Miscarriage of Justice Compensation

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 19th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I have always believed—and the hon. Gentleman is probably the same—that someone is always innocent until proven guilty. It seems that the Ministry of Justice is saying: “You are actually guilty. Now prove yourself innocent.”

[Ben Lake]

The hon. Gentleman has got to the nub of the matter. That is precisely the effect of the change implemented in 2014. It has devastated the number of successful applications for compensation, because if we consider the data for the period between 1999 and 2024, we can see that, prior to the introduction of the new section 133 test, 45.6% of applicants received compensation for their wrongful convictions, but, following its introduction, just 6.6% of cases were successful—a drop of 39 percentage points. This new test has virtually put a stop to compensation payouts for these kinds of miscarriages of justice—an insurmountable hurdle indeed.

Members may wonder about the purpose of restricting eligibility in this way, and I am sure we will hear arguments that it was done to prevent those exonerated on a technicality from receiving compensation, but the cynic in me fears that the restriction was introduced to cut costs. Prior to 2014, the Ministry of Justice made average annual payouts of £5.9 million. Following the change, we have seen the average annual payouts under the scheme drop by 95%, to an average of £297,000. Even successful applicants have seen their individual compensation payments fall, with the average pre-2014 payment totalling just over £267,000, falling to an average of £61,000 after the change.

I am reminded of Cicero’s teachings, over two millennia ago:

“Justice looks for no prize and no price; it is sought for itself”.

He also said, of course:

“The worst kind of injustice is to look for profit from injustice.”

It is for others to consider whether anyone profits from this injustice, but the savings that the 2014 test realises for the Ministry of Justice perhaps offer an answer to that age-old question of, “What price do we put on justice?” Well, I can tell you, Mr Turner: it is around £5.6 million a year on average, compared with the pre-2014 payments.

The current system therefore places an almost impossible burden on the applicant—one whereby they are required to find a new fact that shows beyond reasonable doubt that they did not commit the offence for which they have been acquitted. The perverse situation into

The perverse situation into which the 2014 change forces the wrongly convicted can be summarised as follows: they are required to prove that they are innocent of a crime for which they have already been exonerated. I appreciate that this is an academic point, but it is worth considering whether some high-profile exonerees—the Cardiff Three, the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six—would receive compensation if they applied under the scheme today.

To the layman, it is difficult to understand how such a situation is compatible with the principles underpinning our justice system, because it undermines the well-understood principle that we are all innocent until proven guilty. I know there might be a challenge to that assertion, but the fact remains that the current rules place the obligation on the defendant to prove that they did not commit a crime to the criminal standard of proof, which is beyond reasonable doubt.

In Mr Buckle’s rejection letter, the Ministry of Justice, as well as reassuring him that his case had been carefully considered, asserted that, despite rejection of his claim for compensation, he is still presumed to be, and remains, innocent of the charges brought against him. If you were ever looking for a definition of Orwellian doublespeak, Mr Turner, that response is a perfect example. It illustrates how the 2014 change, by reversing the burden of proof, undermines the presumption of innocence and forces the Ministry to perform quite impressive but legally illogical linguistic gymnastics.

For if Mr Buckle is in law presumed to be innocent, surely he must be treated as such by the state. A man presumed to be innocent who has spent more than five years in jail should be compensated. If the state wants to treat him as though he were a guilty man and deny him compensation, why should the burden not fall on to the state to prove his guilt? Claims by the Ministry of Justice—

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. I wish you well in your new role. I thank the hon. Member for Ceredigion Preseli (Ben Lake) for raising this issue. I watched him on TV this morning being interviewed with his constituent. He should be commended and applauded for his efforts on behalf of his constituent to find justice. In my intervention earlier I said to him that everyone is innocent until proven guilty, not the other way round, and that is the thrust of what the hon. Gentleman has put forward. Like him, I cannot comprehend it.

Someone found not guilty is not guilty. If the court cannot prove it and feels that he or she should be freed, then for me the matter is clear. As has been alluded to, Northern Ireland does not operate under the same scheme as England and Wales, but we do have a scheme that has been accessed. Cases can be referred to the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal by the Criminal Cases Review Commission. The CCRC investigates wrongful convictions in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It was set up by the Government in response to a number of high-profile miscarriages of justice, including the case of the Birmingham Six. It receives some 1,400 applications a year from across the United Kingdom, including some 40 from Northern Ireland. Anyone in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland can apply to the CCRC about a miscarriage of justice.

