Ministry of Justice

Since April 2025 there has been a net increase to the number of providers contracted to deliver legal aid services. The Legal Aid Agency (LAA) publishes data about provider numbers as part of its official statistics (table 9.6). Data for the period April to December 2025 is scheduled for release on 26 March 2026.

The LAA also routinely publishes data about the volume and value of legal aid cases across all legal aid schemes as part of its official statistics. As above, data for the period April to December 2025 is scheduled for release on 26 March 2026.

As set out in my response to PQ 98862, since the serious criminal attack on the LAA’s digital services was identified we have worked closely with relevant law enforcement agencies and Police. As sensitive investigations remain ongoing it would not be appropriate to comment on the nature or detail of this engagement.

Since April 2025 there has been a net increase to the number of providers contracted to deliver legal aid services. The Legal Aid Agency (LAA) publishes data about provider numbers as part of its official statistics (table 9.6). Data for the period April to December 2025 is scheduled for release on 26 March 2026.

The LAA also routinely publishes data about the volume and value of legal aid cases across all legal aid schemes as part of its official statistics. As above, data for the period April to December 2025 is scheduled for release on 26 March 2026.

As set out in my response to PQ 98862, since the serious criminal attack on the LAA’s digital services was identified we have worked closely with relevant law enforcement agencies and Police. As sensitive investigations remain ongoing it would not be appropriate to comment on the nature or detail of this engagement.

Since April 2025 there has been a net increase to the number of providers contracted to deliver legal aid services. The Legal Aid Agency (LAA) publishes data about provider numbers as part of its official statistics (table 9.6). Data for the period April to December 2025 is scheduled for release on 26 March 2026.

The LAA also routinely publishes data about the volume and value of legal aid cases across all legal aid schemes as part of its official statistics. As above, data for the period April to December 2025 is scheduled for release on 26 March 2026.

As set out in my response to PQ 98862, since the serious criminal attack on the LAA’s digital services was identified we have worked closely with relevant law enforcement agencies and Police. As sensitive investigations remain ongoing it would not be appropriate to comment on the nature or detail of this engagement.

In developing his recommendations, Sir Brian Leveson and his expert advisers, including Professor David Ormerod, engaged with many external bodies and organisations with invaluable expertise of our Criminal Justice System including criminal legal organisations, charities, academics, and members of the judiciary. A full list is at Annex C of Part 1 of his report.

When considering Sir Brian’s recommendations and developing our proposals, I have engaged regularly with stakeholders and relevant sectors including but not limited to representatives from the legal sector (Law Society, Bar Council, Criminal Bar Association), victims and victims representatives (the Victims Commissioner, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, Rape Crisis), judiciary (Circuit leaders, Judicial leadership), magistracy (Magistrates’ Association, Magistrates’ Leadership Executive), non-governmental organisations (Appeal, JUSTICE, Transform Justice), court staff in criminal courts around the country (Wood Green, Snaresbrook, Kingston, Southwark, Telford, Birmingham etc) and similar international jurisdictions. For example, I met judges and visited courts in Canada, which uses types of judge-only trial.

We welcome the recommendations made in Part 1 of Sir Brian’s Review, which provided the blueprint for reform. Sir Brian’s recommendations were ambitious, but he also recognised that the Government might need to take his recommendations further to address the scale of the challenge we are facing. We have three levers for restoring stability and confidence in the criminal courts system – investment, modernisation, and structural reform. Pursuing any one of these levers in isolation would not be enough to meet projected demand into the courts, let alone address the rising caseload. The Government has already invested heavily in the system – in record sitting days, court buildings and technology, and in legal professionals. On 4 February 2026, Sir Brian published Part 2 of his Independent Review of the Criminal Courts, which makes recommendations to improve the efficiency of the criminal courts. We will urgently consider the proposals set out, alongside Sir Brian’s remaining recommendations from Part 1, and respond to them in due course.

