We British take pride in our system of criminal justice. Its procedures have evolved over the centuries and we tend to assume that they are superior to all other nations. The American record is patchy. One is assured that things have improved since the days when a black defendant in a Southern state did not know whom to fear more: the court or a lynch mob. But I am also assured that these days, a British businessman facing trial in the States would be at serious risk of home-cooking: not intended as a culinary pleasure.
In Italy, there are the murder proceedings involving Amanda Knox, which left no-one satisfied. In the UK, miscarriages of justice have been rare. The Bentley case is still controversial. Yet it could be argued that he was correctly convicted, under the doctrine of common purpose - but that he should have been reprieved.
For decades, the prominent leftist journalist Paul Foot insisted that James Hanratty was not guilty and that his death sentence was judicial murder. Then DNA came along. Conclusion: Hanratty was guilty, bang to rights. He had committed murder and rape, leaving the rape victim crippled. Even those who dislike the thought of hanging might be inclined to restrain their sympathy for him.
Now we have another case which is controversial and likely to remain so. In her earlier photographs, Lucy Letby looks delightful: a poem of girlhood. No wonder that when she was first accused, one consultant's comment was: 'surely not nice nurse Lucy?' That would have been a widespread view. Charm has long since given way to stress, but in the circumstances that is hardly surprising. She was convicted of multiple murders and sentenced to spend the rest of her life in prison. If guilty, she deserved no less.
But there is the rub. Was she guilty? Jonathan Sumption, Lord Sumption, one of the mightiest legal eminences of our time, is also a historian of the first rank. He is used to weighing evidence. This writer thinks that Lord Sumption is the cleverest man he has ever met (one suspects that his Lordship might agree). His ferocious forensic prowess has led him to a disturbing conclusion: that Lucy Letby should not have been convicted, for her guilt was not proved beyond all reasonable doubt. He went on to say that it would be hard for the Court of Appeal to find a way of putting matters right.
It is impossible to think of a more unsatisfactory outcome. There has now been a report which does not resolve matters. Lady Justice Thirlwall was not invited to consider the Letby verdict. That was taken as a given. She was asked to scrutinise the Countess of Chester Hospital and its neo-natal practices. Her Ladyship has now given judgment: guilty. If she had set out to deter anyone due to give birth in the locality from using that hospital, she could not have done a better job. It is damning.
So there is an inevitable conclusion. The hospital failed parents and babies. In some cases this had fatal consequences. Lucy Letby was convicted on circumstantial evidence only. We now have a new circumstance to consider: very serious negligence. In a number of instances, Lucy Letby was not involved with the babies who should not have died. In view of the Thirlwall report, one conclusion could easily be reached: that there were no murders at the hospital. No-one set out to kill any babies. But there was manslaughter: corporate manslaughter due to negligence.
Where does this leave us and what about the poor parents? After the Letby conviction they could at least have assumed that they knew what had happened. God knows: does the supposed murder of a baby followed by a conviction lead to closure? But uncertainty: the reopening of barely-healed wounds; we shrink from the thought of the pain that the parents have endured and are enduring. They too are serving a life sentence. They have no hope of parole.
Yet that must be regarded as irrelevant. Justice must be done. Fiat justicia, ruat coelum. We must find a way of addressing a daunting task: refuting Jonathan Sumption. He thinks that the Court of Appeal would be unable to deal with this unsatisfactory verdict. Yet a way must be found of considering the whole case, in the light of new circumstances. There can be no evasion. There must now be a fresh trial, from the beginning. Lord Sumption is now parti pris, which is a pity. He would be an ideal presiding judge.
Something has to happen and those responsible must get on with it. At present, we are in a judicial limbo. There need be no assumption that Lucy Letby will inevitably be acquitted. But from what we now know, she is entitled to start again, with the presumption of innocence. Let us hope that whatever the new outcome, it will be clear and that there is a restoration of faith in British justice.