Context
The cross-examination of Dr Stephen Brearey at the Thirlwall Inquiry, by counsel for the other core participants, on his contemporaneous notes, the sequence of escalation meetings with executives, and the September 2016 consultants’ letter. It follows Ms Langdale’s examination, covered on the first page. Both are the same hearing day — 19 November 2024, the only day on which he gave evidence.
Key passages
Naming Letby. Ms Blackwell, for the former senior managers, put to Brearey that Eirian Powell was not present at the meeting of 2 July 2015 and that Lucy Letby’s name was never raised there, contrary to his witness statement recollection that “My first reaction was to say ‘not Lucy, not nice Lucy’ as before this meeting I was unaware of which Nurse Eirian Powell had identified”. Asked whether he might be wrong, he answered “Absolutely not, no, because where else would I have got that information from?”, and maintained that “as far as I am concerned that meeting definitely happened and her name was definitely mentioned”.
The Guardian interview. Mr Baker, for a number of the families, put to Brearey that he had been quoted in a Guardian article saying Executives at the Trust should have contacted the police in February 2016 and that he felt there was “an anti doctor agenda amongst some of the Trust’s senior leaders”. Asked whether the threshold for calling the police had been crossed following the Thematic Review, he said “I think that was the most likely outcome of escalating it to the Executives when I did then”. On the agenda point he agreed, and explained that Tony Chambers had removed the Medical Staff Committee’s advisory voice at Executive level.
Normalising the abnormal. Mr Skelton, for the Family group, put to Brearey that “one of the effects of normalising the abnormal is that when abnormalities occur, you don’t react as you should”, and asked whether that resonated with him; he answered “I think so, yes”. He described how, on reflection, “we had a thermostat for a level of work and a number of events that we can’t quite understand… I think it was turned up over those years so that our perception of what is normal for a neonatal unit… had changed and I think that was the case for doctors and nursing staff”.
A diagnosis of exclusion. Mr Kennedy asked Brearey where, by October 2015, his thinking sat on a range running from simple association through a competence question to deliberate harm. Brearey said that by the time the Thematic Review was finished, “in medicine we’d call it a diagnosis of exclusion. You know, that you’ve ruled out everything else and you are just left with this, this one probable even though, you know, in legal terms it was still circumstantial”. He added: “I don’t think we were ever concerned about competency issues.”
What to read alongside this
See Ms Langdale’s examination of Dr Brearey and the September 2016 consultants’ letter.