Thirlwall Inquiry Should Have Been Paused Pending Letby Case Review
Source: https://www.theguardian.com/profile/editorial. "The Guardian view on Lucy Letby: Thirlwall should have waited for the pending case review | Editorial | The Guardian." September 15, 2026. www.theguardian.com
The Gist
The Guardian argues that the judge running the inquiry into baby deaths at the Countess of Chester hospital made a mistake by pressing ahead while Lucy Letby's guilt was still being legally challenged. Since the whole report assumes Letby is guilty, if her convictions are later overturned, the entire basis of the inquiry's findings and recommendations would collapse—so officials should have waited for the criminal case review to finish first.
Conclusion
Lady Justice Thirlwall's decision to proceed with the public inquiry into the Countess of Chester hospital, rather than pausing it until Lucy Letby's potential appeal was resolved, was a mistake, and ministers should have intervened to delay it.
Premises
- The inquiry's report takes Letby's guilt as a given, and its central findings (e.g., that certain babies could have survived with earlier intervention) depend entirely on this premise
- The legal process regarding Letby's convictions has not yet run its course, with a Criminal Cases Review Commission decision on whether to refer the case to appeal expected soon
- If any of Letby's convictions were ruled unsafe, the whole basis of the report would be undermined
- The inquiry cost over £18m and is recommending significant changes to NHS services affecting millions of people, raising the stakes of getting its foundational premises right
- Doubts will continue to swirl over the inquiry's findings until the appeal question is resolved
Assumptions
- An inquiry's credibility and recommendations are substantially undermined if its foundational factual premise (Letby's guilt) is later overturned
- It is possible and would have been appropriate to pause a major public inquiry pending an external legal review of uncertain duration
- The value of proceeding with urgently needed safety reforms is outweighed by the risk of the inquiry's conclusions being invalidated
- Ministers had the authority or standing to override Thirlwall's procedural decision
- The bereaved families' wish to proceed, while understandable, should not have been decisive in the timing decision