I recently read a BBC article on compensation for miscarriages of justice in Northern Ireland. It highlighted that more than £9 million

“has been paid in compensation since 2010 to 16 people who have had their criminal convictions overturned in Northern Ireland.”

So there is a compensation system under the CCRC, which has compensated at least those people in Northern Ireland. That is why the hon. Member for Ceredigion Preseli is right to pursue similar compensation for his constituent. The article noted that

“New figures show that 84 people were wrongly convicted of crimes between 2007 and 2017. Charges ranged from murder to rape and included people serving life sentences. At least half of those who had their convictions overturned spent time in prison, amounting collectively to more than 100 years in custody.”

Of those 84 convictions, 30% were for sexual crimes, 90% of those wrongfully convicted were men and 31 cases led to a retrial.

I am always mindful of the victims of crime—this week I have been highlighting the issues of victims in other circumstances. Even in cases where convictions are quashed, we should consider the words of Dr Hannah Quirk—a former CCRC caseworker and criminal law lecturer:

“it’s important to also understand what is meant by wrongful conviction. It would be very unusual for the Court of Appeal to say someone is innocent, instead it decides whether any new evidence has come to light that makes a conviction unsafe. So not all these cases will necessarily be about innocence and more about if the criminal justice system applied the rules fairly at the time and whether or not if the trial happened today that the person would be convicted based on the latest available evidence.”

That last phrase, about whether the person would be convicted based on the latest available evidence, shows why the hon. Member for Ceredigion Preseli is correct to pursue compensation for his constituent. We need to ensure for victims of crime that justice is carried out. Unsafe convictions are not justice and for those who are innocent, there should be compensation.

The old saying “There’s no smoke without fire” is often used when considering someone’s guilt, but a wrongful conviction leads to people having to restart their lives. What does that mean? I was thinking about it before this debate. It sometimes means that families have to move home, move their children to a new school, seek new jobs, and work out how they are going to take care of their mortgage. The issue of compensation is focal to what has to happen for those people who have to make a fresh start because of failings in the system and not because of their own deeds—the hon. Member for Ceredigion Preseli referred to that. It is right and proper that there should be help to start a new life for those who are genuinely innocent. However, the criteria for that compensation must be strict—we are not saying that it should not be. However, whenever there is a clear case of innocence, there should be no reasonable doubt from impartial eyes.

In Northern Ireland, compensation for victims of the troubles has been skewed, in that perpetrators of crimes can receive compensation for those crimes. Gerry Adams could receive compensation, or Gerry Kelly, who shot a prison officer in the head during a prison escape. Those people should never receive a single penny adorned with our King’s head, and that is why we must retain a very close scheme for these matters.

When there is a clear case—as the hon. Member for Ceredigion Preseli clearly illustrated in the TV and radio coverage, as well as today in this Chamber, where he has put forward an admirable case on behalf of his constituent —I support access to redress, but not for any purpose. I believe the judiciary must continue to have courage in its convictions and be supported to deliver real justice in every way possible.

Domestic Abuse Offences

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 17th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I first commend the hon. Gentleman for his courage in telling his personal story. We are all moved by it—I know I am—and I thank him for that. He has shown himself to be a determined, capable Member of Parliament, and I wish him well.

Across Northern Ireland, we witness people being arrested for first-time domestic offences. Ultimately, the charges are not prosecuted in court and the cases are dropped. Fast forward and people are re-arrested for domestic charges that are in fact worse, showing a pattern of escalating violence. Does he agree that arrests for domestic abuse must be fully investigated and, if proven, prosecuted to the full extent of the law to protect people from violence and instil confidence in the judicial system?

[Josh Babarinde]

I thank my friend the hon. Member for his kind words, and I completely agree that all abusers, domestic or not, must face the full force of the law. It is critical that happens for victims and survivors to have confidence in the police and our wider criminal justice system, and that is lacking for many victims and survivors. We see that in some of the consequences of the SDS40—standard determinate sentences—early release scheme that the Government had to implement in the light of the poor state that the last Government left our prisons in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) for speaking so movingly and convincingly.

I want to raise the case of a constituent who has come to me with multiple problems to do with her abusive husband. He is not yet her ex-husband, because he is stalling the divorce process, and hiding and dissipating assets. I worked briefly in family law, so I know that this is by no means an unusual situation and that, in most cases, it is the man who is involved in perpetrating this sort of thing. If this was happening in any other situation—for instance, between two business partners—such actions would be prosecuted as fraud, but when pursued through the family court, as they are all the time, they are not prosecuted at all; they are just treated as one of those things.

