
Lucy Letby is a ‘convenient SCAPEGOAT' who must have retrial – her conviction could easily be blown apart, says Farage
The Reform leader said there were 'serious questions' about the case which have left him with increasing doubts over her conviction in recent months.
6
6
Letby is serving 15 whole-life orders in jail for the murder of seven babies over a year-long reign of terror between 2015 and 2016.
She was also found guilty of trying to kill seven others during her time at the Countess of Chester hospital.
Letby, 35, has always maintained her innocence and her conviction in 2023 has since been scrutinised by some medical experts.
It includes a panel of doctors led by Dr Shoo Lee who says the prosecution misinterpreted his evidence on how air embolisms could lead to discolouration of a baby's skin.
Several politicians have since expressed scepticism over the initial verdict, including Reform leader Mr Farage.
Revealing why he waded into the debate, he told The Sun: 'I think, as a political thought leader, it is quite right to ask questions.
'And I haven't come out unequivocally on this, but I increasingly think that the argument for a retrial is very strong.'
'The argument that it should be looked at again is very strong. If you look at what's happened with the neonatal units, not just in Chester, but we could look at East Kent, we could look at two or three others, where the rates of baby death have been too high.
'I just have this horrible feeling that she might have been a very convenient scapegoat.'
Mr Farage highlighted that since 1970 there have been 500 miscarriages of justice in Britain and he 'fears this could be another one.'
He added: 'I'm not saying Lucy Letby is innocent, I'm not saying it's all made up.
'I've just increasingly over the months had doubts.
'And I think having confidence in our judicial system has been a fundamental point of what has made this country great.
'We, since Magna Carta all those years ago, have had more faith in our judicial system than any other European country. Maybe even overall any other country in the world. And I think the Letby case raises serious questions.'
The Letby case hit the headlines again this week as three former senior staff at the Countess of Chester hospital were arrested for gross negligence and manslaughter.
6
6
6
Cheshire Police said the arrests 'did not impact on the convictions of Lucy Letby for multiple offences of murder and attempted murder".
Instead the cops said the arrests related to the decision-making of the senior leadership team in the hospital during the time of the killings.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
.jpeg%3Fwidth%3D1200%26height%3D800%26crop%3D1200%3A800&w=3840&q=100)

The Independent
17 minutes ago
- The Independent
Parliament's master bellringer hit with £100k court bill after tearing out neighbours' gates
Parliament's master bellringer has been hit with a £100,000-plus court bill after tearing out the front gates of his banker neighbour's £2m west London home during a neighbours' fight. Retired financier Nicholas Partick-Hiley bought his mews cottage in Disbrowe Road, Fulham, in August 2023, planning to make the property a dream home for his retirement alongside wife, Lisa. But the 64-year-old was shocked when he arrived on the day of completion to find his new neighbour - Parliament bellringer Adrian Udal, 65, - demolishing the door and roller gate securing the front of his home. Mr Udal insisted he had a right to do what he did as he owns the land the gate was on, but the couple sued and won the case last month after Judge Nicholas Parfitt branded Mr Udal's actions "wanton destruction" and 'carefully pre-planned'. And now Mr Udal - Secretary of the Belfry at St Margaret's Church, a medieval building next to Westminster Abbey which acts as place of worship for the Houses of Parliament - has been left facing a £100,000-plus bill after being ordered to pay the legal costs of the case. In a short hearing at Mayor's and City County Court, Judge Parfitt ordered him to pay £85,000 up front towards his neighbours' estimated £100,000-plus legal bill. He will also have to pay the couple £10,000 compensation for what he did, as well his own lawyers' significant costs, which have not been revealed in court. Mr Udal is a veteran bell-ringer, whose Secretary of the Belfy role involves liasing with clergy when bellringing is needed for special church, state and parliamentary events, while he is proud to have 'rung in' the New Year almost every year since 2000. He also works as a broadcast editor and has a keen interest in antique clocks, while his wife, Helen, is also a campanologist, being bell tower captain at St Gabriel's Church Pimlico. Mr Partick-Hiley is a retired financier and former managing director and head of sales for North America investment banking specialists Panmure Gordon. During the trial last month, Judge Parfitt was told how the two neighbouring homes are in an unusual layout, with the Partick-Hileys' house located behind Mr Udal's property and reachable across a drive and through a passageway, which passes under part of his house and into their courtyard. The drive and passageway are owned by Mr Udal, but the Partick-Hileys have the right to pass over it to get to their house, the court heard. Explaining the background to the row, Mark Warwick KC, for the Partick-Hileys, said: 'On the day of completion, Mr Partick-Hiley arrived at the property at about 12.10. 