How Lucy Letby's police caution on arrest worked against her in court.
First, let's recap what a police caution is:
What is a police caution?
The police caution is a statement delivered by a police officer to a suspect who is under arrest or being interviewed as a voluntary attendee. The caution wording is standardized and typically reads:
"You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence."
The purpose of the police caution is to ensure that the suspect understands their legal rights and the potential consequences of their actions.What are the legal rights of a suspect?
Upon arrest, a suspect has several legal rights, including:
- The right to remain silent: A suspect has the right to remain silent and not incriminate themselves. They do not have to answer any questions or make any statements if they do not want to.
- The right to legal representation: A suspect has the right to have a solicitor present during questioning or to consult with a solicitor before answering any questions.
- The right to medical attention: A suspect has the right to medical attention if they need it.
- The right to inform someone: A suspect has the right to inform someone of their arrest and whereabouts.
What are the consequences of ignoring the police caution?
If a suspect ignores the police caution and provides false information to the police, or fails to mention anything which they later rely on in court, it may harm their defence. This is because their credibility may be called into question, and their defence may be weakened, as they failed to disclose relevant information or provide truthful answers during the investigation.
Additionally, any statements made by the suspect may be admissible as evidence in court, which can be used against them in a prosecution.
Police Station Agent
Of course, evidence in court has to be looked at as a whole. One or two single pieces of evidence does not of itself provide definitive proof, unless it involves the defendant being caught red-handed on camera.
In Letby's case there are two significant instances when the police caution at the station after she was arrested caught her out in the witness box with regards to the caution: "You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence."
In one instance, Prosecutor Nicholas Johnson KC for Rex, cross-examined Letby on her scribbled post-it note, as follows:
He asked her why she wrote, 'I am evil, I did this' and 'I killed them on purpose', as well as a comment that she was never going to marry or have children, unless it was a confession. Letby responded under oath that it was because she was 'completely isolated' having been removed from the neonatal ward (this would have been shortly after the death of the final baby, triplet Baby P) and redeployed in the Risk and Safety Department, in a desk job for over a year until she was arrested. Letby testified and as per her police statements that she was only allowed to speak to Dr. A (the married doctor she was in a close relationship with) and two friends from the unit. Mr. Johnson KC, then showed the jury photo after photo of Letby socialising three or four times a week with a large crowd of her nursing friends looking happy and carefree. Letby confirmed she went to salsa, 'Yes', Had a house, 'yes', Had a car. 'Yes'. Had a boyfriend'. 'Yes'. So straight away the court heard the blatant lie that Letby was 'isolated'.
Of course, it is human to remember something at one point in time differently to how one might remember it another time. But let's just recap what became apparent at the more recent Thirlwall Inquiry. From the testimony (under statutory conditions) Alison Kelly, Executive Chief of Nursing, admitted that for over a year (2015 - 2016) since the group of consultants specifically named Letby as being of concern in sudden and unexpected deaths of babies, together with collapses, she failed to register any complaint or safeguarding issue, nor informed CQC or RCPCH inspectors of the specific ongoing concerns of the doctors, hence more senior directors claimed to the Inquiry they weren't aware of them either. When Kelly did redeploy Letby to a secure office job whilst Letby's grievance was investigated, Kelly did so, as she informed the Thirlwall Inquiry, to shield Letby from the consultants' allegations. In effect, Kelly was protecting Letby and nobody at that stage - when Letby wrote her post-it notes - had even directly accused her, nor put her under investigation. On the contrary, by 2017, Kelly had upheld Letby's 'grievance' and with a 'triumphant tone' - according to a consultant at the Inquiry - announced plans to move Letby back to the unit. In other words, Letby never was accused of anything at that stage nor was she 'completely isolated' as she claimed to police and in court. So, when Nicholas Johnson KC put it to her that her notes that 'I am evil' and 'I did this', and 'I killed them on purpose' was a confession in effect, as her alternative explanation wasn't true - in other words, Letby wrote those words because she knew sooner or later she could expect a knock on the door by Inspector Knacker of the Yard as Letby knew the consultants were on to her - so she had to make up a plausible story that might explain the notes.
The second instance of, "it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence" is regarding Baby C. Evidence showed that two weeks prior, Letby had been on a two-week course in which the dangers of air embolism was emphasised. At the police station, she claimed ignorance of air embolism and said that she thought 'only adults' are affected by embolism. Other evidence showed that after the death of Baby C, Letby had texted a colleague to say that the Baby could have died from air getting into the intravenous tube, amongst other things. So that was another lie she told the police, and which the court was now entitled to hold against her.
There was also a third moment when Letby corrected herself which must have led the court to wonder, why she corrected herself when no-one had pulled her up in the first place. A colleague had left her station momentarily and when she returned, Letby was standing at the door to the unit and mentioned that the baby her colleague was looking after 'looked pale'. As the room was dark and the baby was under a darkened canopy, and when the colleague went to the baby's side, discovered it had actually stopped breathing, when asked by Mr. Johnson KC how she knew the baby looked pale if her eyesight was no better than her colleague's, Letby replied, 'Because I knew what I was looking for.' A momentary beat. 'I mean, I knew what I was looking AT'. Whilst the baby's nurse was out of the room, Letby had popped up to its bedside and lo and behold the baby stopped breathing shortly after.
No more questions, Your Honour.
