Andy Burnham spoke about Ann Widdecombe’s murder during PMQs (Image: Gary Oakley/AP)
Andy Burnham has “apologised” and corrected the record after saying an “individual” was “responsible for the murder” of Ann Widdecombe. The Prime Minister was accused of a “breach of the presumption of innocence” by the Tories after his comment during Prime Minister’s Questions.
While No 10 declined to comment on Wednesday evening, Mr Burnham has now corrected Hansard, the official record of Parliament. A Downing Street spokeswoman said: “A correction has been issued to Hansard, and that will be published in due course.” Asked if the Prime Minister understood the code, she said: “The fact that we have issued an update speaks for itself.”
Mr Burnham referred in the chamber to the “individual responsible for the murder” of Miss Widdecombe – a former Conservative minister and Reform UK’s justice spokeswoman – despite the legal process still being in its early stages. Joshua Kerry, 28, was arrested on suspicion of murder on July 11, two days after Miss Widdecombe, 78, was found dead at her property in Haytor on Dartmoor, Devon.
A trial before a High Court judge is scheduled for June 8 next year, and a plea and case management hearing on January 29. Kerry, of Byrley Road, Rotherham, South Yorkshire, has also been charged with a terror plot against Reform UK leader Nigel Farage.
On Thursday, Commons Leader Sir Alan Campbell told the House that Mr Burnham had apologised for the error after the Shadow Commons Leader, Jesse Norman, accused the Prime Minister of being “deeply disrespectful” for having not done so. Sir Alan said: “The Prime Minister has acknowledged that he misspoke. He said that he misspoke, he has apologised, and he has corrected the record.
Ann Widdecombe died earlier this year (Image: AP/Kirsty Wigglesworth)
“There isn’t an excuse for misspeaking in the House, and I’m not trying to explain that away, but this Prime Minister is characterised by an authenticity and a passion in the way that he responds.
“It’s not unusual either for prime ministers or for anybody else to speak in the House, as long as you correct the record, which he has done, then I think that should be put into perspective.”
Words spoken by MPs in the House of Commons are protected by parliamentary privilege. The sub judice rule states MPs should not refer in debates, questions and motions to matters awaiting adjudication in a court of law.
This is to avoid influencing the outcome of those court proceedings, according to the Commons Library. On Monday, Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle granted a “limited waiver” for MPs wanting to discuss the court case.
After Mr Burnham’s comment, the Shadow Commons Leader raised a point of order, telling MPs a man is innocent until proved guilty. “The presumption of innocence goes back to Magna Carta. It applies without exception,” Mr Norman said.
“But the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom has just publicly spoken as though a man awaiting trial has already been convicted of murder. It’s directly contrary to the rule of law, it is a breach of the presumption of innocence, it is misleading to the House, and in any other forum it would be a contempt of court, which could be used to suggest the defendant had been prejudged on the merits of a case. The Prime Minister needs to apologise.”
Red-Faced Andy Burnham Forced to Apologise Over Ann Widdecombe Blunder
Andy Burnham has been forced to correct the official parliamentary record and apologise after making a serious mistake during Prime Minister’s Questions about the murder case involving former Conservative minister Ann Widdecombe. The incident has triggered a political row over the presumption of innocence, the responsibilities of the prime minister and the importance of choosing words carefully when criminal proceedings are still underway.
The controversy erupted on 14 October 2026, when Burnham responded to Reform UK leader Nigel Farage during a heated exchange in the House of Commons. In his answer, the prime minister referred to the individual “responsible for the murder” of Widdecombe, despite the fact that a suspect had been charged but had not yet been convicted. <Cite refs={[“turn858650search0″,”turn858650search3”]}/>
The remark quickly attracted criticism from Conservative MPs, who argued that the prime minister had spoken as though a defendant awaiting trial had already been found guilty. Burnham subsequently corrected the wording in Hansard, the official record of parliamentary proceedings, replacing “responsible for” with “accused of being responsible for”. Commons Leader Sir Alan Campbell later confirmed that the prime minister had acknowledged his mistake and apologised. <Cite refs={[“turn858650search1″,”turn858650search2″,”turn858650search3”]}/>
The episode has become another source of tension in an already combative political atmosphere, with Reform UK and the Conservatives questioning the government’s handling of a sensitive case involving a prominent figure associated with their political movement.
