed “egregious” failures and disregarded official guidance and professional standards in their investigation of Letby. He stated that investigators neglected to engage suitable medical and statistical experts and failed to explore all potential explanations for the deaths and collapses on the struggling neonatal unit. He references two retired senior detectives with extensive experience who reviewed the case, noting that “Both policemen believed that Letby was guilty. That is, until they examined the hard facts. Both now agree. They both believe that the Letby case is a serious miscarriage of justice.”

Unsurprisingly, Cheshire Constabulary responded, particularly through Chief Constable Mark Roberts, who corresponded with Mr Davis, the Speaker of the House of Commons, the Police and Crime Commissioner and local MPs. The publicly released letter was forceful in defending the force’s position, matching Mr Davis’s criticism in intensity.

I have no issue with either man engaging in open, passionate debate on a matter of tremendous national significance where they could not be more divided. The case is not currently before criminal courts (though the Criminal Cases Review Commission is examining it), so what harm can come from discussion?

My concern lies with legal commentator Joshua Rozenberg’s challenge to Mr Roberts’ right to respond. As a journalist, I find this effort to restrict free speech astonishing. He described the Chief Constable’s letter as “unseemly” and elaborated during a podcast, stating the letter shows “that the Chief Constable is pretty cross at what he’s heard in this debate. Fed up with the criticism of his force.” He continued, “It’s not Roberts’ job to be cross though, it’s not his job to be offended. It’s not his job to be annoyed by public criticism. His job is to investigate crimes, to present evidence and ultimately, to allow the courts to decide where truth lies and justice rests.” He suggested a factual public rebuttal would have been more dignified and appropriate. Isn’t that precisely what Roberts provided? I have read the letter and detect no anger or offense in its content, only a clear statement of position.

I am not asserting that Letby is guilty as the jury determined, nor that she is innocent. However, if Mr Davis can leverage the public nature of parliamentary proceedings to insist the investigation was flawed, then surely the leader of the organization under attack possesses an equal right to respond, representing the victims’ families, the officers involved, the experts facing criticism, and above all, the cause of fairness.

Isn’t that the essence of the free speech we value, Mr Rozenberg?

Former Brighton and Hove police chief Graham Bartlett authors the Brighton-based Jo Howe crime novels and provides consultancy to authors and television productions on crafting authentic crime and policing narratives.