Context
Sir Duncan Nichol was Chair of the Trust Board from 2013 to 2018. His Thirlwall Inquiry evidence addresses governance: what non-executive directors knew, how board minutes recorded (or did not record) the neonatal concerns, and what challenge the board offered the executive team.
Key passages
The Clothier Inquiry precedent. Sir Duncan Nichol, chair of the Countess of Chester board from 2012 to 2020, had also been NHS Chief Executive at the time Beverley Allitt was convicted of four murders, and was tasked with circulating the Clothier Inquiry’s recommendation that the Grantham case “should serve to heighten awareness in all those caring for children of the possibility of malevolent intervention as a cause of unexplained clinical events”. He confirmed he had read that report himself, though he could not recall whether it was ever formally published, and said he had left his NHS post within a month or two of sending the letter, leaving “no possibility of follow-up action in that time period”.
Waiting for “hard evidence”. Asked whether the paediatricians’ suspicion that a nurse had caused sudden, unexplained baby deaths amounted in itself to evidence, Sir Duncan said “Not sufficient at the time”, explaining that Dr Jayaram had told the board “the only alternative is to go straight to the police and that they would want hard evidence”, and that this had influenced him: “If we had hard evidence, we would have called the police”. He agreed that being “proportionate to call the police” meant having “enough grounds for calling the police in the context of our discussions with the paediatricians at that meeting”.
Mr Medland’s advice and a regret. Recalling a meeting at which counsel Mr Medland gave an independent view on whether there was sufficient evidence of criminality, Sir Duncan said Mr Medland found no evidence of a crime but used an expression “that stayed in my memory”: that “if events are still unexplained and if well-minded people still have concerns, then the police should be called”, adding “I wish we had had that advice in July 16”. Asked about the possibility that a fuller board discussion at that earlier point could have led elsewhere, he agreed there were “a number of possibilities that could have emerged had we had the chance to debate them”.
“Fully exonerated”. Shown a message Letby sent to colleagues in January 2018 stating that after a thorough investigation “all the allegations are unfounded and untrue and I have therefore been fully exonerated”, Sir Duncan said he understood this as referring to “the vindication of the grievance panel”, which he took to concern “the way that she had been dealt with, handled, maligned” by the consultants. Asked directly whether that grievance outcome would fully exonerate her of the underlying allegations, he answered “No”.
Distance from the parents. Sir Duncan told the Inquiry he never met with Letby’s parents despite their request for an urgent meeting, saying instead “I talked to Mr Chambers and agreed that he would meet the parents”. Asked about a letter from the parents describing their “nightmare” and the effect of the ongoing restrictions on Letby’s career, he said simply “I had no insight into that”, and told the Inquiry his understanding was that direct contact with the family had been “quite limited”, involving mainly Mr Harvey and Mr Chambers.
What to read alongside this
See our profile of Sir Duncan Nichol and the evidence of Tony Chambers and Ian Harvey on the executive reports to the board.