The Thirwall Inquiry substantive hearings into the Lucy Letby case will begin in September and call on the testimony of parents of babies, hospital executives at the time of the incidents, and various bodies such as the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health that in 2016 investigated the increased mortality at The Countess of Chester
At the Preliminary Hearing of the Thirwall Inquiry (held on Thursday 16 May 2024 at Chester’s Roodee Racecourse, in giving her update on the work of the Inquiry undertaken so far, Counsel to the Inquiry, Ms Rachel Langdale KC, reminded the hearing that a public inquiry is not adversarial but an inquisitorial process; a search for the truth in connection with the issues the Inquiry is charged to investigate.
We now know that the Inquiry will sit at Liverpool Town Hall and that its substantive evidential hearings will commence on 10 September with opening statements from core participants and evidence the following week from parents.
Live-links versus livestreaming – a need for openness and transparency
The Preliminary Hearing was mainly convened to hear oral submissions regarding the arrangements for making the Inquiry hearings publicly accessible. As a result of both Crown Court and Court of Appeal reporting restrictions in place and the need to avoid breaching these orders, Counsel to the Inquiry submitted that the oral evidence should be shared with Core Participants and the press over live link without any time delay and subject to undertakings, and that members of the public would be able to attend the hearings in person and review a daily transcript of the hearing subsequently.
Ms. Langdale was joined in this suggested approach by Counsel for The Countess of Chester, Mr Andrew Kennedy KC, who expressed a view that witnesses may be less willing and able to speak frankly and with candour if they have a concern about livestreaming of their evidence being given. I am with Counsel to one of the group of families, Mr Peter Skelton KC, when he said that is “an extraordinary submission to make.” It’s even more extraordinary when you consider that the hospital under scrutiny, one that needs to demonstrate openness and transparency, is advocating this restrictive approach to broadcasting. As the Hearing was reminded, staff of the hospital are public servants and as such are accountable to the public. Many will have a legal and professional duty of candour to the families and public. And to suggest that witnesses may be less than open and candid if their evidence is livestreamed ignores the fact that this is a public inquiry, and that their evidence will be given on oath.
As each of the Counsel for the groups of families explained, it is difficult to think of any public inquiries in modern times where there has not been livestream broadcasting and especially of inquiries that are of such importance as this one. Such inquiries have had to deal with and have overcome the difficulties of reporting restrictions, notably the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse. In any event, many of the reporting restrictions may well no longer pertain by the time of the evidential hearings later in the year.
The most compelling reason though for the livestreaming of the Inquiry is that this is what the families want as explained by each of their respective Counsels. This will surely weigh heavily in Lady Thirlwall’s consideration and determination of the matter.
Favourable treatment of the Press and Media
Whilst the public remain unsure at present about the extent of their access to the livestreamed evidence, it’s clear that the press and media will have full access to the live hearings. Perhaps rather unfortunately, in response to a suggestion from Counsel for one of the group of families that the work of the Inquiry needed to be seen to be done and not just by those physically present at the hearing, Lady Thirlwall implied that this could possibly be achieved through the press who she said “are usually described as the eyes and ears of the public”. I, for one, would be concerned to think that the press could ever become a proxy for my attendance at a public inquiry. Some of the same press and media who have written with such vitriol about those involved in this case.
Ms Langdale KC in her update to the Inquiry also took the opportunity to record the assistance that the Inquiry had received from “some excellent work by members of the press and broadcast media,” citing a number of broadcasts and a podcast listened to by millions of people. This may all seem a little strange in the context of what needs to be (and be shown to be) an independent and impartial public inquiry, particularly in view of some of the vitriolic press and media reporting that we have seen.
We are not all “conspiracy theorists”
A supplementary argument in support of livestreaming in public advanced by Counsels for the families, is that livestreaming would act as an “antidote” to the conspiracy theories that are spreading on social media. Indeed, there seemed to be some fairly strong antibodies towards conspiracy theorists because of the distressing and harmful effect on families. It’s hard, however, not to agree with Alan Rushbridger’s sentiment that whilst the world doesn’t need a single more conspiracy theorist, it does need people who are prepared to devote weeks, if not months, to evaluating evidence with an open mind. Let’s hope that the Inquiry will act with an open mind and demonstrate that it is doing so, and that those who have genuine concerns about this case will persevere in pursuit of answers to those concerns.
コメント