The Lucy Letby defence bill is around £1m.
Lucy Letby racked up a nearly £1million legal aid bill while on trial for murdering seven babies and attempting to murder six others, MailOnline can reveal.
Representatives for the serial killer received at least £980,133.92 in legal aid, the Ministry of Justice confirmed in response to a Freedom of Information request.
Ignore, for a moment the issue of her innocence or guilt. Indeed, ignore that it is this suspect. It could be anyone – you or I for example. If we are charged, do we not have the right to a defence, no matter how much it costs? And if we do not have the wherewithal, what then? Should we be denied a defence? Even the most vile murderer has the right to a proper defence in court and it is unlikely that they will have the funds to mount a defence because criminal lawyers charge and arm and a leg. Ordinary people cannot afford to go to law, so when it comes to criminal cases, the state has to step in.
Anyone facing a Crown Court trial is eligible for legal aid, however applicants can be required to pay contributions up to the entire cost of the defence it they are convicted of at least one offence they had been charged with.
What with? IOUs? FFS! This epitomises what is wrong with the legal system in this country. Only the very wealthy can really afford it. The state has brought the charges, the state should be entirely responsible for the cost of doing so, regardless of outcome and regardless of the wealth of the accused. That is what we pay taxes for. The convicted criminal pays with their sentence. In the case of Letby, I suspect that she will have little enough in assets with which to pay. As far as I am concerned, the money we paid as taxpayers gave us the resulting conviction. Assuming that the jury reached the right decision (and, frankly, I didn’t follow the case and am not really interested) then that’s it, we got what we paid for – a trial and a conviction which, hopefully, is sound.
Of course, you could argue that the whole thing is massively overpriced, but that’s another argument.
Tory MP Alec Shelbrooke has branded the CPS bill for her trial as ‘shocking’, alleging that it demonstrates how Letby’s ‘psychopathy’ continued ‘until the end’.
‘She was fully aware of her guilt but decided to put the families through the ordeal of the awful case when she could have pleaded guilty,’ he told The Sun.
‘She probably got a kick out of that — and by putting pressure and costs on to the system.’
Maybe, maybe not. There have been cases where idiots like this have made the same stupid remarks and the defendant was innocent of any crime – that’s why they did not plead guilty and went to court. That’s what the system is for – to test the evidence. Letby was under no obligation to save the state money by pleading guilty. I don’t know what was going on in this woman’s mind, but the right to plead not guilty and go to trial is a fundamental principle that should never be undermined, regardless of the guilt or innocence of the accused. She had a right to go to trial and she exercised that right. Shelbrooke can go fuck himself.
I completely agree. I would be extremely concerned if the right to trial by jury was removed from the judicial process. In all criminal cases, especially serious ones like the Letby case, the evidence must thoroughly examined and tested by a jury, with the help of experts. They should also be held publicly, so that they can be seen to be fair. When we reach a point where criminal trials are held behind closed doors, with a panel of assessing the evidence, which is what I think Scotland are proposing for rape trials, that’s a sign that we no longer live in a free, democratic nation. We have become a totalitarian state.
I found the Letby case appalling, to think that someone who was placed in charge of caring for babies, the most vulnerable of us all, and then killed them in such a cold, callous way, is truly sickening. I come from the town in which Harold Shipman committed his crimes. Though I was never a patient at his surgery, I knew people who were, and I knew people who had an elderly relative fall victim to that evil creature. I also heard some disturbing stories about him. Mostly about how cold and uncaring he appeared when dealing with patients. Particularly those over a certain age. Most patients there preferred to see a different doctor if it was at all possible. And just three miles away, back in the sixties, Brady and Hindley lived. Shipman’s house was about a mile and a half away from where their house stood.
I agree that people should have a fair trial, I am surprised that this trial went on for 9 months. That is where solicitors etc rack up the money, every phone call, every letter etc comes at a high price. Perhaps these high prices is where people should be looking.