The Government implemented the Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) measures in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (ECCTA) in June 2025, which provides protection against SLAPPs relating to economic crime. While this was a positive first step, we are considering all options for reform to ensure that all types of SLAPPs are addressed comprehensively.

We have funded 112,250 Crown Court sitting days this financial year – 5,000 more than the previous Government and a record number. The Deputy Prime Minister has made clear that sitting days will continue to increase in both the Crown and magistrates’ courts.

As our latest published projections show, demand by 2030 is forecast to be 7% higher in the Crown Court than current levels. This means the courts would need to sit 139,000 days just to keep up with demand and even that would not enable us to reduce the backlog. The system is not able to deliver that number – there are insufficient prosecutors, defence barristers and judges to keep up with the demand. As a benchmark, the Lady Chief Justice has said that the maximum the judiciary could presently sit is around 113,000 sitting days.

Therefore, even with record-breaking investment in sitting days, the Crown Court backlog will continue to grow, leaving people waiting for longer and longer for justice. That is why we are pulling every lever we have – investment, reform and efficiency – to turn the tide on the backlog and begin to deliver justice for victims.

Organisations can already be asked to contribute to the cost of legal fees where vexatious or unreasonable behaviour has occurred. The Employment Tribunals (ET) can issue cost orders where one side is ordered to pay the other’s legal costs. For unfair dismissal cases, if the tribunal decides a claimant has been unfairly dismissed, they can receive compensation. Compensation awards can be ‘basic’ (based on age, length of service and average weekly wage) and ‘compensatory’ (based on loss of earnings).

The Ministry of Justice has not carried out an assessment of the merits of introducing more widespread use of cost orders. This is because the Tribunal Procedure Committee (TPC) is responsible for making procedure rules in the ET that includes the rules regarding cost orders. The Lord Chancellor can consider impacts of the changes the TPC recommend before deciding whether to implement them.

The Civil Procedure Rule Committee is responsible for the rules that govern the procedure for notifying people of court proceedings, known as the rules of service. In July 2025 it consulted on changes to the service rules including to permit electronic service on parties with whom there has already been electronic communication pre-action. The work to review responses to the consultation and any subsequent Civil Procedure Rules amendments is ongoing. The consultation can be found at - Civil Procedure Rule Committee - service consultation

The Ministry of Justice holds an extract of the Police National Computer (PNC) which holds data on ethnicity, gender and age for convictions and cautions since 2000. A breakdown of this information is published annually in the First Time Entrants and Offenders History publication here: First Time Entrants and Offenders History publication

In addition, the Ministry of Justice holds data on convictions in the Court Proceedings database which includes details of gender and age from 1984. Ethnicity data is included from 2005 onwards. This information, along with a technical guide for each report containing further details around demographic information, is routinely published in Criminal justice statistics quarterly - GOV.UK Information on cautions from the PNC extract is also published within the reports.

Equality before the law is a fundamental principle of our criminal justice system. We are committed to working in partnership with ethnic minority communities, stakeholders and delivery partners to seize opportunities and remove barriers to racial equality across the UK and to hear people’s lived experiences.

Data First is a pioneering data-linkage, research and academic engagement programme, led by the Ministry of Justice. By making linked data across courts, prison and probation services available to accredited academic researchers, Data First continues to facilitate new research on the nature and extent of ethnic disparities in sentencing outcomes that has not been possible before.

DBS checks and the wider criminal records regime must strike a balance between safeguarding and rehabilitation, but we recognise the different ways that they can impact on an individual’s life. Sir Brian Leveson’s recent independent review of the Criminal Courts also highlighted these impacts. On 2 December 2025, the Deputy Prime Minister confirmed in a Written Ministerial Statement, that we are considering Sir Brian’s recommendation, including opportunities to simplify the regime to ensure it is clear and proportionate, particularly in relation to childhood offences.

There are no sharia law courts.

The Bill will apply to all public authorities, including the military.

Appropriate safeguards for sensitive information will be in place and we are clear that nothing should undermine our national security.

