More than two years before the proceedings began, a judge imposed an order banning the press from identifying any of the victims or their families

The imposition of far-reaching and highly unusual reporting restrictions resulted in the “sacred principle of open justice” being “abandoned” during the Lucy Letby trial, a leading barrister has said.

Politicians and legal campaigners have warned that the anonymity orders preventing the naming of the victims and their families as well as a number of key witnesses, will have a “chilling effect” on court cases of the future.

More than two years before the proceedings began, a judge imposed an order banning the press from identifying any of the victims or their families, despite the fact they had already been widely named when Letby was first charged.

The decision followed highly emotional arguments put forward by police and prosecutors on behalf of the families that claimed the press would report the trial in an “irresponsible manner”, unless all the names were removed.

The reports of Letby’s appearance at Warrington Magistrates’ Court on 12 November 2020, in which only the most basic facts were published, was described in one police statement as “concerning”.

There was also an inaccurate comment in one statement submitted to the court, suggesting the media had “released” the names of the murder victims into the public domain, when in fact that was done lawfully by the Magistrates’ Court.

Court sketch of Lucy Letby appearing via video link at Warrington Magistrates' Court in November 2020

In a concerted bid to persuade a judge of the need for blanket anonymity, pro forma application forms were submitted on behalf of the families, stressing the negative impact press coverage of the trial would have on them.

Cheshire Police, which was led by Chief Constable Darren Martland at the time, supported the applications on behalf of the families.

In a hearing in December 2020 the prosecution argued the ability of the victims’ parents to give evidence would be severely affected if they were named in any coverage of the trial.

Handing down her ruling, Mrs Justice Steyn - who was not the trial judge - said she was satisfied “the quality of evidence given by each of these witnesses is likely to be diminished by reason of fear or distress on the part of the witness in connection with being identified by members of the public as a witness in the proceedings”.

Throughout the trial the victims were identified only as Babies A to Q, making it difficult for members of the public to follow the evidence easily.

But in a further challenge to the principle of open justice, lawyers for a number of Letby’s colleagues also successfully applied for anonymity, arguing that their mental health would suffer if they were identified during proceedings.

This included a doctor at the Countess of Chester Hospital, who had grown close to Letby, and whom the prosecution suggested she had been trying to gain the sympathy of when she embarked on her killing spree.

A handwritten note found after her arrest read: “My best friend. Love. I loved you and I think you knew that. I wanted you to stand by me but you didn’t.”

Dr A, who is married, told the court he had been the subject of unrequited affection from Letby and said his wife had also been targeted by her on social media.

He denied being in a relationship with the nurse, despite the court hearing they had spent hours messaging one another late at night and had even taken a trip to London together.

It was the prosecution’s claim that she had attacked babies because she enjoyed the drama of being in a crisis situation with him.

He said he had suffered from severe anxiety for four years and believed he would struggle to give clear and accurate answers in court if his true identity was revealed.

The doctor, who now works at another hospital, also made the point that at the time of the trial, his son was doing GCSEs and his daughter A-levels and were both unaware of his involvement in the case.

Lucy Letby reacting emotionally during her trial at Manchester Crown Court

His application for a blanket ban on him being named was granted and when he began giving evidence from behind a screen at Manchester Crown Court, Letby became emotional and tried to leave the dock.

A consultant from the hospital was also granted anonymity after telling the judge she had suffered the loss of her own child at the Countess of Chester and had struggled with mental health problems, anxiety and depression.

Another doctor on the unit was granted anonymity after the court heard she had been the subject of press attention following the loss of another premature baby in 2015, resulting in her suffering from PTSD.

A nurse who worked with Letby said managing her mental health throughout the trial would be a challenge and her concerns about being identified were exacerbated because she wore a name badge at work.

Another nurse, and close friend of Letby, complained she had suffered from stress and low mood since the inquiry had begun and was worried she would need to take time off work if she was named.

A prison van carrying Lucy Letby arriving at Chester Crown Court in November 2020

A consultant at the Countess of Chester successfully applied for anonymity telling the court she had a history of mental health, anxiety and depression.

She said she had previously given evidence in a child homicide case and had found the reporting more traumatic than the act of giving evidence itself.

She told the court if her name was made public it would diminish the quality of her evidence.

Despite one lawyer warning that replacing the names of so many people with letters risked turning the trial into “alphabet soup”, the judge granted anonymity orders for all those who applied.

Once the trial started at Manchester Crown Court in October 2022, even the defendant’s name was removed from the daily court lists which are published and made available to members of the public.