Section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015 created the offence of controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship. An example of coercive or controlling behaviour is economic abuse, including coerced debt, controlling spending and similar activities. However, in this case the husband is no longer directly controlling or coercing the wife because they are separated; he is just spending all of their money and she cannot stop it.

Economic abuse that relates to deliberately dissipating someone else’s assets is not really dealt with. Many victims of domestic abuse have their personal finances ruined in the course of their relationships. It is a real problem that any insolvency solution that might help them to rebuild their finances involves having their home address and other personal details published online in the insolvency register. That deters a lot of people from getting involved in the insolvency solutions that would enable them to start to rebuild their finances and their lives.

One can apply to withhold the details of addresses and so forth, but that involves paperwork, possible court proceedings and a fee of £300, which is a huge amount of money for someone who is already in an insolvency process. There is a strong argument that we need to reform the process and potentially make the insolvency register private.

Finally, I again thank the hon. Member for Eastbourne for securing the debate. I thank Cheshire Without Abuse, which does work in this area in my constituency, and the Money Wellness service, which people can engage with if they are having money difficulties.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Lady has brought to mind a circumstance that I, as an elected representative, have witnessed on a number of occasions over the past few years. A married man has secured a loan on a joint account held with his wife but then, when the relationship fell apart and all the money in the bank was away, she was left with the loan, so she was done over twice. That is an example of a situation that could be sorted out in the legislation that the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) referred to, and I thank the hon. Lady for mentioning the issue.

[Mrs Russell]

I have seen instances like that within my own social circle. It is not unusual and a lot of the people involved appear to be people who would have engaged with the bank. I know banks have some safeguards around this sort of thing now, but they are inadequate and people are often left in terrible financial situations.

In conclusion, I thank the hon. Member for Eastbourne and I wish him luck with his campaign.

Sentencing Council Guidelines

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 17th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The Minister is an honourable man, and I have to ask a question on behalf of the victims, if he does not mind. He will understand that any reform of sentencing must have victims at its heart. For most victims, their concern is not the ethnicity of the perpetrator, but the severity of the crime and the lasting impact on their life. Many victims today will feel that the sentencing guidelines play politics with justice. How can victims be assured that justice will mean time served for crimes committed, and will not be based on ethnicity? Justice is blind, and so must sentencing be.

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to learn that I agree with him. The victims Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), is sitting next to me; we take victims very seriously. That is why there is a victims’ representative on the sentencing review panel. We need to make sure that victims are at the centre of whatever we do. I have met too many victims already in this role, and every time I meet them, it is very difficult—a little difficult for me, but hugely difficult for them, because they live this.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 11th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for that important and timely question. We take all forms of homicide extremely seriously, and our strategy, which will be published later this week, looking at tackling violence against women and girls will cover all forms of violence and abuse that disproportionately impact women, including femicide. We will of course prioritise tackling violence against women and girls, which is why we have funded record numbers of Crown court sitting days. We are extending the powers of the Victims’ Commissioner and strengthening the victims code. We have protected funding for victims services looking at domestic abuse, rape and sexual offences to ensure that victims are listened to and are put at the heart of the criminal justice system.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

For last week’s International Women’s Day, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips) read out the names of the 96 women who were killed in the last year. I am always conscious of the loss of life, as I know the Minister is. If domestic violence today is the violence against women and murder tomorrow, what can be done to support women and their children?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

We are doing everything we can to support women and their children. We have declared this a national emergency, and we have that ambition of targeting and halving violence against women and girls over the course of a decade. My personal ambition is that the names read out at this Dispatch Box next year are far fewer than the ones read out this year.

Courts and Tribunals: Sitting Days

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 5th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend raises a very important point. It is my job as Lord Chancellor to make sure that the overall settlement for Crown court sitting days is sufficiently big to help drive down the Crown court backlog, which is why I have made the record allocation today. The listing of individual cases is of course a matter for the independent judiciary, and it would be improper and inappropriate for me to comment on listings decisions. However, taken as a whole—with both the investment we are making and the reform we are considering once Sir Brian Leveson’s review has reported—I think he and his constituents can be confident that this Government are going to sort out the system.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I very much thank the Lord Chancellor for increasing the number of sitting days to attempt to tackle the extremely large delays in court cases that we face in the United Kingdom, which is the sad reality for those seeking justice. As she will know, in Northern Ireland there are currently 18,907 pending cases in magistrates courts, which is an absolutely huge backlog. Given the drastic increase in cases involving violence against women and girls in Northern Ireland, may I gently ask the Lord Chancellor what discussions she has had with the policing and justice Minister to help address the court cases issue and reduce delays in the Province?

