During the debate, referenced written evidence submitted by the University of Manchester’s on ethical concerns around the Bill.

Commenting on last week’s debate, Dr Alexandra Mullock said: “The Commons debate on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill has shone an important light on the complexities and unresolved questions that remain. With the third reading now expected in June, this pause must be used wisely, to reflect, scrutinise and strengthen the bill. 

“As raised in the debate, there are valid concerns about bureaucracy and accessibility, particularly the risk of creating a complex panel system that deters rather than empowers patients. Concerns over safeguards for people with mental illness, the potential strain on an overstretched NHS, and how an assisted dying service might be established must also be addressed. 

“Crucially, we must ensure this Bill doesn’t create a climate where some feel either that they have a duty to die, or fear over unmet palliative care needs pushes them towards seeking an assisted death. We have a responsibility to ensure assisted dying is never seen as a substitute for compassionate, well-funded end-of-life care.”

Read Dr Mullock’s comment in full on .

This career decision would also have a key impact upon Margot’s personal life, as she would subsequently marry one of her colleagues, Rodney Brazier, in 1974. Together the Braziers have remained at the heart of Law at 91ֱ�� for over 50 years.

Margot began as a tort scholar and this expertise led her to become co-editor of two key textbooks in the field. Research in this area then led her into reading North American case law on medical malpractice, which began her interest in the link between the law and healthcare. She published widely in this field to international acclaim. In recent years, Margot explored the history of medicine and its links with law, the topic of her most recent book.

In the early 1980s Margot met John Harris, a philosopher, also working at 91ֱ��. They discovered shared interests and, together with other colleagues, decided to set up a Masters degree in . Margot also taught undergraduate students, inspiring many to continue their studies to postgraduate level.  She supervised many PhD students who have benefited from her knowledge, wisdom and guidance. 

In 1986 Margot and John also set up the (CSEP) which has become a leading research centre.

The current Co-Directors of CSEP (Sarah Devaney and Alex Mullock) reflect: 

Margot also used her expertise in public service. Not only an outstanding scholar who made a pioneering contribution to her field, she has also made an equally outstanding contribution as a public intellectual and leader in policy debate and law reform. Margot Chaired the Animal Procedures Committee (1993-98), led a review into surrogacy for UK Health Ministers (1996- 1998), Chaired the Retained Organs Commission (2001-2004) and Chaired a Working Party ‘The Ethics of Prolonging Life in Foetuses and the Newborn’ for the Nuffield Council on Bioethics (2004-2006).

Margot was an incredible mentor to so many students and academics and has been acknowledged as a ‘paradigmatic female role model’.  Her enormous contribution has been recognised in many awards including an OBE (1997), Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts (1993), Fellow of the Academy of Medical Sciences (2007), Queen’s Council (honoris causa) (2008), Halsbury Legal Award for Academic Contribution (2013), University of Manchester Medal of Honour (2012) and Fellow of the British Academy (2014).

Alison Wilson, former Head of School Operations, and Sarah Tiffany-Dodman, Engagement and External Relations Manager, on behalf of all the Professional Services staff who knew and worked with Margot reflect: 

This event, part of the 'Miscarriages of Justice' module, provided students with a stark insight into the consequences of corporate negligence and prosecutorial misconduct.

Rochelle Rossi, a student who attended the lecture, found it profoundly impactful:

First-hand accounts of injustice

During the event, the speakers shared their deeply personal and distressing experiences. 

Janet Skinner, who was sentenced to nine months in prison for false accounting in 2006, spoke about the devastating impact on her life, “Once inside, I was placed on suicide watch for a week because of my state of mind.” After her release, stress triggered an autoimmune attack that left her paralysed from the neck down. Although she fought back and relearned how to walk, she remains permanently disabled.

Seema Misra was sentenced to 15 months in prison in 2010 after being wrongly convicted of theft and false accounting. She was ordered to pay £40,000 in compensation to the Post Office. 

Tom Hedges faced a £23,000 shortfall in 2010 and was advised to plead guilty to false accounting to avoid a custodial sentence. He was sentenced to seven months imprisonment, suspended for 18 months, and had to pay the Post Office £1,000 in legal fees.

Common barriers to justice

Despite the differences in each story, common barriers emerged throughout. The concealment of crucial documents, the immense financial and reputational power of the Post Office, and the systemic failures that allowed such injustices to persist all played a role. 

Both Tom and Seema used their own money to cover the deficits created by the faulty Horizon system, and when faced with prosecution, they had to rely on Legal Aid to secure defence lawyers. 

The Post Office had a dedicated in-house legal team that remained focused on the cases. The high cost of legal support made it difficult for sub-postmasters to afford effective counsel, and the deliberate withholding of evidence proving their innocence further undermined their ability to mount a proper defence. 

Each sub-postmaster was made to believe theirs was the only case, further hiding the widespread nature of the Horizon IT issues. By isolating each defendant, the Post Office was able to hide the IT issues for longer and falsely prosecute more than 900 innocent people in total. 

Addressing systemic failures

A Q&A session following the testimonies allowed staff and students to pose questions to Janet, Seema, and Tom, who gave their candid thoughts. 

When asked whether they still had faith in the system, the speakers expressed confidence in their current legal teams but scepticism toward institutional accountability. The latest news of the Home Office granting Fujitsu over £25 million in new contracts was mentioned, highlighting concerns over government contracts. "They are awarding bad behaviour—what incentive is there for change?" Seema Misra questioned. 

Despite being invited to numerous meetings with government officials, including Rishi Sunak and Sir Keir Starmer, trust in government to change things has not been restored with Janet Skinner remarking: 

Since starting the fight for compensation, the sub-postmasters have renewed trust in the legal profession, even understanding why they had been advised to enter guilty pleas initially. They implored the law students to make decisions in the future with ethics and people in mind, thinking of the bigger picture and the person behind a case. 

Lessons for our law students

Professor Claire McGourlay, Director of the 91ֱ�� Innocence Project, emphasised the significance of hearing directly from those affected: 

The event at The University of Manchester provided law students with a profound learning experience, emphasising the importance of ethical decision-making and the need for systemic reform. The first-hand accounts of Janet Skinner, Seema Misra, and Tom Hedges highlighted the human cost of wrongful convictions and the urgent need for change in the legal and corporate systems. 

As future legal professionals, the students were reminded of their role in preventing such injustices and advocating for a fairer, more just society. 

with further details on the sub-postmasters experiences.