Miscarriage of Justice Compensation

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Wednesday 19th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve for the first time in a Westminster Hall debate that you are chairing, Mr Turner. It has also been a pleasure to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Ceredigion Preseli (Ben Lake). I thank him for selecting this topic for debate and for the outstanding representation he has given to his constituent, Mr Buckle.

There are concerns about miscarriages of justice that go beyond compensation. This debate is specifically about compensation, which I will come to, but it would be remiss of me not to note at the beginning of the process that there are various concerns, particularly around the role of the Criminal Cases Review Commission and more generally—I will come to the Law Commission report later. I will say no more than that there has been recent turbulence at the top of the CCRC and that the Justice Committee is holding a public session on that body on 1 April, when we might also touch on the subject of compensation.

I will briefly take this opportunity to say to the Minister that we are awaiting the appointment of an interim chair, following the resignation of the previous chair. We need an interim chair, and we need a strong interim chair. We also need a good process for selecting a permanent chair of that body. She will know that the Justice Committee has asked to be involved in that process as part of a pre-appointment approval hearing, and I hope that can happen. If she has anything to say on either of those matters today, that would be most welcome.

It is right that there are concerns about the process for identifying miscarriages of justice. I am pleased to see that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson), who very ably chairs the all-party parliamentary group on miscarriages of justice, is here, and no doubt she will say something about this issue. Unless we clearly identify cases, and do so in a timely manner, the issue of compensation will come even further down the line or will perhaps not even come to the fore.

We have heard that the Law Commission is producing a substantial report—it is a very substantial consultation exercise, at some 700 pages so far—looking at the way that the CCRC operates. The Law Commission correctly says that the test that exists for referring cases is a faulty one. “Faulty” is my word; what the Law Commission says is that there is a real possibility that referred decisions would not be upheld due to a new argument or evidence not raised in the original or appeal proceedings, which effectively means that the CCRC is having to second-guess the view of the Court of Appeal. The Law Commission is consulting on that, and it says that it is provisionally persuaded that the current test should be replaced with a non-predictive one.

The second important change that the Law Commission is putting forward for consultation is that the CCRC should return to what I think it was originally intended and have an investigatory function. In so many cases, evidence presented to the CCRC is not looked at in good time, and when it is looked at, it is looked at purely on the merits of what is submitted, rather than the CCRC going behind the case to see whether there has been a substantial miscarriage of justice.

Let me turn specifically to the issue of compensation. This issue has been added to the Law Commission review, and it has said, in very strong terms, that it believes that the law as it stands is incoherent on that point. The concluding paragraph in that section of the report, paragraph 16.75, says:

“The current compensation scheme seemingly prioritises minimising the risk of the guilty receiving compensation at the expense of the innocent receiving compensation. Some people who are provably innocent – on the balance of probabilities, which would ordinarily apply in civil compensation proceedings – are denied compensation. The stringent requirements of the current compensation scheme seem to be in tension with the overall objective of the criminal justice system. As noted by Lord Phillips, requiring a wrongfully convicted person to prove their innocence beyond reasonable doubt is a ‘heavy price to pay’ to ensure that no guilty person receives compensation. We consider that imposing the criminal standard of proof on an applicant is indefensible and inconsistent with the fundamental principles that underlie our criminal justice system.”

That is incredibly strong language from a body that is as thoughtful and reserved as the Law Commission.

It has also been said that some of the recent, and of course welcome, compensation schemes that have been devised to deal with the injustices in the Post Office Horizon scandal—there are four separate schemes for that—have had to be devised to deal with something that was a national outrage, affecting many thousands of people, because the current system simply does not work on its own merits.

I say gently to the Minister that all those factors are reasons why we have to look at both the issue of wrongful conviction and the issue of compensation for wrongful conviction. I do not want to go over the same ground that has been very assiduously described already by the hon. Member for Ceredigion Preseli, who secured this debate, but it has been said that, with each passing decade, there have been more and more restrictions.

There have been some positive steps. The previous Lord Chancellor, Alex Chalk, was right to end the disgrace of those who had been exonerated having to pay for their bed and board while in custody out of their compensation. That compensation is already heavily limited. The circumstances under which that compensation becomes available have, as we have heard, become extraordinarily limited. I can give one statistic in relation to that.