[Shabana Mahmood]

It is always a pleasure to respond to the hon. Gentleman, and I thank him for his remarks welcoming today’s announcement. A Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State will be meeting devolved Justice Ministers very soon and we will update the hon. Gentleman on the work we are doing with Ministers in Northern Ireland.

Regulation of the Bailiff Sector

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 11th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the regulation of the bailiff sector.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I extend my gratitude to my hon. Friend the Minister for attending this important debate.

I will begin with a story. A vulnerable disabled person answered a knock at the door. He placed the chain on before opening it slightly, only for a bailiff to force their way through. The bailiff treated him, in his words,

“like a waste of life, a loser, scum”.

Worse still, the bailiff went on to wrongfully seize equipment supplied by the local authority to help with his disability.

That is not an isolated case. Today, I will share similar stories that expose the impact of a partially regulated sector, and make the case for urgent reform. My aim is simple: I would like the Government to legislate to introduce an independent regulator for the enforcement sector.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing a debate on this critical issue. There has been a rise in television programming showing people at their lowest being evicted or having their possessions repossessed. Often, we see the despair of ordinary people, and the bailiffs sometimes show a lack of compassion that should not be the standard. Does he agree that kindness and a basic level of respect have to be the foundation? To back that up—he is right—we need the legislation.

[Mr Charters]

I thank the hon. Member for his eloquent words about what is often the most challenging moment in people’s lives. That knock on the door is a cacophony of everything that they are facing, and we have to bear that in mind.

The Enforcement Conduct Board voluntarily regulates approximately 95% of the bailiff sector. However, the 5% who refuse to sign up are responsible, in my view, for the vast majority of the worst abuses. Even within the voluntarily regulated sector, problems persist. With hundreds of thousands of visits, millions of cases and billions collected annually, bailiff enforcement is a massive operation, but according to Citizens Advice, one in three people who have had contact with a bailiff have experienced behaviour that breaks Ministry of Justice rules. Even among regulated bailiffs, 1% of visits were deemed aggressive by the ECB in recent research.

We need a fair, proportionate and efficient collection system, which is why I am calling on my hon. Friend the Minister to set out a timetable to consult on legislation to introduce statutory regulation of the sector. I call on her to put the ECB on a statutory footing—something that charities and the ECB alike support. The fact that the sector is partially unregulated drives rogue bailiffs. I hope I can convince colleagues from across the House of the need for this change. There were some reforms under the May Government, but this is our chance, as a Labour Government, to stop rogue bailiffs for good.

I turn to the link between debt and mental health. Debt does not exist in a vacuum; many people facing bailiff action are also dealing with illness, relationship breakdown or mental health struggles. One person shared their experience of over five years of pressure from bailiffs over council tax debt that they never understood and could not afford. That ultimately led to suicide attempts.

I struggled with whether to mention suicide today, but we cannot ignore these cases. Take the case of Jerome Rogers, a young man whose debt spiralled after bailiffs clamped the motorcycle he needed to work. Shortly afterwards, he took his own life. The coroner identified the debt collection agency’s actions as a contributing factor to his death.

A woman recounted how a bailiff laughed and mocked her when she mentioned her mental health struggles. And Molly, whose name I have changed, was falsely threatened with prison if she did not grant entry to a bailiff—not a permissible threat, by the way. The stress triggered flashbacks of domestic abuse that she had suffered. I know my hon. Friend the Minister does terrific work on that.

Another victim, Poppy—also not her real name—suffered such severe anxiety over bailiff debt collection practices that she had a late-term abortion due to the stress of the situation. These are real stories, and there are so many more. For too long, rogue bailiffs have not met standards when it comes to vulnerability. That is why I dedicate my campaign for bailiff reform to the victims.

The effects of aggressive bailiff practices extend to children. One parent described how bailiffs had knocked so many times that they were left with nothing to take except their young daughter’s cot. It is simply unacceptable for children to live in fear due to a lack of regulation in the bailiff sector.

As a former regulator at the Financial Conduct Authority, I understand the importance of setting clear standards. The last significant changes to bailiff regulations were introduced over a decade ago. It is time for an overhaul.

