‘Unsafe’ convictions are not a lost cause

I wanted to respond to your editorial regarding the prospects of the Lucy Letby case progressing through the criminal cases review commission (CCRC) and the court of appeal CCRC (“The Observer view: the court of appeal is failing the justice system”, 12 April).

While it is correct that the CCRC must consider whether there is a “real possibility” that the court of appeal would find a conviction unsafe, that threshold is not the same as saying a case cannot proceed. Many cases have returned to the CCRC more than once, particularly where new material, expert interpretation or evolving understanding of evidence has emerged.

The point about “fresh evidence” is also more nuanced. It is not strictly limited to evidence that could never have been produced at trial. The court of appeal has accepted that new expert analysis of existing evidence, or developments in scientific or medical understanding, can be sufficient where it impacts the safety of the conviction.

Ultimately, the legal test applied by the court of appeal is whether the conviction is “unsafe”. This is a broader concept than simply introducing entirely new evidence. It can include issues such as flawed expert testimony, misinterpretation of evidence, or concerns about how the case was presented to the jury.

It is also worth noting that the supreme court is not a necessary stage for a conviction to be quashed. The vast majority of appeals are resolved at the court of appeal level.

In short, while the threshold for success is undoubtedly high, it is not accurate to present the process as effectively closed or impossible.

R Gomez Address supplied

What an appalling story of so-called justice this is (“No apology, no justice: how the court of appeal failed Peter Sullivan”, 12 April). Merseyside police who allegedly bullied a confession out of a man with learning difficulties, the CCRC dragging its heels even when new DNA evidence proved Peter was not the murderer, and the plodding bureaucracy of the court of appeal. To add insult to injury the court failing to make any sort of apology to Sullivan and his family. One has to hope that lessons will be learned from this debacle but previous cases suggest that nothing important will change.

David Felton Wistaston, Cheshire East

I joined the Essex Youth Orchestra in 1969. The various string section tutors were members of the English Chamber Orchestra, Emanuel Hurwitz and Ivor McMahon violins, Cecil Aronowitz violas and Anita Lasker-Wallfisch on my section – cellos (“Anita Lasker-Wallfisch, the cellist of Auschwitz, on how music saved her life”, 10 April)

I remember a strikingly handsome lady, with a beautiful cello, who seemed to play effortlessly when demonstrating to us. I was frightened to death of her, but of course she was in fact lovely to us. A truly remarkable person.

Michael Fuller Bedford

Andrew Rawnsley is correct that once the public feels the punitive economic punishment of the US war with Iran, all bets will be off with the prime minister (“Starmer may have won praise for standing up to Trump, but fury over high prices will follow”, 5 April). It is an unfair denouement.

I would surmise that he and his government are hoping that this approval rating will last until the May elections and the expected electoral Armageddon will not take place.

Judith A Daniels Great Yarmouth, Norfolk

I wonder if any company producing oxygen on a future moon base would be nationalised (“US firm makes oxygen from moon dust”, 7 Days, print edition, 12 April). As anyone who has seen the film Total Recall knows, it is dangerous to hand over control of man’s basic unit for survival into private hands. Look at what’s happened to our water supply.

Pete Lavender Woodthorpe

You pose the question, Has Donald Trump finally lost his mind? (“Just another week inside the mind of a president”, World, print edition, 12 April) and offer in evidence his unhinged output on Truth Social.

Trump’s behaviour is indeed bizarre, and I am beginning to suspect his approach to the war with Iran has been inspired by Political Science, Randy Newman’s satirical 1972 song about US foreign policy.

Mike Pender Cardiff

Photograph by Niklas Halle’n/AFP via Getty Images