British Nationals Murdered Abroad: Support for Families

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Sir Nicholas Dakin.)

22:12:00

I am glad to be able to speak in the Adjournment today about an issue of painful neglect that affects 80 British families each year, yet remains largely hidden from public and parliamentary view. We have all said goodbye to a loved one at an airport, wishing them well for their holiday, or their time abroad for work or study. If any of us was to receive a phone call saying that our loved one had been murdered when they were in the UK, that phone call would be devastating enough, but to receive that phone call when a loved one is thousands of miles away—murdered across an ocean, in a country that speaks another language—is a whole different world of pain and confusion. Every year, British citizens are killed in acts of violence abroad. In many cases, their families are left to deal with unimaginable grief for the loss of a loved one, all while faced with the full weight of an unfamiliar, bureaucratic and different system. They do that alone. They have to navigate foreign legal procedures, untranslated documents and distant court proceedings with patchy, inconsistent support from their Government—all at a time of trauma, vulnerability and mourning. Tonight, I want to be a voice for those families, through the Murdered Abroad campaign, a group of bereaved relatives who have turned their grief into a powerful call for change. They are not asking for special treatment—in fact, they want the complete opposite. They are asking for fairness and compassion, and the kind of structured, statutory support that families receive when tragedy strikes on British soil. In January this year, I met a family in Maidenhead, who discussed their story of their son’s murder in America in 2009. They managed to contact the consulate, but the time difference was tricky, and there was not much help for the family with communicating. After many calls, they realised they were not really getting anywhere, so they had to take matters into their own hands, even going so far as to arrange the repatriation of their son’s body in the absence of support from their Government. When a British citizen is murdered abroad, their family is plunged not only into grief and shock, but into a crisis made worse by the overwhelming burden of having to navigate unfamiliar systems with a lack of support.

I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate on a subject that is very important to many. Between 2010 and 2015, more than 250 British nationals were murdered abroad, in Pakistan, Tunisia, France and the United States, which he mentioned. We often see horror stories online—cases in which an individual has been found but not yet identified. Does he agree that, in the case of British nationals, there is more that the Foreign Office could do to ensure that all efforts are made to alert the family before any news is released to the media? Sometimes the media need to be sensitive.

I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I have spoken to a number of families across the country who say that they found out via social media or via the press that their son or parent had been murdered. That is not good enough—it is not acceptable. I want to start with language barriers, which are among the first and most distressing problems that families face. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office offers families a list of translators, but those lists often come without crucial context, such as information about whether the translators are legally certified, whether they are experienced with criminal or judicial terminology, whether they are available on short notice, and how much they cost. In a moment of extreme vulnerability, families are forced into a commercial marketplace with no quality control and no guidance. Many simply cannot afford translation fees, which can run into thousands of pounds, yet they are handed copies of important documents—autopsy reports, court transcripts, police records, judgments—in a language they do not speak. That is an active barrier to justice. Let us consider for a moment what that means in practice: a grieving mother receiving her child’s post-mortem report, unable to understand a word of it, or a widower left alone to guess at the meaning of complex judgment findings, not even sure whether justice has been served or denied, because they cannot read the verdict. Then we must confront the issue of distance. In many cases, trials take place thousands of miles away. Families may be notified of court proceedings at short notice and are often given no logistical or financial support to attend. The cost of flights, accommodation, meals and unpaid leave from work quickly adds up. For many, it becomes an impossible choice: deplete their savings to try to attend, or stay at home and risk missing their one chance to see justice carried out, to hear what happened or to look the accused in the eye. The Government do not provide any funding for families to attend foreign trials, even when the court’s findings could have a direct impact on a coroner’s inquest here in the UK. This is not about luxury; it is about basic fairness. No bereaved family should be priced out of justice because a killing happened beyond our borders. Add to that the challenges of cultural and legal complexities, and it is easy to see why families feel so lost. Legal systems vary from country to country. Some are adversarial like ours; others are not. Some permit victims’ families to play an active role; others do not. The length of proceedings, the level of evidence required and the appeal process all differ, yet families are given little to no explanation by the Government. They are often told to find a lawyer abroad, but the list provided comes with little guidance. There is no indication whether those lawyers speak English, specialise in murder, understand victim support or are familiar with working alongside British families. All the while, in the UK, the families are left with no legal advice from someone who specialises in overseas homicide cases. Time and again, however, the most frustrating aspect is communication failures, which the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned. Families describe being left in the dark about the most basic details of the case. Trial dates come and go without notice. Hearings are adjourned with no explanation. Key developments, such as the release of a suspect or even a final verdict, are learned of through the media, social media or word of mouth, rather than through official channels. That is unacceptable. Families are not asking for the world; they are asking for regular updates, clear communication and transparency, so that they are not blindsided by crucial developments in the pursuit of justice for their loved one.

