The use of anonymity orders protecting several medical witnesses in the Lucy Letby case has come under renewed public scrutiny, with critics questioning whether such measures may have affected perceptions of transparency surrounding the trial.

Nine medical witnesses from the Countess of Chester Hospital were reportedly granted lifelong anonymity when giving evidence. The protections were intended to address concerns about the potential impact of public identification, including professional and personal consequences.

The issue has gained fresh attention following the identification of Dr Mark Deakin, a former colleague of Letby who was granted anonymity during her criminal trial. His idenтιтy became public in September 2026 after the court order protecting him was lifted following his d#ath in July at the age of 53.

Deakin gave evidence from behind a screen during Letby’s trial and was one of several former colleagues whose testimony was presented to the jury. The BBC noted that none of Letby’s convictions rested solely on his evidence.

The wider question of anonymity remains more complicated. Official material from the Thirlwall Inquiry confirms that court orders protecting the idenтιтies of certain hospital staff remained in force during the inquiry and that some former staff members continued to be referred to by ciphers.

Supporters of anonymity argue that protections can be important when witnesses face serious personal or professional consequences from being identified. Critics, meanwhile, have argued that extensive anonymity can make high-profile cases harder for the public to understand and may contribute to speculation about what witnesses were told or how their evidence was ᴀssessed.

Those competing considerations have become particularly significant in the Letby case, where questions about hospital procedures, medical evidence and the handling of concerns have continued to attract attention.

Letby was convicted of murdering seven babies and attempting to murder seven others and received whole-life sentences. She continues to maintain her innocence, while the Criminal Cases Review Commission is reviewing her convictions.

The renewed discussion over witness anonymity does not, by itself, establish that the protections affected the reliability of the evidence or the outcome of the trial. Instead, it has reopened a broader debate about transparency, witness protection and open justice in one of Britain’s most closely watched criminal cases.

Source: BBC News, ITV News and Thirlwall Inquiry