In 2005-06 the compensation actually awarded to victims of miscarriages of justice was £14.6 million. Ten years later—this is the total sum—it was £12,493. To all intents and purposes, compensation has ended as far as victims of miscarriage of justice are concerned. Of course, that is not everything. The important thing is to get people out of prison and clear their names once they have been exonerated. But the financial, material and other damages, including emotional damages, that in any field of civil law would be compensated, simply have not been addressed. People are still being punished.

As in the case of Mr Buckle, people are still being punished despite being exonerated. The state should not just be apologising, redressing wrong and vindicating people who have been shown to be in that situation. The idea that the “beyond reasonable doubt” test is a reasonable test, if there was ever an argument for it when it was introduced in 2014, has been disproved. The rationale was that if somebody was cleared on a technicality, it would be wrong for the state to compensate them for that. Well, the system is able to deal with cases like that. What it has done is caught everybody in its net, including the most deserving cases.

The only thing we have to think about when it comes to whether we have a just or unjust system at the moment is which historical cases would now be caught. At the invitation of the chair of the APPG, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Riverside, I attended a 50th anniversary event of the Birmingham Six a week or two ago at which there were representatives of many other miscarriages of justice. The fact remains that were the Birmingham Six now being exonerated, or the Guildford Four, the Cardiff Three or many other cases, they would not receive compensation. The line has moved so far to one side that in almost every case there is an injustice.

Yes, it is vital that we get right the way we deal with miscarriages of justice, whether that is in the Court of Appeal, the CCRC or through legislation. Clearing someone’s name and getting them out of prison when they have been undeservedly sent there is one thing. Ensuring that they, their families and their lives are put back on track requires substantial sums of money—not thousands of pounds, but often hundreds of thousands of pounds, or in some cases millions of pounds.

There are arbitrary limits and insuperable barriers, which is itself a grave injustice. The sooner that we can change that system, the better. I do not know what my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to say today, but within the next weeks and months we have to see not just a review of the rules on compensation, but a review of the whole way that the miscarriages system functions—in particular a review of the role of the CCRC, which appears to have severely lost its way.

Sentencing Council Guidelines

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Monday 17th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)]

The Sentencing Council is—it should not need saying—a non-political body whose guidelines are carefully drafted and widely consulted on. These guidelines received positive responses from the Justice Committee under its previous Chair and from the previous Government. They do not require that a pre-sentence report is ordered, they do not limit who should be the subject of such a report and they do not tie the hands of the sentencer. Does my hon. Friend agree that by dragging the Sentencing Council into the political arena without good cause, the shadow Justice Secretary degrades both the Sentencing Council and himself?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

My hon. Friend the Chair of the Select Committee makes a good point about the way in which the shadow Justice Secretary conducts himself. The important thing is that the Lord Chancellor had a constructive meeting with the chair of the Sentencing Council and there is now a process in place to address this issue.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Tuesday 11th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)]

As part of the Justice Committee’s work on rehabilitation, I have come across some excellent projects on preventing reoffending, such as Revolving Doors, Peer Support and Key4Life, that use reformed ex-offenders as mentors. On a visit to Wormwood Scrubs prison last month, I saw the Right Course restaurant, which gets almost 60% of its trainees into employment on release. What are the Government doing to support and expand successful rehabilitation projects like these?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for his identification of these very good actions that are going on within the prison estate. The Prison Service is keen to encourage all this sort of activity, and I will follow this up with my hon. Friend directly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)]

Last month, the Justice Committee heard evidence from governors of prisons with some of the highest drug use rates in the country. From detecting drones to body scanners and physical barriers, they all felt under-resourced in technology and investment. What is the Secretary of State doing to better equip prison staff to keep drugs out of prisons?

[Shabana Mahmood]

We have already pressed ahead with further measures on X-ray and baggage scanners, and we are taking action to deal with the problem of drones. My hon. Friend will be aware that, for security considerations, I am not going to give the detail of some of those mitigations and of our proposals for tackling drones, because they are used by those involved in serious organised crime. However, I can assure him that I, Ministers and all officials, including those working across the prison estate, are seized of this matter, and we are determined to crack down on drones bringing drugs into our prisons.

