The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article, in a manner that does not comply with Wikipedia's policies. Editors are encouraged to use neutral mechanisms for requesting outside input (e.g. a "request for comment", a third opinion or other noticeboard post, or neutral criteria: "pinging all editors who have edited this page in the last 48 hours"). If someone has asked you to provide your opinion here, examine the arguments, not the editors who have made them. Reminder: disputes are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote.
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cheshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cheshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CheshireWikipedia:WikiProject CheshireTemplate:WikiProject CheshireCheshire articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hospitals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hospitals on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HospitalsWikipedia:WikiProject HospitalsTemplate:WikiProject HospitalsHospital articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
The introduction says she has planned an appeal. Today the first attempt was rejected, and even though she can try again the rejection today indicates it’s unlikely to succeed. So the intro line should either be clarified that it’s been rejected now at this stage or removed, since we don’t now need to say an appeal is some future event. 78.25.220.227 (talk) 21:37, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
She has asked for permission to appeal against her convictions remains true, but may not be the optimal wording. The encyclopaedic information here is really that she continues to deny culpability and is fighting the conviction. My wording may also not be optimal ("fighting" could be considered editorialising, although perhaps it is accurate), but a sentence that summarises main text and says something like that would be appropriate. Any suggestions? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:01, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that's strictly correct. She now has 14 days to renew her appeal request so that it can then be heard by 3 judges. The refusal stands unless she renews the request in the timescale - it's not automatic. I'm assuming she would do that but I haven't seen any statement from her legal team confirming that's what they are doing. Maybe i missed it. Absent that, then the reported position is limited to her request to appeal having been denied. DeCausa (talk) 11:03, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When I said it was true but not optimal, I meant it remains true that she has asked permission to appeal (we might tweak the tense), but it is not optimal because it is time bound reporting and at this point we are in a grey area where we could further report that this has been refused, placing that in a second sentence that may or may not need changing in the next few days. But Wikipedia is not a newspaper. My point is that the encyclopaedic information is not really this at all. The encyclopaedic summary is simply that she (actively) maintains her innocence. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:30, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. The current position is that there is no outstanding request to appeal. That may change but WP:CRYSTAL. DeCausa (talk) 11:51, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But she still asked permission to appeal. See my comment regarding tweaking the tense. Again, the point is that we should focus on the encyclopaedic content and not a running commentary of events. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:14, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is currently no request for appeal. Yes, she "asked" but that request is resolved. She has to ask again if she wants to pursue it - at this point we don't know whether she will or she won't. But saying she requested an appeal without saying what the outcome of the request is when it is known makes no sense and is misleading. The body of the article phrases that way and I'm really quite puzzled with why you have a problem with the lead being similarly phrased. It is entirely encyclopaedic to state what the outcome of an already mentioned appeal request is. If it';s going to be mentioned without the outcome it gives the erroneous impression that it hasn't been decided. DeCausa (talk) 13:29, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure where the disagreement is here. Having said from the start that this wording is not optimal, I asked for suggestions for a better sentence that captures what is salient here - preferably without becoming outdated in the next day or two. Thoughts? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:41, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The body text is fine. For the lead it just needs amendment from "She has asked for permission to appeal against her convictions" to "She asked for permission to appeal against her convictions which was refused". If it's subsequently announced that she's applied again then it would be adjusted accordingly. But we don't know that at this point. (Probably it would change to something like "After her initial request for permission to appeal against her convictions was refused she has sought a review of that decision.") DeCausa (talk) 15:03, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but I don't agree with that change because, taken in isolation, with no knowledge of this case, that sounds like it is all done, whereas in the next day or two it may turn out that it is not. "initially refused" might do. But the point I made is not to uphold the status quo, but to argue that the status quo is wrongheaded. The encyclopaedic summary here, that would not need daily tending, is that she continues to maintain her innocence. It is not really necessary to say, in the summary in the lead, anything about the ins and outs of the appeals process. How about replacing the whole of She has asked for permission to appeal against her convictions. A retrial of one count of attempted murder is also planned. with
Letby continues to maintain her innocence in respect of the convictions.