Some aspects of the cases that the hon. Gentleman is eloquently describing are sadly very similar to those in the case of Rob Spray, from my Cannock Chase constituency, who died suddenly in Bulgaria in 2019. Rob’s case is about to be heard at inquest, so I will not comment on the legal aspects, but I can say that his family were left in the dark by the Bulgarian authorities and, sadly, by the Foreign Office. They had very little guidance, even on how to bring Rob’s body back to the UK, and they had to resort to a translation app to decipher Rob’s autopsy after they were told that they would have to wait six months for an official translation. That all deepened their grief and frustration at the worst possible time. The worst part of all is that Rob’s mom sadly passed away not knowing what happened to her son. I will do everything I can to help Rob’s family get the answers that they have waited so long to get, and I know that the hon. Gentleman will continue to campaign on this. Does he agree that we need to make sure that bereaved families like the Sprays get the full support of the British Government, so that they can get the closure that they need and deserve?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and for talking about Rob and his family. It is really important that the Government step up and support families, where they need it. Families need consistent advice, and to know that they have someone to turn to. That brings me on nicely to my next point, which is about the consistency of support for families through consular services. Some describe consular services overseas as being provided by really positive, empathetic individuals who go out of their way to help, but far too many tell me about being passed from person to person, receiving contradictory advice, having emails ignored and being made to feel more like a burden than a bereaved family in need of care. The inconsistency is one of the crucial failings, because there is no statutory duty on the Government to provide a minimum standard of support to families in such circumstances. The level of help depends on the consulate involved, which official picks up the phone, and which country the incident occurs in. It is a passport lottery. I want to mention some real people and highlight how they feel they have been failed. Eve Henderson’s husband Roderick was killed in France in 1997. She encountered immediate language barriers and a completely different judicial process that no one explained to her and no one helped her navigate. Brian Chandler’s grandson Liam was killed in Greece in 2006. He was pushed from a fourth-floor balcony by his own father, a British national. The perpetrator admitted what he had done, yet the Greek court found him not guilty because of a psychiatric episode. For Liam’s family, the experience of sitting through the trial in a foreign language and trying to understand the complex legal arguments with no help was traumatic and bewildering. The fact that the case involved a British perpetrator makes it all the more difficult to understand why British authorities provided no support. Brenda’s brother Howard was killed in Australia in 1999. She faced an enormous barrier of distance. Attending the trial meant significant cost, time off work and personal sacrifice. No financial assistance or practical help was offered. She had to choose between justice and affordability—an impossible choice that no grieving family should ever have to make. Alyssa’s sister Vanessa was killed in Thailand in 2004. Alyssa faced a perfect storm of challenges: the language barrier, cultural differences, geographical distance and an unfamiliar legal system. She had no understanding of how Thai courts operated and no guidance on how to follow proceedings, and it quickly became a nightmare. Those are not isolated incidents; they are emblematic of a broken and inconsistent system.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. Dr Ding Col Dau Ding was raised and educated in North Norfolk and became a neurosurgeon before travelling to South Sudan to practise medicine and save lives. In 2017, he was found dead in his family’s flat, and they believe that he was murdered. The official Government narrative is that he died by suicide or misadventure, but there is significant evidence to dispute that. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is an extra challenge for families whose loved ones are murdered abroad when they also have to challenge the authorities, and that the Foreign Office should support them in their fight for justice?