The information requested is provided in the attached excel tables. These tables include data covering the period 2020 – 2024 on:

- The number of offenders who were convicted of a specified offence but did not receive an immediate custodial sentence, by the number of previous convictions for that specified offence up to a maximum of 6.

As set out in response to questions 109196-109199, this data is not regularly published or held in an easily accessible format. The information supplied has been sourced from a bespoke retrieval from the Police National Computer database.

Previous convictions are already a statutory aggravating factor, with Sentencing Guidelines being clear that sentencers must consider the nature and relevance of previous convictions, and the time elapsed since the previous convictions.

The Department apologises for the significant delay in responding. We regret that this falls short of expected standards. A response was sent on 10 February.

When the Office of the Public Guardian (OPG) receives notice that the court has appointed a deputy to manage the finances or a person who lacks mental capacity, it provides the deputy with access to the Mental Capacity Act Code of Practice and supporting guidance known as Deputy Standards. Those standards are published on gov.uk and provide information on legal duties and responsibilities.

OPG expects Public Authority and professional deputies to have a higher level of technical knowledge and expertise than lay deputies, such as family members. For lay deputies, OPG provides initial support to help them meet their responsibilities competently. All deputies are subject to supervision by OPG and that process requires the deputy to submit annual accounts. Where a deputy fails to meet the Deputy Standards, they may be asked to complete a number of corrective actions. A significant breach of the standards may result in an application to the Court of Protection to remove the deputy.

If someone believes a deputy has breached their duties, they can report the matter to OPG. Under Section 58 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 OPG has the power to deal with complaints or representations about the way in which a deputy is exercising their powers, including any alleged financial mismanagement or abuse. Where necessary, OPG refers cases to the Court of Protection and other agencies such as local authorities or the police.

No such assessment has been made. The court can appoint a range of persons to fulfil the role of deputy in managing the financial affairs, and if appropriate the property affairs, of a vulnerable adult who lacks the capacity to make decisions about their assets.

Where a deputy is authorised to manage such property, they must act in accordance with the terms of the deputyship order and must act in the best interests of the vulnerable adult. The deputy must protect the property by ensuring it is secure and that appropriate insurance is in place. Keeping the property secure includes ensuring that any necessary maintenance is carried out by an appropriately qualified contractor.

The Ministry of Justice does not hold operational responsibility for the removal of child sexual abuse material (CSAM) from devices or cloud servers. Where such material is obtained as part of a criminal investigation, responsibility for the retention, secure storage and destruction of such material rests with the police who act in accordance with operational, evidential and legal requirements.

We will be undertaking the consultation on the reform of weddings law in England and Wales early this year. The exact publication date and duration is yet to be confirmed.

The Government has no plans to amend the Matrimonial Causes Act at this stage.

We are in the process of exploring the issues identified by the Law Commission in its 2024 report on financial remedies, ahead of issuing a consultation by Spring this year.

HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) has no ability to identify the number of fines that are unpaid in the last full year by reference to available digital system reports. Nor could any such report be created and run. Instead, it would be necessary to interrogate court records manually. Accordingly, the information requested could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

In addition to the complexities of the way digital systems operate, assessing payment outcomes over a fixed period is complicated in and of itself. For example, complexities are introduced by later account movements, including account consolidations, Transfer of Fine Orders and write offs. These processes can remove accounts as discrete records or require them to be written off and re raised on different systems, creating a risk of misattribution and double counting. As a result, activity recorded within a given period may relate to fines imposed outside that period, meaning period-based measures of payment rates or balances are inherently unreliable without full account level review.

This Government has delivered c.2,900 additional prison places and construction on these began between 2022 and 2024. We have invested £4.7 billion over the spending review period to enable the delivery of these additional prison places at pace and have maintained our target to deliver a total of 14,000 by 2031. The places delivered by this Government so far were approved for construction between 2020 and 2024.