An ex boss was sacked, this was on safeguarding grounds. Nothing was proven, nothing went to court and seems the people above him used the incident to get rid of him. He applied for another job in the same care industry. The top boss who sacked him phoned the new employer and basically slandered him. Now he still got the job and everyone said he should take the guy to court for slander. Trouble is he would have had to hire a barrister at minimum of £30,000. He couldn’t afford it. So looks like only the rich can get justice.
Alec Shelbrooke is a moron. I suppose that it is what I would expect from a modern politician. No understanding of basic rights.
The extent of his stupidity is shown in the comment “She probably got a kick out of that — and by putting pressure and costs on to the system.”
Now, let’s see. Someone charged with several murders pleads not guilty. What is the most likely explanation for that? (a) That they would prefer to be acquitted so that they are not imprisoned or life, or (b) That they get a kick out of upsetting the families and putting pressure and costs onto the system?
Hmm. Tough one, that.
And suddenly I have an accurate picture how Shelbrooke thinks about anything between everything that has happened since 2016.
Lucy Letby was innocent right up to the point when the was found guilty.
One of the key principles often unthinkingly sacrificed in ‘newsworthy’ criminal cases is that of the presumption of innocence.
It’s also the failing of many ‘activist’ allegations, doxxings, and cancellations. People accused are presumed ‘guilty’ before they even have chance to defend themselves.
Do we really want to live in a world like that?
We do live in a world like that. We need to fix it.
I followed the Letby trial quite closely.
First mini-Drakon was born around the time she was doing the devil’s work in Countess of Chester Hospital. Which is one of the hospitals we could have gone to for our hatchling to be born, fortunately my wife wanted to go to a different one. There but for the grace of God…
She still deserves the best defence available, as does anyone. And a jury trial. It’s one of the bulwarks of defence against tyranny.
The expense of it is a different matter and mostly down to lawyers in the first place. They’re the ones who write the laws and put all these stupid procedures in place. Simplify the process, make it easier to defend yourself, make it easier to do it without a lawyer. Streamline it all.
OT but I thought that you might be interested in this story.
Officials reported the tragic passing of Harris Wolobah on Friday. His family suspects that his passing may be linked to “complications” arising from the “one chip challenge” he participated in earlier in the day – a trend that’s been circulating in school districts across the country which involves munching on a tortilla chip laced with Carolina Reaper and Scorpion peppers.
Darwin in action again.
I think Windsor Davies had that one covered.
There are a great many things I resent my tax money being spent on. The criminal justice system, done right, has never been one of them
Same here.
Slightly off-topic, but related to the lunacy that is the criminal ‘justice’ system – sex offenders and paedophiles are being spared prison because they identify as trannies.
https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/09/06/how-trans-ideology-is-helping-paedophiles-walk-free/
The link in that Spiked piece about ‘Chloe’ Thompson goes to a Metro story about this pervert, and the Metro story is infuriating. It constantly makes references to ‘she’ and ‘her’, and, of course, refers to ‘her penis’.
I agree with Chernyy that the right to a fair trial and the best Defense is a bedrock principle but it’s one that is under severe attack from the likes of the fox – killing ‘Soapy Joe’ who suggests lawyers should refuse to act against Climate change protestors, alongside the link Simon Maxwell promotes. So to suggest an activist legal profession isn’t for the most part bent on removing the right to trial for most readers of this blog is probably to be naive. Maugham in particular, or Charlotte Proudman would proceed on the assumption that an ideological opponent is automatically guilty.
Well, if it’s good enough for the Soviet Union, it’s good enough for Foxy Soapy Joe.
Even a jury trial isn’t a fair trial with all the rules to twist the outcomes and hide evidence or stop someones statement.Scotlands sex offence trials are already like that and now they want to remove juries.
Echoing other posters sentiments,the legal system itself is a problem where it operates like a medieval guild with high costs, dictating who can practice law or even represent themselves while receiving ridiculous amounts of public money for for services most of us don’t get access too.