Skip to content

July 2026: Government declines to widen the Thirlwall terms of reference (16 July) · new 100-page insulin report to the CCRC challenging the trial evidence (9 July) · Thirlwall report still expected no earlier than September · inquests relisted to 2027 · Shoo Lee Panel: no medical evidence of deliberate harm.

Lucy Letby Facts
Editorial summary (not a verbatim transcript)
Autumn 2024·Stephen Cross; Thirlwall Inquiry

Stephen Cross — witness evidence summary (Thirlwall Inquiry)

Stephen Cross, Director of Corporate Affairs and a former police officer, advised the Trust on how to handle consultants' concerns — including the decision not to contact police. His Thirlwall Inquiry evidence addresses how internal communications framed the concerns as an employment matter rather than a patient-safety escalation. Cross does not appear as a sworn or affirmed witness in any published Inquiry transcript; his evidence is written, and the source linked here is his supplementary witness statement of 31 March 2025.

Last updated

Editorial summary — not a verbatim transcript.

This page is a summary written for this site. It is not a mirror of the primary document, and nothing on it should be quoted as the words of any person. An earlier version of this page carried quotations that could not be verified against the primary record; those have been removed. For the underlying record, consult the primary source at thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk. See our corrections policy.

Status: Editorial summary written for this site — not a mirrored document

Original source: thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk

Context

Stephen Cross, Director of Corporate Affairs and a former police officer, advised the Trust on how to handle the consultants’ concerns. His Thirlwall Inquiry evidence addresses how internal communications framed the concerns as an employment matter rather than a patient-safety escalation, and the question of whether police should have been contacted earlier.

Key passages

Advice about the police. In a written statement dated 31 March 2025, Stephen Cross responded to questions about his account of discussions on calling in the police. He had been “asked whether I said this because I thought there was a reasonable suspicion that the nurse had committed an offence”, and answered that he had been explaining “the steps that I thought the police would take if they had reasonable suspicion that the nurse had committed an offence”, adding “I did not have any evidence that, nor did I have a reasonable suspicion that, the nurse had committed an offence”.

The call to the Coroner. Cross was asked about his communication with the Coroner’s office on 8 July 2016. He said the purpose of his call “was to fully brief the Coroner, or the Assistant Coroner in the Coroner’s absence, and I did so and told him everything available to me”. He added that he “liaised with the Coroner on a regular basis and it is my strong recollection that on 8 July 2016 I called him and updated the Assistant Coroner in respect of everything I was aware of about the current position, including the suspicions relating to Lucy Letby”.

The RCPCH email. Asked about the basis for his email to the Coroner of 6 October 2016, Cross said he could not recall his specific reasoning for writing that RCPCH was “entirely satisfied with the care within the neonatal unit and raised no concerns”. He noted that the same email stated “Dr Ravi Jayaram as the lead Consultant is also fully aware of this matter. He is called to give evidence at this inquest and will be able to answer any questions regarding the review”, which he said was intended to alert the Coroner to the opportunity to question Dr Jayaram.

Legal support for the inquests. On the Inquest of Child A, Cross said his notebooks confirmed he attended an EDG meeting at 11am on 8 September 2016 but that he had “no further notes of any meetings from that date”. Asked to name the “external legal adviser” present at a meeting on 6 October 2016, he confirmed it was Counsel, Louis Browne of Exchange Chambers, and said “it was not unusual for external legal Counsel to be instructed in relation to Inquests in which COCH had involvement, due to the specialist nature of the process”.

What to read alongside this

See our profile of Stephen Cross and the evidence of Tony Chambers on the executive decision-making.

Officials