This Government has delivered c.2,900 additional prison places and construction on these began between 2022 and 2024. We have invested £4.7 billion over the spending review period to enable the delivery of these additional prison places at pace and have maintained our target to deliver a total of 14,000 by 2031. The places delivered by this Government so far were approved for construction between 2020 and 2024.

There have been 2,623 Band 3–5 prison officers who joined HMPPS between 5 July 2024 and 30 September 2025.

This data only covers Public Sector Prison establishments in England and does not include Private Sector Prison establishments.

Between 5 July 2024 and 30 September 2025, 55 qualified Band 4 probation officers joined HM Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS). This figure reflects only those who already held the required qualification at the point of appointment.

The majority of Band 4 probation officers join HMPPS as trainees and qualify within the Department, rather than being recruited directly into Band 4 roles.

The UK fully supports the operation of the international treaties which enable the cross-border enforcement of maintenance decisions. Children have a right to care and support, and parents have a responsibility to provide it. That responsibility endures regardless of family separation and includes situations where the paying parent and the child are living in different countries.

The effectiveness of reciprocal enforcement depends on how national governments operate the procedures required under the different treaties. The administration of the reciprocal enforcement of maintenance procedures in England and Wales is kept under continuous review and officials work to address any issues arising.

Regular discussions take place between UK officials and officials from other countries.

We are committed to delivering an additional 14,000 prison places and aim to do so by 2031; we have already delivered more than 2,900 of these places since taking office.

The 10-Year Prison Capacity Strategy set out our ambition to establish a pipeline of future supply beyond these 14,000 places. Decisions regarding the female estate are kept under continuous review and are balanced against government ambition, demand for places, and the need to protect both prisoner and public safety.

As of 1 February 2026, there were seven prisoners on E Wing, the separate unit for transgender women at HMP Downview.

The information requested cannot be provided for the general female or male prison estates without breaching our legal obligations under data protection legislation. Where a request is made for statistical information and the total figure amounts to five or fewer, we must consider whether this would be likely to lead to the identification of individuals, and whether disclosure of this information would be in breach of our statutory obligations under the General Data Protection Regulation and the Data Protection Act 2018.

Transgender women with birth genitalia and/or any history of violent or sexual offending cannot be placed in the general women’s estate except in exceptional circumstances, where an exemption has been granted by Ministers. No transgender women have received such an exemption under this Government.

As set out in the December 2024 10-Year Prison Capacity Strategy, we are committed to delivering an additional 14,000 prison places and aim to do so by 2031. Around 4,300 of these places have received planning permission since 5 July 2024. This includes full planning permission for a c.1,500 place prison near the existing HMPs Grendon and Springhill and outline planning permission for a c.1,700 place prison near the existing HMPs Garth and Wymott. We will seek to deliver these new places as quickly as possible and continue to identify opportunities to accelerate delivery of places wherever possible.

There are currently c.5,000 places under construction across the prison estate, including c.1,700 at our next new prison, HMP Welland Oaks, in Leicestershire.

There have been no recent discussions on Reciprocal Enforcement of Maintenance Orders between the Secretary of State for Justice and Polish Ministers. Regular discussions take place between UK and Polish officials.

The Ministry of Justice and HMPPS are committed to improving the quality of education, skills and work provision in prisons to support rehabilitation and reduce reoffending. Heads of Education, Skills and Work support Governors to design a prison wide curriculum that provides education and training to meet the varying needs of their prison population.

The five prisons in Surrey have an education offer that includes vocational and employability programmes such as construction and rail‑track safety training, barista qualifications, digital and in‑cell learning, horticulture, peer mentoring, and other industry‑recognised courses such as an Optician’s Assistant accredited qualification that strengthen employment prospects on release. These programmes help prisoners gain the skills, confidence and qualifications they need to move into work on release, an important factor in reducing reoffending and supporting safer communities.

We are also prototyping the ‘Working Week Project’ at HMP Downview, alongside four other sites nationally. The project’s aim is to increase the time prisoners spend in purposeful work-based activity, developing their skills, as well as strengthening links with businesses in the community to improve employment prospects upon release.