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. It is incredibly important that the authorities provide that extra support. One thing that families have told me makes a real difference is the peer support that they can get from other families who have walked the path, and who can offer reassurance, practical advice and emotional understanding that no bureaucrat or leaflet ever could. These support networks, like Murdered Abroad, are under-resourced and often disconnected from formal consular processes. They are run by volunteers—by the bereaved themselves—who have taken on this work not because they are asked to, but because nobody else would. It is time we supported them and recognised their work, because that is what we are here to do. We need a clear, comprehensive statutory framework of support for families of British citizens murdered abroad. I am calling on the Government to commit to eight key reforms. First, there needs to be a statutory duty to provide consistent and timely communication to bereaved families. Every family should have a named point of contact and regular updates, not a revolving door of anonymous officials and faceless email inboxes. Secondly, key documents must be translated into English. No family should be forced to hire their own translator through crowdfunding or use up all their savings just to understand how their loved one died. Thirdly, there needs to be accessible guidance on the foreign country’s judicial process, including information about how criminal investigations work, trial expectations, timelines and victim rights. This information should be publicly accessible. Fourthly, there must be a list of verified legal support that makes it clear what kind of cases the legal experts handle and whether they speak English. Fifthly, we need improved co-operation between British and foreign authorities as well as police liaison and information sharing. The UK must be proactive in ensuring that our citizens’ cases are not allowed to stall for long periods of time. Sixthly, families should have support to attend foreign trials, including financial assistance where it is desperately needed, logistical help and trauma-informed briefings. Attendance at trials should be a right, not a luxury. Seventhly, we need clear co-ordination within the UK. That includes consistent advice on repatriation, clearer guidance on coroner inquests and formal links to the peer-to-peer networks that can reduce isolation and provide lived experience insight, because it can often be so different. Finally, we need an independent complaints and review mechanism, so that when support fails, families know that they have somewhere to turn. This mechanism must include the power to investigate, recommend and drive change. These points are important, because this provision does not exist at the moment. The loss of a loved one to murder is already the greatest pain a family can endure. That pain should not be compounded by systemic failure, indifference or confusion. The families who make up the Murdered Abroad campaign have shown courage, dignity and resolve, and not just in seeking justice for their loved ones, but in trying to ensure that no one else suffers the way that they have.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. He eloquently outlined the steps that would ensure that people who suffer bereavement abroad receive justice. Does he agree that as well as having a framework for going forward, we also need the Foreign Office to look retrospectively at historical cases to ensure that people who have previously suffered get the justice they deserve?

My hon. Friend makes a really important point. As I said, about 80 families are affected each year, so this issue is ongoing and we need to make sure that where things have not gone right, we fix them and provide support to these families. The changes that families are calling for are not radical; they are humane, reasonable and long overdue, so I ask the Minister directly: will the Government commit to working with families, consular staff, legal experts and campaigners to create a statutory framework for support, and will she ensure that no British family is left to face this horror alone, with only silence and guesswork for company? Let us remember that if a British citizen were murdered on UK soil, their family would have access to a whole network of support—victim liaison officers, legal aid, local police, courts, coroners and therapeutic services. It should not matter where the tragedy happens; a British passport should still guarantee a minimum level of support from the British state. The UK must do better, because British justice does not stop at our borders. A British life lost, no matter where it happens, is still a British life lost. Compassion in the face of tragedy is not optional; it is a duty, and it is a duty that we should be taking on.

