Previous Section Index Home Page

14 Feb 2006 : Column 1801W—continued


Adam Price: To ask the Solicitor-General whether the Attorney-General was instructed by the Prime Minister that he should not give advice in relation to the war in Iraq until March 2003. [51581]

14 Feb 2006 : Column 1802W

The Solicitor-General: I refer the hon. Gentleman to paragraphs 366–87 of the Report of the Butler Review of Intelligence on Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Prosecutions (Parents)

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; [48168]

(2) what procedures were followed in reviewing the cases of parents convicted of killing their own children; [48169]

(3) how many pathologists were involved in the review of cases of parents convicted of killing their own children following the Sally Clark judgment. [48172]

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 (1994—2004), 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.

At the same time, January 2004, the Attorney-General asked the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to review current cases involving an unexplained infant death, which were still to come to trial.

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.

In addition, the review of current cases resulted in three prosecutions being stopped without going to trial. This was set out in the original review.

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.

Neither stage of the review has prevented any person from referring their case to the Court of Appeal or Criminal Cases Review Commission if they wish to do so.


Departmental Expenditure

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 2006–07 to 2014–15; and if he will make a statement. [50617]

Hilary Benn: DFID allocates funds within spending review limits, agreed with Her Majesty's Treasury (HMT). The current spending review (SR04) runs to 2007–08.

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.

Capital expenditure is shown net in the DR (i.e. expenditure minus receipts). Expected gross expenditure in both 2006–07 and 2007–08 is about £46.5 million.

DFID does not hold specific details of grants in aid to private partners centrally and it is not possible to provide a disaggregation without incurring disproportionate cost.

DFID is currently undertaking a resource allocation round, which is the mechanism by which DFID distributes its budget internally. Revisions to the allocations for 2006–07 and 2007–08 have yet to be agreed.

Departmental Offices

David T.C. Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will list the locations in which his Department has had offices in each of the last five years. [50775]

Mr. Thomas: In the UK, staff have been based in the following locations in the last five years:

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.
CountryOffice Location
Botswana (closed)Gaberone
Cameroon (closed 2004)Yaounde
Congo, Dem RepKinshasa
Egypt (closed 2005)Cairo
EthiopiaAddis Ababa
Namibia (closed)Windhoek
Sierra LeoneFreetown
Cape Town (closed)
South AfricaPretoria
Swaziland (closed)Mbabane
TanzaniaDar Es Salem
CambodiaPhnom Penn
Fiji (closed)Suva
Sri LankaColumbo
Belize (closed)Belmopan
BoliviaLa Paz
Honduras (closed 2005)Tegucigalpa
Peru (closed 2005)Lima
Azerbaijan (closed 2003)Baku
Belarus (closed 2002)Minsk
Banja Luka
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
St. Petersburg
Serbia and MontenegroBelgrade
Slovakia (closed 2003)Bratislava
Slovenia (closed 2003)Ljubijana
Turkmenistan (closed 2002)Ashgabat
Uzbekistan (closed 2005)Tashkent
Switzerland (UN)Geneva
Austria (UN)Vienna
USA (IMF)Washington
USA (UN)New York
Belguim (EU)Brussels
IraqBaghdad (opened 2003)
Basra (opened 2003)

14 Feb 2006 : Column 1806W

Next Section Index Home Page