Ministry of Justice

The information requested could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

On 29 January 2026, we published our second annual statement on prison capacity, which sets out the prison projections up to November 2032 and our assessment of them: Ministry of Justice – Annual Statement on Prison Capacity: 2025.

On 29 January 2026, we published our second annual statement on prison capacity, which sets out the prison projections up to November 2032 and our assessment of them: Ministry of Justice – Annual Statement on Prison Capacity: 2025.

HM Prison and Probation Service employees are civil servants and are bound by the Civil Service Code, which requires them to serve the government of the day with integrity, honesty, objectivity and impartiality.

In HMPPS, this is reinforced through the Outside Activities Policy and the Conduct and Discipline Policy. These policies set out the political restrictions that apply to Crown Servants and require employees to seek permission before taking part in certain political activities. The level of restriction varies by grade and role.

Employees must not undertake political activity while on duty, in uniform or on official premises. Employees who wish to stand for election to local authorities or to Parliament must seek prior approval in line with the Civil Service Management Code and HMPPS policies.

Employees are signposted to guidance on conduct for civil servants at each election period and during party conference season to ensure clear expectations of behaviour.

The National Information Centre on Children of Offenders (NICCO) website was created in 2016 as a partnership between Barnardo’s and HMPPS. It was constructed to replace an earlier site called iHOP which Barnardo’s had developed jointly with the Department for Education as an information centre for professionals working with the children of prisoners.

As well as being an updated information hub, NICCO also became the repository of the family strategy documents created by all prisons.

Discussions are currently underway to review how best to retain and update the information held on the NICCO site.

On 5 February 2026, Dame Ann Limb, DBE was created a Life Peer by Letters Patent sealed under the Great Seal. This was formally announced via a notice placed in the London and Edinburgh Gazettes: https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/5049850.

We apologise for the delay in responding to this letter. As it requires input from multiple government departments, it has not been possible to respond within the usual timeframe. A response is being prepared and will be provided as soon as it is available.

The Government is committed to the biggest expansion of legal aid in a generation as part of the Hillsborough Law and are investing millions on reforming the courts system through unlimited sitting days and better maintaining courts to deliver a world-class justice system.

Funding from an Interest on Lawyers’ Client Accounts (ILCA) scheme will play a crucial role in achieving these priorities from 2028/9 onwards.

The Government has published a consultation on ILCA that closed on 9 March 2026, including how income from such a scheme might be invested. We will carefully consider all responses and provide an official response.

We appreciate the constructive way in which legal aid providers have worked with us following the serious criminal attack on the Legal Aid Agency’s (LAA) digital systems. They have continued to do vital work in challenging circumstances.

Since systems were restored in December 2025, the LAA has processed civil casework, both applications and bills, for the work undertaken by providers during the system outage. Where individual providers believe they have incurred additional billable costs, these can be claimed through the normal billing processes set out in the Costs Assessment Guidance.

We appreciate that some providers have raised concerns regarding additional administrative burdens related to contingency operations. We have worked with stakeholders to simplify processes wherever possible. This has included testing new service functionality with providers before launch and refining services based on the feedback received. For example, we extended the Average Payment Scheme for civil certificated work and temporarily suspended activities such as audits to ease administrative pressures. We have also continued to update guidance and FAQs in direct response to stakeholder input to provide clearer, more streamlined support for providers. Our priority now is working through the backlog of cases which is currently progressing well. All providers will be paid for the legal services provided under their legal aid contracts. We have no plans to set up a compensation scheme.

The Government is committed to the provision of legal aid, recognising the vital role that it plays in underpinning genuine access to justice.

We are considering our approach to eligibility across legal aid, including carefully assessing the impact of the recommendations made by the Independent Review of the Criminal Courts

This Government inherited a legal system in crisis, and we are taking steps to invest in legal aid.

We are providing additional funding of up to £34 million a year for criminal legal aid advocates alongside our commitment to match fund a number of criminal barrister pupillages. This is in addition to the investment of £92 million in the solicitor fee schemes.

Alongside this, we have also announced an uplift to immigration and housing legal aid fees. This amounts to a significant investment of £20 million a year once fully implemented – the first major increase since 1996.

Furthermore, we are delivering the largest expansion of civil legal aid in a decade, enabling bereaved families to access non-means tested legal aid at all inquests where a public authority is an interested person.

Beyond legal aid, this Government is also providing over £6 million of grant funding in 2025-2026 to support access to legal support services for people with social welfare problems. We have also announced nearly £20 million of multi-year funding to extend existing grant programmes to September 2026 and providing a new grant from October 2026 to March 2029.

The Government is committed to the provision of legal aid, recognising the vital role that it plays in underpinning genuine access to justice.

We are considering our approach to eligibility across legal aid, including carefully assessing the impact of the recommendations made by the Independent Review of the Criminal Courts

This Government inherited a legal system in crisis, and we are taking steps to invest in legal aid.

We are providing additional funding of up to £34 million a year for criminal legal aid advocates alongside our commitment to match fund a number of criminal barrister pupillages. This is in addition to the investment of £92 million in the solicitor fee schemes.

Alongside this, we have also announced an uplift to immigration and housing legal aid fees. This amounts to a significant investment of £20 million a year once fully implemented – the first major increase since 1996.

