David Davis MP‘s speech in the House of Commons adjournment debate 26th March 2026, shining light on the conduct of Cheshire Police in the Lucy Letby case, quickly attracted widespread media attention and social media commentary.
Neil Wilby Media’s contribution simply focuses on the key facts, evidence, and reasoned arguments he presented. This reduction captures the core without any commentary.
Context and Overall Argument
Mr Davis argued that Cheshire Police’s investigation (Operation Hummingbird) into the deaths and collapses of babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital’s neonatal unit (2015–16) involved serious professional failings, departures from statutory guidance and best practice, and a narrow focus on Letby that suppressed alternative explanations. He concluded this contributed to what he and others view as a serious miscarriage of justice. He drew a direct parallel to the Sally Clark case (wrongful conviction based on flawed statistics, later quashed), noting that Cheshire Constabulary, also the investigating police force in that case, and the CPS should have learned from it.
He based his critique on reviews by two highly experienced former police officers whom both, initially, believed Letby was guilty, but changed their view after examining the evidence:
- Dr Steve Watts (former Assistant Chief Constable; author of national police guidelines on investigating deaths in healthcare settings).
- Stuart Clifton (former Detective Superintendent; led the Beverley Allitt investigation; initially commissioned by The Sun to “confirm” Letby’s guilt).
Key Facts About the Neonatal Unit at Countess of Chester Hospital
- The unit was failing, with “at best inadequate, at worst appalling” medical management.
- It had no neonatal specialist consultants (only general paediatricians).
- Experienced advanced neonatal nurse practitioners were dismissed to save money.
- 20% staffing shortfall; doctors conducted ward rounds only twice a week (instead of twice daily) for fragile babies.
- Outbreaks of antibiotic-resistant infections (Pseudomonas aeruginosa, MRSA, C. difficile).
- Poor hygiene: sewage dripping from ceilings; inadequate counter-infection processes (contrasted with stricter protocols at Liverpool Women’s Hospital).
- A week after Letby’s suspension, the unit was downgraded and barred from admitting very ill babies.
- Pre-police reviews (including by the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health) found no evidence of criminal activity but highlighted systemic shortcomings in care. Police ignored this; the jury was never informed. Its exclusion suppressed alternative explanations.
- There were 12 stillbirths in the hospital during the same period; Letby was nowhere near them, yet this was ignored.
Mr Davis listed multiple departures from law, guidance, and best practice:
- Narrow focus and failure to pursue all reasonable lines of inquiry
The investigation shifted dramatically after a single meeting on 15 May 2017 with two consultants (Dr Stephen Brearey and Dr Ravi Jayaram), who had themselves been involved in poor care. Within 24 hours, Operation Hummingbird launched, with Letby as the focus. The senior detective’s language reportedly became “inappropriately emotional.” Police did not treat the consultants, other nurses, or cleaners as potential suspects or fully explore unit failings, infections, or hygiene issues. This breached:- Section 23(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (all reasonable steps and lines of inquiry).
- Code of Practice para 3.5 (pursue lines pointing away from the suspect).
- Expert witness issues
- Failed to appoint a panel of experts as advised by the National Crime Agency (NCA) on 26 May 2017 (recommended disciplines: forensic/neonatal pathologists, toxicologist/clinical pharmacologist, experienced neonatal nurse, etc.).
- Stood down medical statistician Prof Jane Hutton after initially engaging her.
- Inadequate due diligence on experts appointed (e.g., led by retired paediatrician Dr Dewi Evans).
- “Cherry-picked” statistics; failed to properly engage real experts on complex statistical evidence or inform the jury accurately.
- Failure to refer to specialist CPS unit
The case involved multiple victims and medical authorities and was “sensitive, serious and complex.” CPS and police guidance required referral to the Serious Crime and Counter Terrorism Division (specialist London unit). Instead, the regional Merseyside and Cheshire CPS handled charging decisions. When the specialist division later reviewed additional charges, it rejected them as not meeting the evidential test. - Other issues
- Ignored or suppressed evidence of systemic failings and alternative causes of death/collapse (natural causes, poor care, infections).
- Consultants who raised suspicions had documented poor care incidents (e.g., wrong punctures, misplaced tubes leading to deaths or collapses; one misled the jury on timing, contradicted by his own emails).
- Failure to disclose critical material to the defence (mentioned as one of several failures).
The Member for Goole and Pocklington argued the police began with an assumption of criminality (murder by one individual) rather than objectively investigating a spike in deaths on a known failing unit. This tunnel vision, combined with procedural breaches, meant the case was built around Letby, whilst alternative explanations were sidelined. He stressed that proper procedure (panel of experts, full lines of inquiry, specialist oversight) exists precisely to prevent miscarriages like Sally Clark’s. The two reviewing officers’ shift in view after examining “the hard facts” provided independent validation of his concerns.
Conclusions and Calls to Action
- On the evidence, there were “clear and serious departures from statutory guidance and multiple deviations from best professional practice.”
- Davis indicated he would call on the Director of Public Prosecutions to review the behaviour of both Cheshire Police and the CPS.
- He challenged the police: If they believed they acted appropriately, they should disclose key investigation documents (senior officer policy/decision books, records of lines of inquiry and potential suspects, notes of meetings with experts and the NCA) to Letby’s lawyers.
- The Criminal Cases Review Commission application is underway.
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Neil Wilby is a journalist, court reporter and transparency campaigner who has reported on police misconduct, regulatory failures, and criminal and civil justice since 2009. He is the founder and editor of Neil Wilby Media, launched in 2015.
Page last updated: Monday 6th April 2026 at 12h55
Corrections: Please let me know if there is a mistake in this article. I will endeavour to correct it as soon as possible.
Right of reply: If you are mentioned in this article and disagree with it, please let me have your comments. Provided your response is not defamatory, it will be added to the article.
Contact Us: Please email via this weblink.
Image credits: NWM
© Neil Wilby 2015–2026. Unauthorised use, or reproduction, of the material contained in this article, without permission from the author, is strictly prohibited. Extracts from, and links to the article may be used, provided that credit is given to Neil Wilby, with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.
Neil Wilby Media 
Leave a comment