Points of Order

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On 21 May, during business questions, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) asked a question relating to the murder of my constituent Henry Nowak. At the time, the case against his murderer was still ongoing. The right hon. Gentleman gave numerous details of the crime itself, including accusations that had been made by the now convicted murderer. I am led to believe that matters subject to ongoing criminal cases are considered to be sub judice and that Members should not speak about the details of such cases due to the risk of prejudicing proceedings and, in the worst-case scenario, causing a mistrial. Can the right hon. Gentleman imagine the impact on my constituents of going through the trauma and horror of a trial only to have to go through it again because a politician had been impatient and reckless?

I would be grateful for your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker, on how Members should conduct themselves when wishing to raise matters that are sub judice and whether the right hon. Member for Newark owes an apology both to Members of this House, who have abided by this convention, respecting the family’s right to justice, and whom he has repeatedly castigated online, and to my constituents, who refrained from publicly voicing their justified horror at the initial police response until the trial concluded so that their loved one could receive justice?

I thank the hon. Member for giving notice of her point of order, and I understand that she informed the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) of it in advance. The House’s sub judice resolution is a significant self-imposed restriction on freedom of speech in this House. Its purpose is to prevent prejudice to individual cases, and to preserve comity with the courts. As the hon. Member notes, the Clerks in the Table Office are always happy to advise Members on the sub judice rule and its application to proceedings. It is, however, ultimately the Member’s responsibility to avoid infringing the sub judice rule, and to exercise freedom of speech responsibly.

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I apologise for not giving prior notice of my point of order, but it pertains to the answer given to me by the Minister during the statement. Could she advise on whether the record can be checked to see whether this House discussed the murder of the three little girls in Southport and the case of Sir David Amess before the murderers in those cases were sentenced? I believe that both those cases were brought to the House before the murderers were sentenced.

The hon. Member did not give me prior notice of her point of order. First of all, the Chair is not responsible for the content of speeches or contributions made by Back Benchers, let alone Front Benchers. I do not have to hand the information that she requires about those two issues, but no doubt the Clerks can provide it in a moment or two. As the hon. Member will know, the Government are responsible for the statements that they bring forward to the House.

Armed Forces Bill (Programme) (No. 2)

That the Order of 26 January in the last session of Parliament (Armed Forces Bill: Programme) be varied as follows:

(1) Paragraphs 4 to 6 of the Order shall be omitted.

(2) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House on recommittal, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall be taken in two days in accordance with the following provisions of this Order.

Committee of the whole House

(3) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House shall be taken on the first day and shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on the first day.