Lucy Levy was refused permission to appeal against her conviction for the attempted murder of a female infant after the judge ruled she had been given a fair trial.
The former nurse, who has served 12 life sentences, was seeking to have her conviction overturned on the grounds that she was subjected to “unadulterated abuse” in the media before her trial.
But senior judges rejected her legal challenge after a two-hour hearing at London's Court of Appeal on Thursday.
Ms Levy, now 34, showed no reaction to the judge's ruling via video link from HMP Bronzefield in Surrey, Britain's only women's prison.
Her new lawyer, Mark MacDonald, is preparing to seek a broader review of the conviction by the Criminal Cases Review Commission.
Levy was originally found guilty of murdering seven babies and attempting to murder six others in the neonatal unit at the Countess of Chester Hospital in northwest England.
She was found guilty at a retrial in June of attempting to kill a seventh infant, known as Baby K.
Ms Levy, who has always maintained her innocence, was refused leave to appeal her conviction last year and on Thursday launched her appeal against her conviction for the attempted murder of Baby K.
Levy's lawyer, Benjamin Myers KC, told the three judges that it was “unprecedented” for such “highly prejudicial and emotional” comments to be made about a defendant before a criminal trial. said.
He said police detectives had described the nurse as “evil, cruel and emotionless” and senior prosecutors had labeled her “evil, cold-blooded and calculating”. [and] After his first trial last year, he was called “manipulative”.
Myers said the trial judge, Judge Goss, erred in allowing the retrial to proceed, given the “overwhelming and irreversible” public comments on the original conviction.
He said the media had been “saturated with pure vitriol” against the former nurse even before the retrial began, adding that on ITV's Loose Women, “Was Lucy Levy born evil?” He cited 62 examples of hostile coverage, including a debate titled .
Mr Myers said it was “unprecedented” for police – in this case Cheshire Constabulary – to launch a “violent attack” on a defendant at a time when a retrial is being considered.
But Mr Justice Davis, sitting alongside Mr Justice Baker and Mrs Justice McGowan, said he would refuse permission to challenge Mr Levy's conviction.
“I conclude that the judge was right to find that Mr Levy was entitled to a fair trial,” Davis said in the judgment, which was briefly interrupted by a fire alarm blaring inside the Royal Courts of Justice in London. Ta.
The judges found that “nearly all” of the media coverage complained of was published or broadcast in the week after the conviction, so there was a significant “fade factor” in which the impact of this material diminishes over time. I concluded.
They said it was “fanciful” that police and prosecutors could not comment on defendants in emotional terms immediately after conviction. The judges found that the prospect of a retrial “did not materially affect the position.”
Davis said the ruling concerned only Levy's argument that she should not have been granted a new trial and was not based on widespread criticism of her conviction.
“This application related to a narrow legal issue,” he said. “Nothing we have said contributes to the discussion of the broader case against Lucy Levy.”
KC Prosecutor Nick Johnson said the characterization of Myers in media reports was “neither reasonable nor accurate”.
He told the judge that most of the disapproving public comments were directed at hospital management, which allowed Ms Levy to remain in the neonatal unit despite concerns from senior doctors.
Mr Johnson also said that much of the media material Mr Levy cited was published shortly after the guilty verdict was handed down in August 2023, 10 months before the retrial began, so jurors' memories could be affected. He said that the situation would “fade away” from then on.
He gave the example of a “very, very pro-Lucy Levy” article in The New Yorker published weeks before the retrial began, and said that when the article was mentioned in Parliament by Sir David Davis, “there was a huge It got a lot of attention.”
“If this court is looking for any evidence that publicity did not influence this jury, this is it, because this is very pro-Levy, anti-prosecution material, and the trial It gained a lot of attention on the internet a few weeks or days ago.
He added: “In that context, we are reminded of the old adage that today's front page is tomorrow's fish and chip wrapper.”