Thus taking all CRYSTAL out of the lead. This also closely mirrors her own words.[1]Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:17, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with any of that. What's the source that she is maintaining her innocence after her appeal request was refused? That's speculative and even if it wasn't i don't think it's appropriate for the lead anyway. The only statements of encyclopaedic value are to do with the appeals process and where she is with it. Having her appeal request turned down is hardly just the "ins and outs". it's pretty fundamental and entirely speculative whether she tries to take it any further. Let's just stick to the hard facts as known. Adding "initially" might work - but what's the trigger for taking it out - wait for 14 days and if nothing is heard take it out? If there's a reference to the appeal then it's refusal must be mentioned. Taking out the appeal request is an option but adding in unnecessary text on her claims is an NPOV issue. By the way, what's the problem with updating in a few days? WP:NOTPAPER. DeCausa (talk) 15:45, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it "unnecessary text" to state that she maintains her innocence? How is that POV? Surely a refusal to report, in any way, that she maintains her innocence is the NPOV issue. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:03, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's the tone of a miscarriage of justice. All we can say is that she maintained her innocence at trial; submitted appeals paperwork in September claiming innocence; and made a statement in December that she was innocent. But I've just noticed that the lead doesn't actually mention that she pleaded not guilty. How about: "Letby maintained her innocence at her trial and subsequently applied for permission to appeal her conviction. Her application was refused and it is unknown whether she will submit a further application", remembering to remove the last 11 words on 14 February if nothing fuirther is reported! DeCausa (talk) 16:20, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)She has been refused permission to appeal and faces a retrial on one charge in June 2024. In December 2023 she wrote that she maintains her innocence.[2]NebY (talk) 16:21, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or rather, She has been refused permission to appeal and faces a retrial on one charge in June 2024. A December 2023 panel hearing was told that she maintains her innocence. NebY (talk) 16:26, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ok with that too (although my preference is for my own wording above the {ec}!). Sirfurboy might say that there's too much finality in the appeal permission refusal wording. DeCausa (talk)
Good point re the lead not having mentioned that she pleaded not guilty. I'm wary of saying that she wrote her statement for the December NMC hearing in December. Perhaps we can adjust your text slightly? "Letby pleaded not guilty at her trial and told a subsequent panel hearing that she is innocent. Her application to appeal her conviction was refused in January 2024 and she faces a retrial on one charge in June 2024." Text could be added if she makes a further application and/or whenever that's considered. NebY (talk) 17:21, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You wait all day for a sentence and then three come along at once. ;) I'll support this rendering. All three are an improvement. It doesn't resolve the fact it could need updating any day now, but that's okay. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:31, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Couple of tidy ups needed on the reference to the "panel": (1) WP:LEAD - good practice would be to have the statement to the panel hearing also mentioned in the body with the citation there rather than in the lead. I can't instantly spot where it should go in the body - any ideas? (Just on that, I find the huge "Murders" section somewhat unwieldy and difficult to navigate. It would be better to break out Murders, including Motivation; Prosecutions, trials and convictions; and Post-Conviction as sections at the same level rather than all under Murders) (2) the reference is somewhat cryptic: what panel? suggest it's described as as "a Nursing and Midwifery Council disciplinary panel". DeCausa (talk) 22:50, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good points. There's a brief sentence in the body, indeed the last one of the last section "Other reactions", "Letby was removed from the nursing register on 12 December 2023." A few words of clarification there wouldn't go amiss. I was a bit uncomfortable with bare "panel" but didn't want to be long-winded either; I'd be content with "a Nursing and Midwifery Council disciplinary panel" but as the point for the lead is more that she continued to claim innocence than precisely where the claim was made, would "a disciplinary panel" or "an NMC disciplinary panel" do? NebY (talk) 23:03, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated body and lead with the renewed application to appeal, but removed the body sentence that she'd applied for permission to appeal (sadly, Wikipedia has many such sentences that were once the current status but are no longer). NebY (talk) 14:10, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well done for remembering the update! DeCausa (talk) 15:12, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 February 2024[edit]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
In the introduction paragraphs it says “Letby pleaded not guilty at her trial and told a subsequent Nursing and Midwifery Councildisciplinary panel that she is innocent. An application to appeal her conviction was refused in January 2024 and she faces a retrial on one charge in June 2024. ”. This needs to be reworded as it gives the impression that the retrial is related to her claims of innocence, as if she has won the right to a new trial for a previous conviction on appeal, when in actual fact it is a retrial on an additional charge that hadn’t been agreed on before by a jury. It needs clarifying that it is a retrial that may lead to a further conviction on top of the others, not a retrial to tell if her existing convictions really are sound. 78.25.220.227 (talk) 21:39, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
possibly - I'll tweak to clarify. DeCausa (talk) 21:45, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 February 2024[edit]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
.svg){kind=small}
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 14:11, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
Done reliable source found[3], infobox edited with "as of January 2024". NebY (talk) 17:22, 11 February 2024 (UTC)