The Moment That Triggered the Row
The exchange took place during Prime Minister’s Questions, when Farage raised concerns about national security and the threat posed by individuals entering Britain across the English Channel. He referred to comments from MI5 chief Sir Ken McCallum about arrests linked to Iran and asked whether the government recognised the situation as a national security emergency.
Burnham began his response by acknowledging the difficult circumstances facing Farage and his family following the death of Widdecombe and the charges brought against a suspect.
However, his wording went further than the legal position allowed. By referring to the person charged in the case as responsible for the murder, the prime minister appeared to treat an allegation as an established fact.
The distinction may seem small in ordinary conversation, but it is important in a criminal case. A charge means that prosecutors allege an offence has been committed; it is not a conviction. The defendant remains entitled to the presumption of innocence unless and until guilt is established through the legal process.
That principle applies to everyone, regardless of the seriousness of the allegation or the public profile of the victim.
The mistake quickly became the focus of the parliamentary exchange, diverting attention from the original discussion about security and immigration.
Conservatives Demand an Apology
Jesse Norman, the Conservative shadow leader of the House of Commons, challenged the prime minister’s wording in a point of order. He argued that Burnham had spoken as though a man awaiting trial had already been convicted and said the comment was contrary to the presumption of innocence.
Norman also questioned whether the statement had misled Parliament and warned that prejudging a defendant could be particularly serious when a criminal case was awaiting trial. He called on the prime minister to withdraw the wording, correct the record and apologise. <Cite refs={[“turn858650search0″,”turn858650search2”]}/>
The intervention placed pressure on the government to respond. The issue was not whether the killing of Widdecombe deserved condemnation; it was whether the country’s most senior political figure had described the legal status of the accused accurately.
Deputy Speaker Nusrat Ghani said the content of ministers’ speeches and answers was not a matter for the chair, but noted that the government frontbench would have heard the point of order.
The exchange illustrated how quickly a brief verbal error can become a wider institutional issue when it concerns an ongoing criminal case.
Burnham Corrects the Official Record
On 15 October, Hansard published a written correction to the prime minister’s remarks. The revised wording referred to the individual “accused of being responsible for the murder of Ann Widdecombe”, rather than describing the person as responsible for it. <Cite refs={[“turn858650search3”]}/>
Commons Leader Sir Alan Campbell subsequently told MPs that Burnham had acknowledged that he misspoke, apologised and corrected the record. Campbell said there was no excuse for misspeaking in the House, while arguing that the prime minister had taken the appropriate steps once the error was recognised. <Cite refs={[“turn858650search1″,”turn858650search2”]}/>
The correction addressed the immediate problem with the wording. It did not establish anything about the guilt or innocence of the accused, which remains a matter for the courts.
For Burnham, the incident was an uncomfortable reminder that parliamentary statements can carry consequences beyond the chamber. The prime minister’s words are widely reported, and an apparently definitive statement about a defendant’s guilt can be repeated long before a jury or judge has considered the evidence.
The correction was therefore important not simply as a matter of parliamentary procedure, but as a way of ensuring that the official record accurately reflected the legal status of the case.
Who Was Ann Widdecombe?
Ann Widdecombe was a former Conservative minister and a prominent public figure who later became associated with Reform UK, serving as the party’s justice spokeswoman.
She was found dead at her property in Haytor, on Dartmoor in Devon, in July 2026. She was 78.
Joshua Kerry, 28, was arrested on suspicion of murder on 11 July, two days after Widdecombe was found dead. He has also been charged in connection with an alleged terrorism plot against Nigel Farage. These remain allegations to be determined through the legal process. <Cite refs={[“turn858650search0″,”turn858650search2”]}/>
The case has attracted considerable political attention because of Widdecombe’s public profile and her association with Reform UK. The separate allegations involving Farage have also raised questions about the security of prominent political figures.