Courts and Tribunals: Sitting Days

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Wednesday 5th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)]

I congratulate the Lord Chancellor on the figures that she has announced and on starting to get to grips with her baleful inheritance. However, there is a long way to go. The Lady Chief Justice told the Lords Constitution Committee last week that she was pressing for Crown courts to sit to capacity. Does the 110,000 figure represent capacity? If not, what is capacity? Given that the backlog is 73,000 cases and rising, will the Lord Chancellor guarantee sitting days up to capacity for the whole of the coming year? In her statement, she rightly promised investment in the family and civil courts to bring those jurisdictions to, or close to, maximum capacity. Will she make the same commitment for the Crown court?

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend will know that there is a difference between system capacity and maximum judicial capacity. He is right that the Lady Chief Justice has said that the maximum judicial capacity is 113,000 sitting days in the Crown court. We are funding 110,000 sitting days there, because in my role as Lord Chancellor, I must be mindful of managing the wider system capacity—the availability not just of judges to sit in the Crown court but of the lawyers, prosecutors, legal aid and defence barristers that underpin the rest of the system. I am confident that the 110,000 sitting days represent the system capacity, and that is being delivered.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State has announced two major reviews of the criminal justice system—the Leveson review and the Gauke review—and has said that, very impressively, they might report by the spring, which could be 1 March. There is a difference between reporting and taking action, so could she set out exactly when she expects the results of those two reviews to have a direct impact on case numbers?

[Shabana Mahmood]

The Chair of the Justice Committee is tempting me to pre-empt what the reviews will find. Those findings will, of course, dictate the pace at which change can then occur. He will be aware of the acute pressure on our prisons system, despite the emergency levers that I have had to pull—that has only bought us some time, as I have said when regularly updating the House. The sentencing review measures have to take account of our remaining problem with prison capacity. Once the review has been published, we will move quickly to decide which recommendations to take forward. On the courts package, it is likely that any measures will also require legislative reform. Again, I will seek to move at pace on that, but that rather depends on the package of measures that Sir Brian Leveson ultimately recommends.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee, Andy Slaughter.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)]

We have just witnessed the chair of the Criminal Cases Review Commission being prised out of her job, six months after the Secretary of State described her as

“unable to fulfil her duties”.

When will a new chair be appointed, and will this be accompanied by a wider review of the CCRC, to restore confidence in that damaged organisation?

[Sarah Sackman]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that we need to restore confidence in the CCRC. That is why we are taking the decision not only to appoint an interim chair to steady the ship but, more importantly, to implement the recommendations of the Henley review so that we can restore confidence in this important institution, particularly in the light of the appalling miscarriage of justice in the case of Andrew Malkinson.

Drones: High-security Prisons

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Tuesday 14th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)]

The Minister will no doubt be pleased that the Justice Committee has just announced an inquiry into drugs in prisons, with an emphasis on the use of drones by organised crime gangs to supply inmates. What makes it easy for drones to access prisons is the appalling state of prison maintenance. There is a £1.8 billion backlog, which did not accrue in the past six months. The shadow Secretary of State’s surprise is, in itself, surprising. What is the timetable for repairing the problems in prisons and getting to grips with that maintenance backlog?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

My hon. Friend is completely right that the prison maintenance programme that we inherited was in a state. That is why the Chancellor announced in the Budget a £500 million boost to the prison maintenance budget over the next couple of years. That is important. He is right also to say that we need to grip this, which is why the Prisons Minister in the other place has visited Manchester and is regularly updated on the situation there.

Prison Capacity Strategy

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)]

I welcome the prison capacity strategy. Given the crumbling condition of much of the prison estate, it is right that the Government are pressing ahead with the delivery of modern prisons. I also welcome the explicit linking of this strategy to the independent sentencing review, and the recognition that, without changes to sentencing policy, prisons could be full again in a year’s time, which would mean extending early release. Does the Minister agree that a long-term reduction in prisoner numbers in a way that best protects the public requires a strategy for rehabilitation to reduce reoffending, and when will the Government share their proposals for achieving that?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend the Chair of the Justice Committee for his questions. I am aware that the Lord Chancellor is due to give evidence to his Committee next week, and I am sure she will outline those steps in more detail. The capacity strategy that we have published is just one step in our plan, as well as going forward with building more prisons. We need every single element of our justice system to be working, and that includes the independent sentencing review. We look forward to the recommendations coming next year, so that we can take them forward and we never have to be in this position again. We look forward to setting out our plans in due course.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Tuesday 10th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)]

The condition of our Victorian prisons in particular is not conducive to rehabilitation or preparation for life on release. The Government are pressing ahead with the construction of 20,000 new prison places, which their predecessors failed to honour. What thought has been given, in the design and operation of these major new prisons, to the training, education, addiction and mental health needs of inmates, for whom prison is currently little more than a human warehouse?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

These new prisons will be built with all the things my hon. Friend mentions taken fully into account. The Government are determined to put in place 14,000 more prison places.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)]

Last month, the Justice Committee visited central London county court, which is one of the busiest in England, and met the exceptional and resilient people who run it, both judicial and administrative. They need to be resilient as their work is contained in thousands of paper files that are stored, transported and updated in a way that Dickens would have recognised. When will we digitise civil justice?

