|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Tim Loughton: To ask the Solicitor-General (1) how many cases of parents prosecuted for killing their children have been reviewed following the Sally Clark judgment; and how many of these cases have been re-investigated; 
The Solicitor-General: On 29 January 2003 the Court of Appeal overturned Sally Clark's conviction for murdering her two sons. On 19 January 2004 the Court of Appeal issued its judgment allowing the appeal of Angela Cannings against her convictions for murdering two of her children. On the same day the Attorney-General announced he had established a review of all convictions in the previous 10 years (19942004), of a parent, foster parent or carer convicted of the unlawful killing of a baby and/or infant under the age of two. A small number of cases which did not fall strictly within the parameters of the review were also included at the request of defendants or their solicitors.
A Central Review Team (CRT) of experienced legal practitioners was set up within the CPS, answerable only to the Attorney. The CRT purely reviewed case files on legal merits in the light of the Court of Appeal ruling in Cannings. No pathologist was involved in this legal review work.
A total of 297 cases were reviewed by the CRT. The papers reviewed included evidence served on the prosecution by the defence, who were in the best position to know about the circumstances of their clients' convictions. None of the cases were reinvestigated (by the police) in the sense that the original investigation was reopened but all the available papers were thoroughly reviewed. A selection was also sent to independent counsel for review.
14 Feb 2006 : Column 1803W
The team's work was supervised by an Inter-Departmental Group (IDG). This group considered 34 cases identified by the CRT for possible referral to the defendant. All but six of those cases were accepted for such referral. After careful consideration, the Attorney-General, IDG and counsel decided that the remaining six cases did not give such cause for concern that they needed to be referred to the defendant. Again, no pathologist was involved in this work but the Attorney-General was assisted by an expert in child health and paediatrics.
On 21 December 2004, the Attorney-General published the results of the review of the Infant Death Cases, and together with the then Solicitor-General, made oral statements before Parliament on that day. The report was also placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
As a result of the review a number of cases were referred to the Court of Appeal. It was at this stage that these cases were subject to the re- examination of evidence by medical professionals, including pathologists.
At the time of publication of the original review in December 2004, the Attorney-General explained that he had deferred final consideration of 89 further cases of so-called Shaken Baby Syndrome. An addendum to the report, dealing with those cases, will be published shortly.
Mrs. Villiers: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much his Department has allocated to (a) total expenditure, (b) grant in aid to private sector partners, (c) capital spending and (d) revenue spending in each year between 200607 to 201415; and if he will make a statement. 
Annex 1, table 1 of DFID's 2005 Departmental Report (DR) summarises all Government spending that falls within DFID's responsibility. Tables 2 and 3 of the DR provide a detailed breakdown of the resource and capital spending totals. Table 4 outlines our bilateral aid expenditure, which includes all forms of direct assistance;
14 Feb 2006 : Column 1804W
expenditure through multilateral institutions; DFID expenditure in support of the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) initiative and the multilateral debt relief expenditure plans.
DFID is currently undertaking a resource allocation round, which is the mechanism by which DFID distributes its budget internally. Revisions to the allocations for 200607 and 200708 have yet to be agreed.
Over the last five years, DFID have had staff based in the countries in the following list.. In some cases, for part or all of the period in question the DFID staff formed part of the British embassy/high commission, or other multilateral organisation, rather than a separate office.
|Cameroon (closed 2004)||Yaounde|
|Congo, Dem Rep||Kinshasa|
|Egypt (closed 2005)||Cairo|
|Cape Town (closed)|
|Tanzania||Dar Es Salem|
|Honduras (closed 2005)||Tegucigalpa|
|Peru (closed 2005)||Lima|
|Azerbaijan (closed 2003)||Baku|
|Belarus (closed 2002)||Minsk|
|Bulgaria (closed 2005)||Sofia|
|Czech Republic (closed 2003)||Prague|
|Croatia (closed 2005)||Croatia|
|Estonia (closed 2003)||Estonia|
|Hungary (closed 2003)||Budapest|
|Kazakstan (closed 2005)||Almaty|
|Latvia (closed 2003)||Riga|
|Lithuania (closed 2003)||Vilnius|
|Macedonia (closed 2005)||Macedonia|
|Poland (closed 2003)||Warsaw|
|Romania (closed 2005)||Bucharest|
|Serbia and Montenegro||Belgrade|
|Slovakia (closed 2003)||Bratislava|
|Slovenia (closed 2003)||Ljubijana|
|Turkmenistan (closed 2002)||Ashgabat|
|Uzbekistan (closed 2005)||Tashkent|
|USA (UN)||New York|
|Iraq||Baghdad (opened 2003)|
|Basra (opened 2003)|
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|