22:27:00

May I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds) on securing this very important debate and on his thoughtful and compassionate contribution? He has used his voice this evening for the voiceless, and I thank him for doing so. Losing a loved one to murder is devastating, but when that tragedy happens overseas, the pain is only compounded by distance, unfamiliar legal systems and the complexity of navigating bureaucracy while trying to grieve. I fully agree with the hon. Gentleman that families going through something so traumatic should never have to face it alone. They should be able to access support to help them cope and recover. Let me reassure the hon. Gentleman and this House that bereaved families in England and Wales can access support, even if the crime took place abroad. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office leads on providing support to families bereaved through murder or manslaughter overseas. The specialist murder and manslaughter team in the FCDO’s consular assistance department provides emotional support to bereaved families and helps them to navigate challenging investigative and judicial processes in foreign countries. That includes when a death occurred in an event designated by the UK Government as an act of terrorism. Families can receive updates on an investigation or trial, guidance about local legal processes, and help finding support services in the country where the incident happened. While the FCDO cannot intervene in another country’s justice system, it does all it can to ensure that families are kept informed and treated with compassion. I do appreciate, however, that the experience of families in legal systems abroad, as we have heard from hon. Members, can be deeply painful at a time when they are already experiencing immense grief. This evening, I want to pay tribute to my constituent Nathan Osman, who tragically lost his life in Benidorm on 28 September last year. His family, including his sister Alannah, brother Lee and parents Liz and Jonathan, have given their consent to speak about Nathan today. My team and I have been supporting them for several months as they fight tirelessly for justice. Alannah was initially contacted by the Spanish authorities on the day of Nathan’s death. The exchange of information was brief and unclear, with Alannah confirming her name only to be told, “Brother found dead, bottom of cliff.” They were told to contact the British embassy two days later and left with no additional information. The Spanish police initially—like in the case of Dr Ding, mentioned by the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone)—ruled Nathan’s death as accidental and closed his case with little investigation or support. It was only thanks to the family’s research and investigation, with help from my team—specifically from Rebecca Lewis—that enough information was collated to reopen that case. I hope that will bring closure for the Osman family. While South Wales police did their best to support the family during the immediate aftermath of Nathan’s death, they had no direct contact with the Spanish authorities or Interpol to clarify if the translated information that the family had received was correct and accurate.

The point I made to the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds) was that families sometimes find out about these cases on social media or somewhere else. I would have thought that whenever the police in whatever country become aware that someone was a British citizen, they would immediately contact the embassy and make it aware of what had happened so that it could be the conduit. Could that be done? We have had a similar case in Northern Ireland, although I will not go into any details because it is an ongoing case. There is an important role for the consulate and the British embassy to play.

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. It should be the appropriate protocol for the police to be informed first of an incident in a country, with the families informed by the police in that country or by the police in our country via Interpol, as I said. But, in today’s modern age, sadly that is not always the case. It is not fair to the families that they find out second or third hand. An appropriate protocol should be in place. That should be how it happens. Sadly, we know that is not always the case. The Osman family did not receive, and did not know that they could receive, a trained family liaison officer in Wales, and they were largely ignored by Spanish police. When they visited Spain shortly afterwards, they had to describe the situation on a mobile phone using Google Translate—we have heard that about similar cases—and there was extensive miscommunication throughout the ordeal between the family and external authorities, costing valuable investigation time and prolonging their agony. There were many other issues with obtaining Nathan’s case file and coroner’s report, which the family believe contain a number of discrepancies. No one should have to endure what they went through. Losing a young family member in such horrific circumstances is a pain that few of us can truly understand, and they were retraumatised through various errors and miscommunications. In the pictures and videos shared with my team by the family, it is easy to see what a dedicated father Nathan was to his young children and how much he is still loved and missed every day. I thank Alannah, Lee, Liz and Jonathan for sharing Nathan’s story with me, and I thank hon. Members for sharing their stories with me this evening. I am sure the whole House will join me in sharing all our condolences with everyone impacted.

I thank the Minister for the open and sensitive way in which she is responding to the debate and for sharing the experiences of the family of her constituent Nathan. I am familiar with that case. She heard me explain the contact that I am having with the family of Rob Spray in my constituency. Would she be willing to meet me and the family, when the time is right for them, to see what could be done to get them the answers they so desperately want?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the Sprays’ experience. It is their lived experience and the experiences of other bereaved families that fuel me and give me that information to conduct my role as the victims Minister. I wholeheartedly welcome that correspondence and information. In addition to the FCDO support that I have set out, the Homicide Service is commissioned by the Ministry of Justice to provide specialist practical, emotional, peer and advocacy support to families after a murder, whether it happened here or abroad. For homicides that occur overseas, that includes funding to contribute to the cost of repatriation to the UK, for the family to travel to the country in question, and for the interpretation and translation of documents, among other services. Crucially, this support is tailored to each family’s circumstances and is available for as long as it is needed, so that families are not left to navigate these challenges alone.