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 29th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the excellent speech of the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell). In preparation for today I have had a number of discussions with my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater), and I want to put on record that the measured way she has dealt with the proceedings has been excellent. I do not know whether she has ever had moments of doubting whether this was the right thing to pick as a private Member’s Bill, but she has been an absolute credit to this House in the way she has dealt with these matters so far.

In 2015, in the last Chamber debate on this subject, I wound up for the Opposition Front Bench, but my interest in it goes back much further. Like all Members of this House, I have had hundreds of emails from constituents on both sides of the argument. Many ask me to oppose the Bill; those emails come from people of faith, and I wholly and entirely respect what they say, but they are the first people also to say that this is an individual decision for every individual Member of the House to make.

As I have been at the bottom of the list of speakers to be called for so many years, I have great sympathy for those who find themselves there today, so I will try to keep my remarks to one narrow point: the legal context of the Bill. There is a false dichotomy that the law as it stands is fit for purpose, that we go into the unknown with the Bill before us and that we should somehow keep the safety of the status quo. I think that could not be more wrong. There are no safeguards in the current law. The only sanction against coercion is ex post facto; we are leaving it to individual directors of public prosecutions to make decisions in individual cases after the event.

DPPs take that job extremely seriously, as anyone knows who has heard Sir Max Hill, the last DPP to speak on the subject. They have, at the instigation of the courts, set out guidelines—I think we know that it was an excellent Director of Public Prosecutions who set out the guidelines on this case. They have done everything they can, but it is not their responsibility; it is our responsibility, and the courts, up to and including the Supreme Court, have made that clear.

We assign in this Bill a role to the High Court as part of the process, but we are the final decision takers. That has been made clear not only by domestic, but by international courts; the European Court of Human Rights has said in every case in which such matters have come before it that the margin of appreciation should be put into effect and therefore it should not interfere with the law as we decide it. We cannot dodge our responsibilities and I know that we do not want to do that. We have a duty to put in place the best law we can, and that is not the law as it stands.

There are three choices for people who want to end their own lives. They can go to Dignitas alone, if they can afford to do that. They can attempt, and perhaps succeed in, suicide. They risk failing. If they succeed, they will have a lonely death. They may, as others have pointed out, simply have to resort to refusing treatment or food. The third option is that they can embroil their relatives or friends, at the risk of their being investigated or prosecuted. They also risk ending their lives too soon.

On safeguards, I do not follow the view of opponents of the Bill. At some times they seem to say that they are too complex, too expensive and that there are not enough resources. If we want to resource the Bill, we can. I do not think that those are the strongest arguments.

[Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Andy Slaughter]

I really do not want to, because of the time. I am sorry. [Interruption.] Should I? I will give way once.

[Jonathan Davies]

My hon. Friend talks a little about safeguards. I invite him and the House to reflect on the covid pandemic, when a lot of safeguards around a lot of things were relaxed. I worry that if we were to see another pandemic on the scale that we saw in 2020, people might feel that they were doing something patriotic by getting out of the way and freeing up a bed for a younger person. I invite him to reflect on that.

[Andy Slaughter]

In practice, a terminally ill person will need to formally consider their decision at least eight times under the provisions in the Bill. This is a starting point—a number of Members have made that point. I believe the Bill has already had more scrutiny than most public Bills we consider, but we have up to nine months before us to consider it further.

All the practical and legal considerations point towards the Bill. It may well be amended to change the safeguards or the way it operates, but we have the opportunity to do that. In the end, for me, that is not the decision. The decision is about two things: it is about human dignity and it is about agency. I would like to think that even at the end of life—no, especially at the end of life—when someone has their faculties but may be at their weakest ebb, they can still exercise that agency and still make decisions for themselves. They can have the longest life they can and they can end that life in the way that is most beneficial to them, their loved ones and their family. That is simply not happening, and by voting against the Bill today Members ignore those facts.

Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Thursday 21st November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton) on securing this debate. It is good to see some newly elected Members taking up this issue—I include in that my neighbour and hon. Friend, the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell)—as well as some of those who have been around for a while and trying to champion it. I am sure the right hon. Members for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) and for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) will not mind my describing them in that way. We are missing the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne) today, but I pay tribute to all the work they have done on this issue over many years.

I am not going to speak for very long, because I am not going to say anything that I have not said before. I think I replied for the Opposition in the January 2022 debate that the right hon. Member for New Forest East referred to, and the Justice Select Committee held an evidence session in May of that year under its previous Chair, Sir Bob Neill KC. The transcript of that session is very interesting to read, but what struck me is how little has actually been achieved, even though the issue has been debated many times. It is not true that nothing has been achieved since then, however. As has already been mentioned, the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 includes some measures to tackle SLAPPs, but relating specifically to economic crime; I think there is general recognition that that does not go further.

We have also heard about the Bill introduced by Sir Wayne David, which sadly did not become law because of the general election. Even that Bill took quite a lot of negotiation in order to get any meaningful provisions into it, against some resistance from the previous Government. That is not a terribly good record over the past few years, given the importance that many Members attach to this issue, so I will be interested to hear what the Minister says about this Government’s future legislative intent when she replies to today’s debate. The Justice Committee may well want to return to this issue at some point, but for today’s purposes, I am speaking on my own behalf and repeating arguments that have been around for some time.

There are many reasons to be concerned about SLAPPs. One of them is highlighted in the long title of today’s debate—freedom of speech—but as has already been mentioned, SLAPPs can also have a pernicious effect on the justice system, to which I particularly want to speak. SLAPPs is now the accepted terminology, but they were previously called lawfare. That term was very appropriate, because it is continuation of litigation by inappropriate means. It is clearly bad for victims, but it is also bad for the justice system. It allows bad actors to take action in the courts, and although we have a very robust judiciary in this country who are quite capable of making their views felt, without recognition of SLAPPs in law, under the rules of court and given the clearly stated aims of all parties, particularly the Government, SLAPPs are going to continue.

SLAPPs are typically brought by people of unlimited resources to deter publication. That is why, as the Bureau of Investigative Journalism and others have pointed out, most SLAPPs never reach the litigation stage. They are intended to have a chilling effect, not only on the specific, immediate target but on the wider press and media, particularly those who do not have deep pockets. They can tie individual journalists and publications in knots for years and can subject them to a huge amount of stress and risk. We can think of examples going back to McLibel, what happened to Tom Burgis and to Catherine Belton, or indeed—as the right hon. Member for New Forest East mentioned—the appalling way that Charlotte Leslie was treated. SLAPPs are used to protect people such as Mohammed al-Fayed who wilfully and knowingly use the court system to hide their misdeeds. It is undoubtedly true that such people introduce vexatious litigation into the courts, distorting their function and operation and misdirecting the purpose of justice.

If Members think I am exaggerating, whether or not it is a SLAPP in the classic definition, the action taken by ENRC against the Serious Fraud Office—which effectively has turned the hunter into the hunted—is an example of how even the institutions of state can become the victims of SLAPPs. This is a very insidious trend within litigation. It may not be widespread, but it has a hidden hinterland, and despite the best efforts of the UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism—which I have mentioned—and Sir Wayne David in his Bill, we now really need the Government to take up this cause.

There is one other issue I want to deal with—one that I always mention, and that will not find favour with some Members of this House. If we are serious about dealing with attempts to use financial strong-arming to prevent justice taking its course, we also have to think about our attitude to the Leveson reforms. The aim of Leveson was to protect small publishers against litigants with deep pockets, but also individual citizens who have been misrepresented by large media organisations and are unable to take action, or are discouraged from doing so.

The victims of intrusion and vilification, particularly by the tabloids, also deserve the protection of the law. Leveson provided a solution through low-cost arbitration that would be fair for both sides—that protected publishers in the same way as individuals. It was not a form of state regulation, but a method of independent and fair determination of issues that restored equality of arms. If it is right for us to legislate on SLAPPs and stop the pernicious influence of the oligarchs of the steppes, we should also prevent the misuse of the courts by the oligarchs of Fleet Street.