The Enforcement Conduct Board was established in 2021. It provides guidance but lacks statutory authority. Many firms voluntarily comply, but the absence of legal enforcement means that rogue bailiffs continue to operate with relative impunity. We must introduce statutory regulation to protect vulnerable customers, reduce the burden on the judicial system, improve transparency and provide a level playing field for the genuinely good bailiffs out there. Better standards would level the playing field and support good professional bailiffs to do their work.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

I assure my hon. Friend that that will be the case. People who commit a crime worthy of prison will be sent to prison. As we have assured the House, we have plans to build 14,000 new prison places, as set out in our 10-year capacity strategy. In six months we have added 500 prison places. It took 14 years for the Conservatives to do that. We have also launched an independent sentencing review, so that we never run out of places again. Taken together, these measures will ensure that the country does not have more prisoners than we have space for in our prisons.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

On building capacity, armed forces veterans concern me and many in this Chamber. They often live with post-traumatic stress disorder and have emotional memories and nightmares of what they have done in uniform for this country. What extra can be done to better look after our veterans in prison? They fight with demons every day. We have to look after them.

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

The armed forces covenant affects us all. His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service ensures that veterans’ issues are properly addressed with the individuals concerned, to give them the proper support that they need.

Child Arrangements: Presumption of Parental Involvement

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the presumption of parental involvement in child arrangements.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. There must be urgent reform of the presumption of parental involvement in child arrangements, known in law as presumption of contact, on the basis of evidence and principle, and to ensure that children’s voices are at the heart of our family courts.

The de facto common law principle of presumption of contact was legislated for in the Children and Families Act 2014, which inserted sections 1(2A) and (2B) into the Children Act 1989. That legal principle means that parents should always be given contact with their children, even in circumstances where there is a known domestic abuser.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for raising this massive issue—well done for bringing it forward. In the world we live in, it is always the most innocent—the children—who suffer the greatest in a family breakdown. Does she agree that we must do more to ensure that, where there are doubts about safety, we should utilise supervised parental visits? Getting this right is an essential part of the battle against violence against women and children.

[Dr Tidball]

I certainly agree. To illustrate why, I want hon. Members to imagine a school night with a child being repeatedly asked by his father if he had completed his homework. The child replied in an exasperated tone, “Yes.” His dad stepped towards him with his fists ready to punch him. The boy’s mum stepped into the space between the fist and her son, and pushed him out of its way. The full force of that fist hit her so hard that she was spun round and fell down the stairs, bruising her arms, legs and back. From the top of the stairs, the child’s father shouted to his son, “Look what you made me do.” Imagine the same boy being driven to tears after his father made his brother eat peas until he was sick. The boy’s mother left her husband, taking the children with her.

Imagine a scene, six months later, where the father barricaded a Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service officer in her office for 15 minutes. Social services were aware that that same father had made statements that he was capable of killing. Then imagine that, despite knowing all that, a family court permitted the father of those two boys five hours’ unsupervised contact per week. Claire Throssell, my constituent, does not need to imagine that nightmare. She and her two sons, Jack and Paul Sykes, lived it.

Drones: High-security Prisons

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 14th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

I think everybody agrees that that policy was barking.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his answers today, and for his clear commitment to making changes that will make a difference. In Northern Ireland prisons, contraband has been a difficult issue to get on top of. Given the news today that drones are being so successfully used in the UK, there is obvious cause for concern that their use may become more prevalent. How will the Minister ensure that the steps taken apply equally across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and that any additional funding that is required will be allocated?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

Any lessons learned need to be applied across the United Kingdom, and that will happen. We need to work with our Five Eyes partners to ensure that the very best action is taken. Northern Ireland needs to get the best of that as well.

Trial of Lucy Letby

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 8th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)]

I thank the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) for securing this debate. First, I want to acknowledge the impact on the families that any debate surrounding this case may have. As Lady Justice Thirlwall stated at the outset of her inquiry, much of this debate has come from people who were not present throughout the trial to hear the evidence in full. The parents have been waiting a long time for answers, and it is important, whatever may be said here this evening, that we agree that we must work towards delivering closure for those families, who are going through unimaginable and intolerable grief.

It is an important principle of the rule of law that the Government do not interfere with judicial decisions. In this case, the Court of Appeal has carefully considered the arguments before it and delivered its judgment. Given that, and the ongoing police investigations, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on Miss Letby’s case specifically, but I will outline the principles and procedures regarding expert witnesses and appeals.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I will not, as unfortunately we are tight on time. My apologies.