'He was astonished to find Mr Udal and another man. The two men were in the process of destroying the door and gate. They were also disconnecting wiring that connected the property to various services. "No advance warning of any kind had been given by Mr Udal, or anyone on his behalf, that such extraordinary behaviour was going to happen. 'Mr Partick-Hiley endeavoured to remain calm. He contacted his solicitors, he felt helpless. 'Mr Udal and (the other man) continued with their demolition work until about 5pm. 'His actions were plainly carefully pre-planned. No amount of persuasion, including the involvement of the police, has caused him to resile, or seemingly regret, his actions. 'The impact of these actions, and contentions, has been serious, their quiet enjoyment and actual enjoyment of their home has been disrupted.' The couple sued for an injunction against Mr Udal, claiming the right to put up new gates across the opening which leads to their house, citing "security concerns" in the affluent street. They said they were aware of a conflict between their home's previous owner and Mr Udal before moving in, but thought it was settled until Mr Udal was witnessed dismantling the disputed gate. Through their solicitors, they had contacted him two months before the move, explaining that they planned to install 'better looking and more functional gates' once they moved in, although making clear they would welcome Mr Udal's input on the style and design of those gates. But in response, the couple alleged their new neighbour began to plot how to remove and install new gates, buying his own set of metal barriers on July 13, 2023, which Mr Warwick claimed showed that 'he was planning to carry out the destruction of the existing gates'. When the day of completion arrived, 'Mr Udal and his accomplice duly set about destroying the gates and disconnecting services running through the driveway', he added. Their barrister claimed Mr Udal had "carefully planned" what he did and did so "at a time to cause maximum disruption and distress." Soon afterwards, the couple's lawyers wrote to Mr Udal insisting that the removed gates were their property and that it was up to them to decide what alternatives should be put in their place. 'Mr Udal disagreed,' said the KC, adding: 'On 10 September, he began to hang metal gates, of his own choosing, right next to the pavement.' In court, the couple insisted they have the right to erect and site entrance gates "on either side of the opening that runs under part of Mr Udal's house," plus the right to park a car in the area. But Mr Udal insisted their right only extends to having the strip gated at the front of the property next to the pavement and they have no right to have a car on his land. He said that in removing the existing roller gate and door, and installing a new gate next to the pavement at the end of the driveway, he had done no more than assert his legitimate rights as freehold owner of the passage between the two homes. Handing victory to the bell master's neighbours, Judge Parfitt slammed his "wrongful act of wanton any reasonable and objective person should have realised would cause considerable upset and discomfort" and ordered him to pay £10,000 damages. "Mr Udal was a poor witness who came across as preferring his own perception of what might be helpful to his own case, regardless of any objective reality," he continued. "The overall impression was that truth for him, in the context of legal proceedings at least, was no obstacle to a clever argument about language or the other evidence. "He referred to his destruction of the roller shutter and furniture as his having 'returned' it to (the former owner). This is also using expressions normally used to describe something helpful - getting something back to the owner - as a means of sugar-coating the reality of what he was doing: destroying part of the claimants' property on the very day they were moving in and would have expected to find the roller shutter and furniture providing a secure and private barrier between the road and their new house. "On a balance of probabilities, the defendant had planned to destroy the roller shutter and furniture on the day of completion and perhaps hoped that it would be a fait accompli by the time the claimants arrived. In any event, he continued his actions even after they had arrived and it was clear that they objected." The judge found that the gates Mr Udal removed were in the correct position and that the couple have a right 'to pass and re-pass either on foot, or with or without vehicles" down the drive and passage. He added: "Mr Udal's actions in respect of the roller gates and furniture was an inappropriate and wrongful act of wanton destruction designed, in my view, to, at best, take advantage of the gap between owners occurring at completion, and conduct which any reasonable and objective person should have realised would cause considerable upset and discomfort to the new owners." Returning to court last week to decide on matters consequential to his judgment, Judge Parfitt ordered Mr Udal to tear out the gate he installed within two weeks. He said the Partick-Hileys would have the right to install their own, but that if it is to be lockable they must ensure that Mr Udal is able to get in if he wants to get to the back of his house. He also ordered him to pay £85,000 towards their lawyers' bills - estimated at over £100,000 - ahead of an assessment at a later date. His own lawyers' bills were not revealed in court papers. Representing himself via a video link, Mr Udal said he was planning to challenge the decision on appeal.