However, the political significance of the case does not change the standards that apply to criminal proceedings. The identity of the victim, the seriousness of the charges and the views of political parties cannot substitute for evidence tested in court.
That is precisely why accurate language is so important when ministers discuss an active case.
The Rules Governing Parliamentary Debate
The controversy also highlighted the Commons’ sub judice rules, which generally restrict MPs from discussing matters that are awaiting adjudication in court. The purpose is to reduce the risk of parliamentary debate influencing proceedings or prejudicing a fair trial.
On 12 October, Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle granted a limited waiver allowing MPs to refer to the fact that charges had been brought and to discuss related questions about police handling. However, MPs were warned not to discuss the details of the cases or speculate about the accused person’s guilt or innocence. <Cite refs={[“turn858650search0″,”turn858650search2”]}/>
The limited waiver did not remove the need for caution. It allowed discussion of certain aspects of the matter, not a declaration that the defendant was guilty.
The principle is broader than parliamentary etiquette. Public officials have significant platforms, and their comments can influence how a case is perceived. Although MPs’ words in Parliament are protected by parliamentary privilege, that protection does not make every statement accurate or appropriate.
The justice system depends on the separation between accusation and conviction. A person charged with an offence must have the opportunity to answer the case against them, and guilt must be established according to the law.
A Political Problem for the Government
Opposition parties have used the episode to question Burnham’s judgement and attention to detail. For Conservatives, the error offered an opportunity to challenge the prime minister over his handling of a sensitive issue. Reform UK, meanwhile, has an obvious interest in the case because of Widdecombe’s association with the party and the separate allegations involving Farage.
Yet the central issue should not be reduced to a contest between political parties. The presumption of innocence is not a privilege reserved for political allies or a principle that applies only in less controversial cases. It protects everyone accused of a crime.
Nor does the correction mean that the prime minister’s wider concerns about national security were necessarily wrong. The question about Channel crossings, security threats and the government’s response can be debated separately from the wording of his statement about the murder case.
Keeping those issues separate would allow Parliament to scrutinise the government’s security policy without prejudging a defendant whose case has not yet been decided.
The episode also demonstrates the importance of prompt corrections. When a minister makes an inaccurate statement, acknowledging the error and amending the record helps preserve the reliability of parliamentary proceedings. It cannot erase the original remark, but it can clarify the official position.
What Happens Next in the Case?
Kerry’s trial is scheduled to begin on 8 June 2027, with a plea and case-management hearing listed for 29 January 2027, according to reporting published after the charges were brought. <Cite refs={[“turn858650search0″,”turn858650search2”]}/>
Until the legal process has run its course, the allegations must remain allegations. The court will consider the evidence and determine the issues before it in accordance with the law.
The scheduled trial also underlines why public figures must avoid language that could be interpreted as announcing a verdict in advance. A high-profile case can attract intense public attention, but it is the courts, not politicians or newspaper headlines, that determine criminal guilt.
For the government, the immediate parliamentary issue has been addressed through the correction and apology. The wider political consequences may continue, particularly as opposition MPs use the incident to scrutinise the prime minister’s conduct.
Conclusion
Andy Burnham’s apology and correction over his remarks about Ann Widdecombe’s murder case have brought an uncomfortable parliamentary episode to a close, but the incident has highlighted an important principle of the justice system.
The prime minister initially described a charged individual as responsible for the killing, then amended the official record to make clear that the person was accused of the offence. Commons Leader Sir Alan Campbell confirmed that Burnham had acknowledged the mistake and apologised.
The distinction between accusation and conviction is fundamental. Whatever the political affiliations of those involved, a defendant must be presumed innocent until guilt is established in court.
The episode serves as a reminder that parliamentary debate requires precision, particularly when discussing criminal proceedings that have yet to be resolved. Political leaders can condemn violence, discuss security concerns and demand effective policing without presenting an allegation as a proven fact.
As the case moves towards trial, the evidence must be assessed through the judicial process. The political argument may continue, but the question of guilt belongs in court.