I have been helping a constituent whose relative was murdered abroad over 10 years ago, and it is still an ongoing issue. My constituent tells me that the responses from the FCDO have not always been prompt or clear, that there has not always been a named point of contact and that, sadly, in some instances there have been mistakes in emails that were labelled “official” by the FCDO. In addition to offering support to colleagues through talking about their experiences, would the Minister and her colleagues consider setting up some sort of drop-in to which MPs could bring their cases, so that we can all help our constituents to get the justice they deserve?

I thank the hon. Member for that contribution, and I am so sorry to hear of his constituent’s experiences. It is exactly that type of experience that is fuelling me to find out what more we can do to support the families of those murdered abroad. I think a drop-in would be welcome, and I welcome correspondence from Members across the House on their experiences. I also appeal to families across England and Wales to let me hear about their experiences directly so that I can work with charities such as Murdered Abroad and the Victims’ Commissioner to see what more we can do for them. We have a memorandum of understanding in place on murder, manslaughter and infanticide abroad between the FCDO, UK policing and His Majesty’s coroner. This sets out clearly the support that is available when a British national is murdered overseas and the deceased has been repatriated to England or Wales. It clearly defines the roles of each signatory, setting out a shared commitment to working together in support of bereaved families. In some cases, this includes assigning a family liaison officer to bereaved families in the UK, although I appreciate that this is at the discretion of the local police force. At local level in England and Wales, police and crime commissioners also have the power to commission services for all victims of crime, including supporting victims where the crime has been committed overseas. However, as I have already outlined, we recognise that for many families in this difficult position, it is not always clear what support is available or how to access it. That is why, as we develop the new victims code provided for in the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, we are considering what further information can be included to better signpost help for those affected by crimes overseas. I intend to consult on the new code with all new Members and the public in due course.

While the Minister is developing that code, and before we reach the point at which it is ready to be shared widely with the public, would it be valuable for her to meet Eve and others who founded the charity Murdered Abroad, and to talk directly to them about their experiences and how they could influence the code at this earlier stage?

I welcome the hon. Member’s comments. It is crucial that we consult organisations such as Murdered Abroad when looking at the new victims code. It is important that we consult all organisations supporting victims and survivors as we look at what else is missing from the code and how best we can provide that support. That said, I should make it clear that we do not necessarily believe that the victims code is the right place to make provision for victims of overseas crimes. The code sets out the minimum standards of service that victims should receive when involved in cases dealt with in the criminal justice system in England and Wales. It is therefore designed around the laws and procedures that we have here in our jurisdiction and our criminal justice system, much of which will not be applicable in cases involving crimes overseas. It is therefore not the right vehicle to make provision for victims where the offence is investigated and prosecuted abroad, as consular support overseas relies on the responses of agencies in that specific country where the crime occurred. I commit to the hon. Member for Maidenhead and the House that, following the new code, my Department will work with the National Police Chiefs’ Council, the FCDO, the Victims’ Commissioner and Murdered Abroad, taking into account the lived experience of others, to explore how we can make clearer what support exists for families affected by homicide abroad and what more we can do to support them. We know how traumatic and isolating it can be to lose a loved one to violence in a foreign country. No family should face that kind of devastation alone, and our hearts go out to families who have gone, and are going, through it. When it does happen, those families deserve compassion, clarity and proper support. We are working to improve access to the help available and to ensure that those who need support know how to find it. I hope the hon. Member for Maidenhead is reassured by the measures I have set out and the steps we are taking to strengthen the support on offer even further. Question put and agreed to.

22:39:00