First, in the area of expert evidence, the criminal procedure rules apply the common law principles that govern the admissibility of expert witness and provide a structured framework for expert witnesses and the courts to follow. They cover expert witnesses and how medical reports are commissioned, and the “Criminal Practice Directions 2023” provide detailed guidance on expert evidence. All of those are followed for every criminal proceeding where it is relevant. Like all criminal procedure rules, they are regularly reviewed by the Criminal Procedure Rule Committee. The committee is made up of legal experts appointed by the Lord Chancellor in consultation with the Lady Chief Justice, and its role is to make the criminal justice system as accessible, fair and efficient as possible.

The rules outline that expert evidence is admissible only if

“the witness is competent to give that opinion”

and

“the expert opinion is sufficiently reliable to be admitted.”

They further state that the expert witness must provide the court with the necessary scientific criteria against which to judge their conclusions and must give notice of anything that might undermine the reliability of the evidence or detract from the impartiality or credibility of their evidence. Expert witnesses are required to sign a declaration of truth to that effect.

The right to a fair trial by jury in the most serious cases is a fundamental principle of the justice system. It is designed to protect the rights of the defendant and to ensure thorough examination of the evidence. That includes the presentation of evidence by both the prosecution and the defence; the examination and cross-examination of witnesses; and the impartial judgment of the jury. Where scientific evidence is presented, the judiciary utilises judicial primers written by leading scientists, peer reviewed by scientists and legal practitioners, and approved by the councils of the Royal Society and the Royal Society of Edinburgh. While I note the concerns raised about the trial process as set out, the jury considered all the evidence put before them and made their determination.

Secondly, I turn to the appeals process in the criminal justice system. Following Miss Letby’s first permission to appeal application, the Court of Appeal heard legal argument over several days on a number of grounds and issued a detailed 58-page judgment setting out why permission to appeal was refused. That included the trial judge’s handling of the arguments raised by the defence as to Dr Evans’s evidence.

It is not appropriate for me or the Government to comment on judicial processes, nor on the reliability of convictions or evidence. Furthermore, the criminal justice system provides a route through the Criminal Cases Review Commission for those who believe that they have been wrongfully convicted and the appeal system has been exhausted. The CCRC is an independent body, and it reviews any applications made to it according to its statutory role and procedures. Its role is to investigate cases where people believe they have been wrongly convicted and to refer cases back to the Court of Appeal where it believes that there is a real possibility of a conviction not being upheld.

Miss Letby, as with any other convicted person who maintains their innocence following a refusal to appeal, is able to apply to the CCRC. The decision on whether to seek a review from the CCRC is a matter for Miss Letby and her legal team.

Thirdly, it is relevant to take into account that the Thirlwall inquiry was established in October 2023, chaired by Lady Justice Thirlwall—one of the country’s most senior judges—and that that is ongoing. The inquiry is purposefully set up to be independent from Government, and it will play an important role in identifying learnings following events at the Countess of Chester hospital, contributing to the future of patient safety. It will cover the experiences of the parents of the babies named in the indictment, the conduct of staff management and governance processes, and the effectiveness of governance, external scrutiny, and the professional regulation of keeping babies in hospital safe, including consideration of the NHS culture. The inquiry will examine not the conviction, but rather the response of individuals within the trust based on what they knew or should have known at the time of the events when they occurred. Lady Justice Thirlwall made that clear in her remarks when opening the hearings. A statutory inquiry cannot apportion civil or criminal liability and will not review the jury’s findings.

It is, of course, open to the experts to contact the inquiry directly and seek to participate through the provision of evidence for the inquiry’s consideration. It is then for the chair to manage the inquiry as she considers appropriate to deliver the public terms of reference, which were agreed in consultation with the families and other stakeholders. The chair will consider all relevant available evidence when drawing conclusions and when writing her report and recommendations in due course. Given the importance of the inquiry, I am sure it is appreciated that it must have space to gather evidence from the various stakeholders and to draw its own findings without ministerial involvement.

The criminal justice system has well-established processes and procedures for how expert evidence is used, and routes to challenge if any individual, including Miss Letby, maintains their innocence.

[Jim Shannon]

Setting aside what the right hon. Gentleman has put forward, I have been made aware that some NHS staff question their culpability and their ability to do their job—that is how they feel. Some NHS staff have left the profession simply because of their concerns. I ask the Minister gently, what can be done to restore the confidence of NHS staff, particularly the nurses?