The trial of Lucy Letby was conducted amid levels of press secrecy for victims and witnesses rarely seen outside proceedings involving matters of national security.
Reporting restrictions meant the media did not name any of the 17 babies who formed part of the charges and could not identify nine of the doctors and nurses who worked alongside Letby on the neonatal unit at the Countess of Chester hospital.
Two years before the trial began, a judge, Mrs Justice Steyn, made an order banning the publication of anything that could lead to the identification of the only living children until their 18th birthdays.
These children were born in either 2015 or 2016 and were now between six and eight years old. Some were living with profound disabilities – partly, the prosecution argued, as a result of Letby’s actions.
The order also prohibited the publication of anything that could lead to the identification of the parents as witnesses in the proceedings, including the surnames of the deceased babies.
Under normal circumstances a judge cannot stop publication of the names of children who have died. That is how the public knows about James Bulger, Victoria Climbié and Arthur Labinjo-Hughes, among many other child murder victims.
However, the nature of the order in this case had the effect of preventing publication of the dead children’s identities, because of the sibling groups and the fact their parents would be giving evidence.
Among the 17 babies were three sets of twins and one set of triplets.
Parents of all the children provided witness statements to the court explaining why they wanted their families to remain anonymous. Some wanted the restrictions not just to ban publication of their names and addresses but also details of their jobs, their ethnicities or nationalities, their medical conditions and the circumstances of their children’s conception, gestation and births.
A coalition of media outlets, including the BBC and the Guardian, argued that if such wide-reaching restrictions were imposed, the case would be impossible to properly report.
Steyn partially agreed, ruling that it was relevant that one of the parents involved worked as a GP – given their medical knowledge – and it was not in itself an identifying feature. She thought the same about nationality and ethnicity.
The judge also allowed the media to report that the triplets were naturally conceived and identical, on the grounds that such detail would be unlikely to lead to the identification of the living triplet or their parents.
Although Steyn’s order allowed the media to report the first names of the dead babies, media organisations agreed it would be better not to name any of the children involved in the case. Each baby was allocated a letter from A to Q to protect their identities. They were named chronologically.
The media were also banned from identifying a number of Letby’s hospital colleagues – some, but not all, of those who worked with her in Chester and who were called as prosecution witnesses. Normally, adult witnesses can be named, however distressing their evidence. Very rarely they are granted anonymity, perhaps if a judge believes their life may be in danger.
In the Letby case, the colleagues argued in witness statements submitted to the court that they would not be able to give their best evidence if they knew their identities would be broadcast worldwide. Some were friends with Letby; one was a doctor she was said to have had a crush on.
Ultimately, the judge sided with them, deciding it was more important for them to give good evidence than for the media to be able to identify them.
Letby was found guilty of murdering seven babies and attempting to kill six more, making her the worst child serial killer in modern British history.
