How a malicious phone call almost collapsed serial baby killer Lucy Letby's first trial - that found her guilty of murdering seven newborns

The first trial of neo-natal nurse Lucy Letby almost collapsed at the 11th hour when a malicious caller claimed one of the jurors was biased against her, it can be revealed today.

Midway through the jury's deliberations last August a phone call was made to Manchester Crown Court claiming that a male juror had visited a shop and told the owner the jury had 'made up their minds about her from the start.'

Ben Myers KC, Letby's defence barrister, cited this 'juror irregularity' as one of the reasons why her convictions were unsafe when he applied to appeal them in April. All four grounds of appeal were later rejected.

Legal restrictions have prevented the media reporting details of the appeal and the 'juror irregularity' until today.

But the Mail can now reveal that the phone call, which was made on August 2 – almost a month after the jury began their deliberations on July 10 - was investigated by the court, on the orders of trial judge Mr Justice Goss. He identified the juror, who was questioned about the allegation.

It subsequently emerged that the shop owner had a grudge against the juror's partner, who used to work at the establishment, because they had fallen out over the sale of a mobile phone.

The court heard that the juror's partner was assaulted by the shop owner on August 2 when she went to retrieve her phone because the owner had not paid her for it.

Police were called and the issue was dealt with 'by community resolution,' prosecutor Nicholas Johnson KC said.

'Within an hour or two the complainant was on the phone to the court…(this was) not mere coincidence,' Mr Johnson added.

Letby's appeal hearing was told the issue was treated very seriously by Mr Justice Goss, who, using questions approved by the prosecution and defence, brought the juror into court to ask him about the allegation directly.

Mr Johnson said that the juror told the judge: 'Ah yes, this was a person that my partner used to work for and he was dealt with by the police for assaulting her a few days ago.'

Mr Johnson also added that the juror did not recognise the complainant's version of events and claimed not to have visited the shop or spoken about case.

Following the questioning, Mr Justice Goss concluded: 'I've had the benefit of observing the trial jurors over nine months and questioning the juror today he answered the questions clearly and in a straight-forward manner. 

'Neither his demeanour or answers gave any indication of being untruthful and he was unaware of what he was being asked. (There is ) no reliable material to show the juror has done anything other than faithfully follow my initial directions.'

He allowed the juror to continue with the rest of the panel, who carried on with their deliberations until their verdicts were made public 16 days later on August 18.