The Government has not held any discussions with the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) regarding its handling of complaints relating to Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation (SLAPPs). The SRA operates independently of Government, and it would therefore not be appropriate for the Government to comment on its decisions.

The SRA has taken a series of regulatory, guidance-based, and enforcement-related actions to address SLAPPs to tackle reports of related misconduct within the legal profession. This includes issuing a warning notice in 2022 setting out expectations on solicitors’ conduct in SLAPP-type cases, which was updated in 2024, and publishing accompanying guidance reminding solicitors and law firms of their wider professional obligations not to bring unmeritorious or abusive claims. However, I will raise this with the SRA to determine what additional action they might be able to take in this area.

The Government implemented the SLAPPs measures in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 in June 2025, which provides protection against SLAPPs relating to economic crime. While this represents a positive first step, we are considering all options for reform to ensure that all types of SLAPPs are addressed comprehensively.

The Government has not held any discussions with the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) regarding its handling of complaints relating to Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation (SLAPPs). The SRA operates independently of Government, and it would therefore not be appropriate for the Government to comment on its decisions.

The SRA has taken a series of regulatory, guidance-based, and enforcement-related actions to address SLAPPs to tackle reports of related misconduct within the legal profession. This includes issuing a warning notice in 2022 setting out expectations on solicitors’ conduct in SLAPP-type cases, which was updated in 2024, and publishing accompanying guidance reminding solicitors and law firms of their wider professional obligations not to bring unmeritorious or abusive claims. However, I will raise this with the SRA to determine what additional action they might be able to take in this area.

The Government implemented the SLAPPs measures in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 in June 2025, which provides protection against SLAPPs relating to economic crime. While this represents a positive first step, we are considering all options for reform to ensure that all types of SLAPPs are addressed comprehensively.

The Government has not held any discussions with the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) regarding its handling of complaints relating to Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation (SLAPPs). The SRA operates independently of Government, and it would therefore not be appropriate for the Government to comment on its decisions.

The SRA has taken a series of regulatory, guidance-based, and enforcement-related actions to address SLAPPs to tackle reports of related misconduct within the legal profession. This includes issuing a warning notice in 2022 setting out expectations on solicitors’ conduct in SLAPP-type cases, which was updated in 2024, and publishing accompanying guidance reminding solicitors and law firms of their wider professional obligations not to bring unmeritorious or abusive claims. However, I will raise this with the SRA to determine what additional action they might be able to take in this area.

The Government implemented the SLAPPs measures in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 in June 2025, which provides protection against SLAPPs relating to economic crime. While this represents a positive first step, we are considering all options for reform to ensure that all types of SLAPPs are addressed comprehensively.

The Government has not held any discussions with the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) regarding its handling of complaints relating to Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation (SLAPPs). The SRA operates independently of Government, and it would therefore not be appropriate for the Government to comment on its decisions.

The SRA has taken a series of regulatory, guidance-based, and enforcement-related actions to address SLAPPs to tackle reports of related misconduct within the legal profession. This includes issuing a warning notice in 2022 setting out expectations on solicitors’ conduct in SLAPP-type cases, which was updated in 2024, and publishing accompanying guidance reminding solicitors and law firms of their wider professional obligations not to bring unmeritorious or abusive claims. However, I will raise this with the SRA to determine what additional action they might be able to take in this area.

The Government implemented the SLAPPs measures in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 in June 2025, which provides protection against SLAPPs relating to economic crime. While this represents a positive first step, we are considering all options for reform to ensure that all types of SLAPPs are addressed comprehensively.

The Government has not made a specific assessment of introducing a permanent exemption for people with lifelong or degenerative conditions. Jury service is an important civic duty, and the Government is committed to ensuring that disability is never a barrier to serving.

People with these conditions who feel unable to undertake jury service may apply to be excused, with each application considered carefully on a case-by-case basis.