The unprecedented measures taken in this case have sparked widespread concern over the preservation of transparency and open justice in criminal courts.

Lucy Letby charge sheet

Geoffrey Robertson KC, the eminent barrister, said the precious tradition of open justice had been “abandoned” during the Letby trial.

He said: “Open justice is the most sacred of all British legal traditions, yet in this case it was abandoned because witnesses and victims said they felt discomfort about being identified.

“Their claim to privacy was allowed to outweigh the public right to see justice done. But this is not a question of balancing these two irreconcilable values: open justice should always prevail, except in cases of national security or where victims would be seriously harmed.

“That appears not to be the case here and the very fact that these secrecy applications succeeded will doubtless encourage more attempts to suppress information about what goes on in court.

“It was unsatisfactory that in this case the application was made by the prosecution, the agent of a state that should be proud of its open justice tradition.”

Robert Buckland, the former Justice Secretary, also criticised the wide-ranging anonymity orders, and said “embarrassment or anxiety” for witnesses was not a good enough reason to hide their identities.

He said: “There are some cases where witnesses in criminal trials require anonymity to protect them, but it is usually reserved for situations where there is a threat to life. It is a criminal offence to disclose the identity of a victim of sexual offences also.

“The last time we saw this was in the trial of Thomas Cashman, who murdered Olivia Pratt-Korbel. In that case the key prosecution witness was granted anonymity because there was a very real concern that her life would be in danger.

“Section 46 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence act, which allows witnesses to be granted anonymity, should only be applied in exceptional cases. It was not designed to be the norm and every effort must be made to preserve the principle of open justice.

“For a judge to grant lifelong anonymity to a witness they must be satisfied that there are compelling and exceptional reasons. Embarrassment or anxiety over having to give evidence does not seem to me to be a strong enough argument.”

Manchester Crown Court

Nazir Afzal, a former chief prosecutor for the North West, commented that the move could have “a really chilling effect on other trials”.

He said: “I have come across it in cases of serious and organised crime where there has been a potential threat to life to a witness giving evidence.

“Indeed we saw it recently in the case of Thomas Cashman, who murdered Olivia Pratt-Korbel, where one of the key prosecution witnesses was granted anonymity in order to protect her.

“But a threat to life is not something that is an issue in this case. I would like to know more about the thinking behind it because some people seem to have been granted lifelong anonymity on the basis that they would find the experience of giving evidence traumatising.

“Every witness could argue that they may be traumatised by having to give evidence in a high-profile trial. The importance of identification is that we don’t have secret courts where secret evidence is heard, not in the UK.

“Our system is open so everyone can see it and everybody has an opportunity to form their own view of the credibility of evidence. Justice has to be seen to be done.

“I recognise this is serious and the most horrific kind of case. That said, the victim or witness in any crime could say they are triggered and traumatised... This could have a really chilling effect on other trials.”

Britain’s most prolific child murderers before Lucy Letby

Dawn Alford, executive director of the Society of Editors, also criticsed the decision to grant a number of wide-ranging anonymity orders to key witnesses calling it “deeply concerning.”

She said: “While the Society appreciates that there will be instances where anonymity for witnesses is necessary and appropriate to ensure the proper administration of justice, the approach in the Letby case and the unproven criticisms of the press, sets a worrying precedent for the treatment of witnesses in future criminal trials that attract significant public interest.

“It is essential that judges carefully consider the implications of imposing reporting restrictions and granting anonymity to key witnesses without compelling evidence to justify doing so.

“Moving forward, all applications for anonymity orders should continue to be approached with a great deal of caution in order to ensure that the fundamental principle of open justice and transparency is not undermined.”

Lucy Letby

Penelope Gibbs, director of the Transform Justice pressure group, said that more support should be provided to those giving evidence in high profile trials.

She said: “The principle of open justice exists for very important reasons. If a witness is anonymous, then the scrutiny that can be applied by members of the public following the trial is significantly impacted.

“I am very supportive of the principle of open justice. As a general rule, witnesses in criminal trials should be identified but we do need to do more to support the welfare and mental health of those giving evidence.”

Richard Garside, director of the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, said the respected and established press was being punished for the sins of social media.

He said: “In the world of social media, every single person’s reputation is potentially open to all sorts of allegations made by random keyboard warriors around the world.

“I can understand why professionals who just want to get on with their job might think twice about giving evidence because they could have some shadow hanging over them for years.

“It does raise the question of whether this is the thin end of the wedge or just a highly unusual case?”

Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month, then enjoy 1 year for just $9 with our US-exclusive offer.