The Sun
18 minutes ago
- The Sun
Fresh hope for thousands of households suffering with extreme service charges planned by government law change
THOUSANDS of households will be able to challenge extortionate leasehold service charges more easily, the government has said. Households who live in leasehold properties pay fees to the person who owns the building or their managing agents for services including building insurance and maintenance. These service charges can include repairs and maintenance for things such as the roof, windows, drains and gutters. The payments are usually due twice a year and the exact amount can vary depending on the costs the landlord incurs. This can mean that they can be hit with surprise bills that can often run into thousands of pounds. Almost five million homeowners pay service fees, which have risen by 11% in the last year to an average of £2,300 a month, according to Hamptons. Leaseholders have been promised that the system will change by several governments and Labour when it was in opposition. The government is hoping to tackle this problem by forcing companies to be transparent about the fees they are charging, Sky News reports. The reforms will be introduced after a consultation, the government said. Leaseholders will receive standardised service charge documentation that will explain clearly and in detail how the fees are calculated and where their money is being spent. Other reforms will stop leaseholders from automatically having to pay for a landlord's legal costs even if they have won their case. The changes will allow homeowners to challenge unreasonable service charges more easily, housing minister Matthew Pennycook said. He added that the changes will put pressure on managing agents to reduce the fees. It will also introduce a strict new qualification system for managing agents to try and improve standards in the sector. Mr Pennycook told Sky News: "The system has some inherent inequities in it that do allow leaseholders to be gouged and particularly when it comes to managing agents there are unscrupulous people out there. "They are abusing leaseholders and there's poor practice. How do service charges work? Service charges are fees paid by a leaseholder or resident and are set by the landlord. The amount varies every year depending on costs to the landlord. The details are usually set out in your lease. Landlords usually calculate the fee based on what they think they will spend. At the end of the year they should provide a statement. Some leases allow landlords to ask for contributions towards a "sinking fund" which is a reserve that can be built up for larger scale works. These could include repairing the roof of the building or fixing issues with the foundations. "The reforms we are announcing today and reforms that are to come are going to bear down managing agents and ensure the sector as a whole is properly regulated." Unfair charges Some leaseholders have said that they have been charged unfair fees. Judges have made some landlords pay back up to £100,000 after the leaseholders took them to tribunal. In one example, the leaseholders were charged £135 to change two lightbulbs. In February 2023, it was revealed that landlords and insurance brokers were taking up to 60% of the £1.6billion leaseholders paid for building insurance as hidden commissions. New rules now stop insurance companies from choosing policies just to earn the highest commission. But brokers and managing agents are still allowed to take commissions. The government has previously promised to ban excessive building insurance commissions through the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024. Instead, landlords will only be able to charge a straightforward and fair "permitted insurance fee" for the work they actually do, making costs clearer and protecting leaseholders from hidden charges. However, these proposed laws still need further legislation to come into effect, and the government hasn't yet provided a timetable for this. A spokesperson for the Ministry of Housing previously sold The Sun that "far too many leaseholders" are being hit with "unreasonable and extortionate charges". New rules planned by the government also plan to introduce commonhold agreements to replace leasehold ones. Commonhold allows flat owners to jointly own and manage their buildings, which cuts out landlords and property management companies. But the proposed rules only apply to new homes. How to challenge