Lucy Letby inquiry hears killer-nurse was hurt by ‘Angel of death’ label

Your support helps us to tell the story

Support Now

Find out moreClose

Our mission is to deliver unbiased, fact-based reporting that holds power to account and exposes the truth.

Whether $5 or $50, every contribution counts.

Support us to deliver journalism without an agenda.

Louise Thomas

Editor

Lucy Letby said she was “distressed” that doctors publicly referred to her as “angel of death” and “murderer” in the months after she was removed from caring for babies, an inquiry has heard.

The child serial killer nurse was switched from the Countess of Chester Hospital’s neonatal unit in July 2016 to clerical duties after consultant paediatricians told management they feared she was harming patients.

Six months later, chief executive Tony Chambers convened a meeting with consultants to tell them to “draw a line under the ‘Lucy issue'” after it was said two independent reviews had found no evidence of deliberate harm and a grievance procedure that Letby took out over her removal had been upheld in her favour.

The Thirlwall Inquiry into the events surrounding Letby’s crimes was told that Karen Rees, head of nursing in the urgent care division, read out a statement from Letby, directed to the consultants, at the January 26 2017 meeting ahead of her planned return to the unit.

Letby, 34, from Hereford, is serving 15 whole-life orders after she was convicted at Manchester Crown Court of murdering seven infants and attempting to murder seven others, with two attempts on one of her victims, between June 2015 and June 2016.

One doctor who attended the meeting described the statement as a “melodramatic dissertation”, the inquiry heard.

Letby stated: “My life was turned upside down and subsequently put on hold when I was unexpectedly informed, in July 2016, that I was being redeployed from the unit following a period of annual leave. I have not entered the unit since.

“There has been a huge element of dishonesty throughout this process and I want to ensure that you all hear my perspective and are aware of the impact your actions have had on me.

“I appreciate that we all have a right to raise concerns and that the protection of our vulnerable patient group, is, of course, of paramount importance. However, I find it extremely unprofessional and hurtful to have been made aware of such unsubstantiated insensitive comments, as listed below, often via ‘word of mouth’.

“Some of these were voiced in public areas/meetings. It was only through the submission of my grievance that all of these ‘comments’ were confirmed.

“Members of your team have been heard to publicly make comments such as ‘Angel of death’, ‘murderer on the unit’, ‘cold and calculated’.

“A member of the consultant team when asked how they would feel if I were to kill myself or if something were to happen to my elderly parents as a result, has been documented as replying ‘I do not care’.

“No individual and certainly no parent should have to hear something as distressing as this.”

She added: “Due to my professionalism/dedication/commitment/work ethic I have exceeded expectations in my new role and remained in work, despite time off being suggested by numerous people on many occasions.

“The reason for remaining in work being that I am completely innocent of all verbal allegations made against me which has been confirmed within my grievance report.

“The unit is a small, close-knit team with some members also being friends. Having to limit contact with them and be under the pretence of a voluntary secondment has resulted in my support network being extremely restricted. The secrecy of this situation has been, in my opinion, to protect you more than it was to benefit me – I have never had anything to hide.

“The detrimental effect this has had on me, my family, and potentially my future is immense. Many months of worry, distress, secrecy and uncertainty has had a significant impact on my physical health, general wellbeing and self-confidence. I am not the person I was before this began.

“It is only now that there is some light at the end of the tunnel that I feel as though I can start to try to become the person I was before.

“Although this has been very traumatic, my strong desire to remain in Chester and within CoCH remains and I am hopeful that we can find a professional way forward to enable my return to where I feel belong.”

Among those at the meeting was consultant anaesthetist Dr Sean Tighe who was asked to attend as a witness in his role as union representative for the doctors.

Asked about Letby’s statement, he told the inquiry: “Well, I thought it was completely inappropriate. We had been told that the meeting was to explore the reports, the contents of the reports, and to explore the possibility of Ms Letby returning to work, not to hear a 20-minute melodramatic dissertation from Ms Letby herself.”

Dr Tighe said the consultants responded by “completely denying” they had made any derogatory remarks, which Mr Chambers demanded they apologise for.

The inquiry has heard the consultants continued to raise concerns and Letby did not return to the neonatal unit as hospital bosses eventually called in Cheshire Police in May 2017.

The inquiry is expected to sit at Liverpool Town Hall until early next year, with findings published by late autumn 2025.