Jen Craft

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?