Where a person wishes to serve, His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service will make reasonable adjustments to accommodate their needs whenever possible, so they can participate fully at no personal cost.

Anyone can receive civil legal aid, provided that their case is in scope of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO) and they pass the applicable means and merits tests, along with any necessary evidence requirements.

Criminal legal aid may be granted to defendants in criminal cases if they pass the applicable means and merits (interests of justice) tests. It is an accepted principle under both domestic law and international human rights agreements, as a component of the right to a fair trial, that those charged with a criminal offence have the right to legal assistance if needed.

It is possible for individuals subject to active civil court orders to claim legal aid; the legal aid framework does not prevent this. To receive legal aid, the matter must fall within the scope of the legal aid scheme, and the applicant must pass both the means and merits tests. The tests only apply to the case for which legal aid is sought, assessing financial eligibility and merits eligibility including, in relation to domestic violence cases, prospects of success and proportionality. An individual being subject to an unrelated active civil court order would not impact that assessment.

Anyone can receive civil legal aid, provided that their case is in scope of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO) and they pass the applicable means and merits tests, along with any necessary evidence requirements.

Criminal legal aid may be granted to defendants in criminal cases if they pass the applicable means and merits (interests of justice) tests. It is an accepted principle under both domestic law and international human rights agreements, as a component of the right to a fair trial, that those charged with a criminal offence have the right to legal assistance if needed.

It is possible for individuals subject to active civil court orders to claim legal aid; the legal aid framework does not prevent this. To receive legal aid, the matter must fall within the scope of the legal aid scheme, and the applicant must pass both the means and merits tests. The tests only apply to the case for which legal aid is sought, assessing financial eligibility and merits eligibility including, in relation to domestic violence cases, prospects of success and proportionality. An individual being subject to an unrelated active civil court order would not impact that assessment.

Anyone can receive civil legal aid, provided that their case is in scope of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO) and they pass the applicable means and merits tests, along with any necessary evidence requirements.

Criminal legal aid may be granted to defendants in criminal cases if they pass the applicable means and merits (interests of justice) tests. It is an accepted principle under both domestic law and international human rights agreements, as a component of the right to a fair trial, that those charged with a criminal offence have the right to legal assistance if needed.

It is possible for individuals subject to active civil court orders to claim legal aid; the legal aid framework does not prevent this. To receive legal aid, the matter must fall within the scope of the legal aid scheme, and the applicant must pass both the means and merits tests. The tests only apply to the case for which legal aid is sought, assessing financial eligibility and merits eligibility including, in relation to domestic violence cases, prospects of success and proportionality. An individual being subject to an unrelated active civil court order would not impact that assessment.

Schedule 1 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO) describes the civil services in scope of legal aid under s.9 LASPO.

In January 2023, the Ministry of Justice launched a comprehensive Review of Civil Legal Aid (RoCLA), to identify issues facing the system and improve its sustainability. The Review examined the civil legal aid system in its entirety, including how services are procured, how well the current system works for users and providers, and how civil legal aid impacts the wider justice system. The Review has now concluded, and all reports are available here: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/civil-legal-aid-review.

The evidence from RoCLA indicated that the housing and immigration sectors face particularly acute challenges with service provision and high demand. In response, we are increasing fees for all housing and debt, and immigration and asylum legal aid work. This represents a significant investment – the first major increase in fees since 1996. Uplifts to fees for controlled immigration and housing work - generally early advice and some legal representation - came into effect on 22 December 2025, injecting an additional £18 million into the civil legal aid sector each year.

We will monitor and evaluate the impact of this fee increase through engagement with the sector and through provider numbers. We are in regular dialogue with representative bodies and our provider base more broadly about the health of the market, and several new research and evidence projects are underway that aim to improve our understanding about market capacity and demand.

RoCLA identified a range of issues – beyond fees – that make a difference to the profession. We are looking at other potential changes to support providers, for example contractual requirements that providers say are burdensome.

