§ 23. Mr. George OsborneTo ask the Solicitor-General what the cost to public funds was of the(a) prosecution and (b) imprisonment of Mrs. Sally Clark. [141779]
§ The Solicitor-GeneralThe total costs incurred by the Crown Prosecution Service were £320,000 and the prison costs, based on average costs per prisoner, were approximately £111,000.
Following the appeal of Sally Clark, the Attorney General and I met the Director of Public Prosecution to discuss the implications of the appeal We established a Group comprising the police, Crown Prosecution Service, Home Office and other relevant agencies to consider whether any cases in which Doctor Williams has given important evidence require a more in depth review.
Interim guidance has been sent to all Chief Crown Prosecutors requesting that all current cases be identified in which either Doctor Williams or Professor Meadow are witnesses. The defence is then to be served with a copy of the judgment in the Sally Clark case and its attention is drawn to sections of the judgment touching on his evidence. Further and fuller guidance will be provided to prosecutors as soon as possible. This will apply to both present and future cases.
On 28 July, the Inter-Departmental Group held its first meeting. Progress was made in two areas. How previous cases in which Doctor Alan Williams conducted a post mortem were to be identified and what factors would be used to select the cases on which the group should concentrate.
Following that meeting, work commenced immediately on the identification of cases. Several agencies assisted in respect of this process, with the police and the Crown Prosecution Service taking the lead. The Group set a deadline of mid-September for the conclusion of that process. By that date, approximately 50 previous cases had been identified, which dated back between 5–7 years. These cases all involved charges of murder, manslaughter or 148W infanticide where Doctor Williams had been instructed by the police to conduct the post mortem and which had resulted in a conviction.
The cases themselves are now being reviewed. An experienced member each of the Metropolitan Police and the Crown Prosecution Service are conducting the review. This work is continuing. It is anticipated that the results of the initial review will be considered early next year.
The Group is also considering whether the exercise of reviewing cases should be extended to those involving Professor Meadow.
The Home Office Pathology Advisory Board will understand publish new Codes of Practice and Procedure for Pathologists, which will take account of the judicial comments on the methodology employed by Doctor Williams in the Sally Clark case. Once published, the Codes will be distributed to pathologists.