Child serial killer Lucy Letby has lost a Court of Appeal bid to challenge her conviction for the attempted murder of a baby girl.

Letby’s lawyers asked senior judges for approval to appeal against her most recent conviction after being found guilty following a retrial in July of attempting to kill a newborn known as Child K.

On Thursday, lawyers for the former nurse told the Court of Appeal that the attempted murder charge should have been “stayed” as an “abuse of process” due to “overwhelming and irremediable prejudice” caused by media coverage of her first trial, and that the retrial should not have gone ahead.

We conclude that the judge was right to find that Letby would be able to have a fair trial

Her lawyers did not argue that the conviction was unsafe because of the fact that the former nurse maintains her innocence.

Following the hearing in London, three senior judges dismissed Letby’s bid.

Lord Justice William Davis, sitting with Lord Justice Jeremy Baker and Mrs Justice McGowan, said at the start of their ruling that they would “refuse permission” for Letby to challenge the conviction.

In a ruling briefly interrupted by a fire alarm inside the Royal Courts of Justice, he said: “We conclude that the judge was right to find that Letby would be able to have a fair trial.”

Letby, 34, was previously sentenced to 14 whole life orders for the murders of seven babies and the attempted murders of six others, with two attempts on one child, and was sentenced to a 15th whole life term for the attack on Child K.

Thursday’s ruling marks Letby’s second appeal bid to be thrown out, after the Court of Appeal dismissed a challenge against her first set of convictions in May.

Letby, who watched the hearing via a video link from HMP Bronzefield wearing a green dress, showed no reaction as the judges gave their ruling.

Her offences took place at the Countess of Chester Hospital’s neonatal unit, where she worked as a nurse, between June 2015 and June 2016.

Once the trial concluded, there was an inevitable demand for those with close knowledge of the case to speak to the media

Following Letby’s first trial, which ran from October 2022 to August 2023, the jury was unable to reach a verdict in the case of Child K, but a second jury took just three-and-a-half hours to convict her at the retrial at Manchester Crown Court.

Jurors were told that Letby targeted the “very premature” infant during a night shift at the Countess of Chester Hospital in the early hours of February 17 2016 by dislodging Child K’s breathing tube after she was moved from the delivery room to the unit’s intensive care unit.

The court heard that she was caught “virtually red-handed” by a colleague, consultant paediatrician Dr Ravi Jayaram, as he entered Nursery 1 at about 3.45am, who intervened and resuscitated Child K.

Dr Jayaram told jurors he saw “no evidence” that she had done anything to help the deteriorating baby as he walked in and saw her standing next to the infant’s incubator.

Giving evidence, Letby said she had no recollection of the event described by Dr Jayaram and did not accept it had taken place.

Child K was transferred, as planned, to a specialist hospital later on February 17 because of her extreme prematurity and died there three days later.

The sentencing judge, Mr Justice Goss, said that Child K was “exceptionally vulnerable” and that the attack was “another shocking act of calculated, callous cruelty”.

After being sentenced, Letby, of Hereford, said “I’m innocent” as dock officers led her away.

The notion that after a substantial criminal trial that police officers should not speak to the media is fanciful

On Thursday, her barrister Benjamin Myers KC told the court that media coverage before the retrial was “saturated with unadulterated vitriol towards Ms Letby”, which included comments by police officers and members of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) that created “powerful prejudice against the defendant”.

He said: “It really is not what should happen at all and in the circumstances of this case, bearing in mind all that had already happened, the public interest could be met by finding that there was an abuse (of process).”

The CPS opposed the appeal, with Nick Johnson KC telling the court on Thursday that the bid was “misguided” and that media reporting had been “mischaracterised”.

He said: “What was said by police in the aftermath of the convictions in the first trial was reasonable and it accurately and moderately described the horrendous offences (for) which this applicant had been convicted.”

But Lord Justice William Davis said: “The trial of Lucy Letby was a matter of national public interest.

“Once the trial concluded, there was an inevitable demand for those with close knowledge of the case to speak to the media.”

He continued: “The notion that after a substantial criminal trial that police officers should not speak to the media is fanciful.”

Nothing we have said can contribute to any debate about the wider case against Lucy Letby

Lord Justice William Davis said that given the nature of Letby’s convictions, reaction in the media was “bound to be hostile and can hardly be otherwise”.

He added: “This application related to a narrow legal issue. Nothing we have said can contribute to any debate about the wider case against Lucy Letby.”

Letby’s legal team has previously told the BBC that it plans to ask the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) to review her case.

The CCRC investigates potential miscarriages of justice and can refer cases back to the Court of Appeal for consideration.

Meanwhile, a public inquiry into the events surrounding Letby’s crimes, chaired by judge Lady Justice Thirlwall, continues at Liverpool Town Hall after beginning last month.

The judge said inquiry hearings would finish in early 2025 and she expected to publish her findings by late autumn of that year.

She also said that the “huge outpouring of comment” and “noise” over Letby’s convictions had caused “enormous additional distress to the parents who have already suffered far too much”.

A court order prohibits reporting of the identities of the surviving and dead children involved in the case.