fees Leaseholders have the right to request extra information from their landlord within six months of receiving a summary of costs. You can challenge a cost if you think it's unreasonable, the standard of work is poor or you don't think you should have to pay it. For example, you could question why you need to pay for lift maintenance if you live in a ground-floor flat and it's not included in your lease. Or you can challenge for communal services, such as a garden that is always closed or a concierge that never has any staff. To challenge these services you need to apply to a tribunal which has the power to rule on whether the service charge is reasonable or payable. In England this is the first-tier tribunal (property chamber). In Wales it's the leasehold valuation tribunal. Applying to the tribunal usually costs a fixed fee of £114, but you may be able to waive it if you have certain benefits. If your case is transferred from court to the tribunal, you'll only pay the difference between the court fees and the tribunal fee - or nothing if you've already paid more than £114 in court fees. If a hearing is scheduled, you'll need to pay an additional £227 hearing fee. Speak to the Leasehold Advisory Service online at or call them on 020 7832 2500 to find out more and get free advice on service charge issues. You could also apply to the Housing Ombudsman if you want to complain about how your service charge fees have been managed. The Ombudsman said cases have jumped by 25 per cent in the last four years. .


North Wales Live
18 minutes ago
- North Wales Live
Ex-Wrexham AFC bidder and Chester FC owner dies as tributes paid
Stephen Vaughan, an ex-bidder for Wrexham AFC and the former owner of Chester City, has passed away. His son, also named Stephen Vaughan, confirmed the news of his father's death in a post on Facebook. In a heartfelt tribute, Vaughan Jr, who himself had a stint as a player and later as an owner at Chester City as well as a director and manager at Bangor City, stated: "Absolutely devastated, the best man I've ever known. RIP Dad our hero". Vaughan Sr's tenure in football was marked by controversy, having acquired Chester in 2001 from American Terry Smith and subsequently guiding the club to promotion back into the Football League in 2004. However, his ownership took a turn for the worse when the Blues plunged into financial turmoil, entering administration with debts amounting to £8 million following their relegation in 2009 – the same year Vaughan became the first owner to fail the Football Association's 'fit and proper person' test. The Vaughan family, led by his son, bought the club out of administration, but issues persisted both on and off the field, culminating in Chester's expulsion from the Football Conference in February 2010 and subsequent dissolution in the High Court a month later, reports the Daily Star. Vaughan was also jailed for 15 months for fracturing a police officer's cheek in a drunken rage, during a disturbance outside his home. His career also spanned boxing promotion, directorship at rugby league club Widnes Vikings, and chairmanship at Barrow. His family was also involved with Bangor FC. He also bought Maltese club Floriana in April 2012 with his son, who captained Chester during his father's ownership and was appointed president soon after. The Vaughan family ended its association with Floriana in February 2014 but continued to have an involvement in Maltese football as sponsors of Mosta and Hibernians. His son's Facebook post was filled with tributes from friends and family, with many simply posting "RIP" and broken heart emojis, while another said: "So sorry to hear this sad news Ste, condolences to you and the family". A second added: "Condolences to the family Ste! What a gent your dad was!" And a third said: "So sorry to hear this awful news about your Dad RIP. Sending my deepest sympathy and condolences and prayers to you and all your beautiful family." Boxer Derry Matthews also paid tribute to him, and said: "They say he only takes the best and he's taking one of the greatest men ever, my first ever manager who got George out of retirement to train me, thank you for everything Ste. "People in the boxing world are going miss you, no one could do a prep talk before a fight like you, you would have me wanting to walk through walls and with you by my side in changing rooms we could beat anyone. "Gutted for my mate @stephen_vaughan_85, Pat and all the family on the loss."