The number of court days lost due to building failures in the last full financial year (2024/25) is as follows:

Crown Court – 258 days

Magistrates’ Court – 36 days

Family Court – 2 days

To put this into context, over the same period we sat over 107,000 days in the Crown Court.

A lost court day is defined as a planned sitting day consisting of two sessions (one morning, one afternoon session) that is cancelled, adjourned or unable to proceed due to unforeseen circumstances, structural issues or scheduling conflicts. The figures above reflect court days lost due to building failures only. Workforce shortages are also a major cause of lost time: in 2024, over 1,000 trials were cancelled owing to a lack of counsel, which is why we are investing further in legal aid and match funding pupillages for criminal barristers.

Thanks to the efforts of court staff and the judiciary, where a building failure occurs, losing court days can often be averted through our ability to move cases to another courtroom or nearby court building, or by using remote hearing arrangements.

It is vital that court infrastructure does not prevent hearings from taking place, that is why we announced a boost in court capital maintenance and project funding from £120 million in 2024/25, to £148.5 million for 2025/26.

Data on the number of trials declared ineffective due to the non-production of defendants can be found here: Trial effectiveness at the Criminal Courts tool.

In the most recent reported quarter (July to September 2025), non-production of defendants accounted for 2% of ineffective trials in the Crown Court and 4% of ineffective trials in the magistrates’ court.

Securing data on the impact that non-production of defendants has had on sitting time would come at a disproportionate cost, due to the time required to process this information.

Data showing the time from charge to main hearing for defendants dealt with for the selected offences following the entry of a not guilty plea at the Crown Court from 2016 to 2024 can be found in the attached tables. Data is not available for years prior to 2016.

Data has been provided at the lowest geographical level of our published Accredited Official Statistics, Local Criminal Justice Board Level (LCJB).

Please note that many of the averages are based on very small volumes of defendants and as such the figures should be treated with caution.

Our published timeliness metrics are produced at a sufficiently 'high' level to reduce the volatility and fluctuations associated with low volumes of cases i.e. offence groups. Where court level offence breakdowns are based on fewer than five cases in these tables, timeliness values are suppressed as they are particularly volatile and can be misleading.

Magistrates are the cornerstone of our long and established judicial System. The extraordinary voluntary commitment given by individuals across England and Wales, giving up their valuable free time to make a difference to our Justice system is incredible.

The earliest data we have is 2018, when we had a total of 14,008 magistrates. Currently, we have 14,466 magistrates sitting in crime and family.

The legal profession in England and Wales, together with its regulators, operates independently of government. The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) is the frontline regulator responsible for regulating the professional conduct of solicitors and most law firms in England and Wales. The Legal Services Board (LSB) oversees the performance of all frontline regulators, including the SRA, to ensure they operate effectively and in the public interest, including through annual performance assessments, targeted reviews and ongoing engagement with regulators on their statutory duties.

Section 44B of the Solicitors Act 1974 provides the SRA with the power to require solicitors and law firms to produce information and documents where the SRA is satisfied that it is necessary to do so (amongst other grounds) for the purpose of investigating whether there has been professional misconduct by a solicitor or a breach of its rules by a recognised body. It has a similar power under section 93 of the Legal Services Act 2007 in relation to licensed bodies. The SRA has published guidance on its approach to evidence gathering, which states that the SRA may request material where privilege is asserted, subject to safeguards and use for regulatory purposes only. This guidance is available at: SRA | How we gather evidence in our regulatory and disciplinary investigations | Solicitors Regulation Authority.

I met recently with the new Chair of the SRA to raise a series of performance issues with her. Whilst this Government has not undertaken its own specific assessment of the impact of the SRA’s ability to seek material over which privilege is claimed on its effectiveness as a regulator, I will discuss this with the SRA. I am aware of the ongoing proceedings concerning the scope of its statutory powers in relation to legally privileged material, and officials have discussed the matter with the SRA as part of their routine regulatory engagement.