Furthermore, we are delivering the largest expansion of civil legal aid in a decade, enabling bereaved families to access non-means tested legal aid at all inquests where a public authority is an interested person.

Beyond legal aid, this Government is also providing over £6 million of grant funding in 2025-2026 to support access to legal support services for people with social welfare problems. We have also announced nearly £20 million of multi-year funding to extend existing grant programmes to September 2026 and providing a new grant from October 2026 to March 2029.

The Unduly Lenient Sentence (ULS) scheme is an exceptional power. Any expansion of the scheme must be carefully considered.

The Law Commission is currently undertaking a review of the law governing criminal appeals. As part of its public consultation, which ran from February to June 2025, the Commission sought views on a range of potential reforms to the ULS scheme, including whether additional offences, such as animal cruelty offences, should be brought within scope. The consultation closed in June 2025, and the Law Commission is expected to publish its final report in 2026.

The Government will carefully consider the Law Commission’s recommendations on possible reforms to the ULS scheme, including any proposals relating to offences under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, once the final report is published.

As set out in our manifesto, the Government is committed to strengthening the rights and protections available to women in cohabiting couples. Cohabitation reform is a matter of utmost importance, and we will be consulting this Spring on how best to deliver this commitment. The consultation will consider how best to strengthen the rights of cohabitating couples and the circumstances in which protections may apply, while firmly upholding marriage as one of our most important institutions.

The Government also recognises the challenge posed by the mistaken belief in the myth of “common law marriage”. To improve public awareness of the legal distinction between marriage and cohabitation, we updated GOV.UK guidance last year to set out the legal position clearly. In addition, from September 2026, the updated Relationships Education, Relationships and Sex Education (RSE) and Health Education statutory guidance will also state that schools should teach that “common-law marriage” is a myth by the end of secondary school, helping to tackle persistent misconceptions and improve public understanding of the law.

Legal aid is currently available to a person in a cohabiting couple for some private family proceedings, such as child arrangement orders and transfers of tenancies, where they are a victim of domestic abuse or are at risk of abuse. Funding is subject to providing evidence of domestic abuse and passing the means and merits tests. Where an issue falls outside the scope of legal aid, for example, cohabiting partners seeking to resolve property disputes upon separation, individuals can apply for Exceptional Case Funding (ECF). ECF will be granted if, without legal aid, there is a risk that the person’s human rights may be breached. ECF applications are determined by the Legal Aid Agency on an individual basis. This Government keeps legal aid policy under review.

As set out in our manifesto, the Government is committed to strengthening the rights and protections available to women in cohabiting couples. Cohabitation reform is a matter of utmost importance, and we will be consulting this Spring on how best to deliver this commitment. The consultation will consider how best to strengthen the rights of cohabitating couples and the circumstances in which protections may apply, while firmly upholding marriage as one of our most important institutions.

The Government also recognises the challenge posed by the mistaken belief in the myth of “common law marriage”. To improve public awareness of the legal distinction between marriage and cohabitation, we updated GOV.UK guidance last year to set out the legal position clearly. In addition, from September 2026, the updated Relationships Education, Relationships and Sex Education (RSE) and Health Education statutory guidance will also state that schools should teach that “common-law marriage” is a myth by the end of secondary school, helping to tackle persistent misconceptions and improve public understanding of the law.

Legal aid is currently available to a person in a cohabiting couple for some private family proceedings, such as child arrangement orders and transfers of tenancies, where they are a victim of domestic abuse or are at risk of abuse. Funding is subject to providing evidence of domestic abuse and passing the means and merits tests. Where an issue falls outside the scope of legal aid, for example, cohabiting partners seeking to resolve property disputes upon separation, individuals can apply for Exceptional Case Funding (ECF). ECF will be granted if, without legal aid, there is a risk that the person’s human rights may be breached. ECF applications are determined by the Legal Aid Agency on an individual basis. This Government keeps legal aid policy under review.

As set out in our manifesto, the Government is committed to strengthening the rights and protections available to women in cohabiting couples. Cohabitation reform is a matter of utmost importance, and we will be consulting this Spring on how best to deliver this commitment. The consultation will consider how best to strengthen the rights of cohabitating couples and the circumstances in which protections may apply, while firmly upholding marriage as one of our most important institutions.

The Government also recognises the challenge posed by the mistaken belief in the myth of “common law marriage”. To improve public awareness of the legal distinction between marriage and cohabitation, we updated GOV.UK guidance last year to set out the legal position clearly. In addition, from September 2026, the updated Relationships Education, Relationships and Sex Education (RSE) and Health Education statutory guidance will also state that schools should teach that “common-law marriage” is a myth by the end of secondary school, helping to tackle persistent misconceptions and improve public understanding of the law.

Legal aid is currently available to a person in a cohabiting couple for some private family proceedings, such as child arrangement orders and transfers of tenancies, where they are a victim of domestic abuse or are at risk of abuse. Funding is subject to providing evidence of domestic abuse and passing the means and merits tests. Where an issue falls outside the scope of legal aid, for example, cohabiting partners seeking to resolve property disputes upon separation, individuals can apply for Exceptional Case Funding (ECF). ECF will be granted if, without legal aid, there is a risk that the person’s human rights may be breached. ECF applications are determined by the Legal Aid Agency on an individual basis. This Government keeps legal aid policy under review.

The Prisoner Escort and Custody Services (PECS) contracts specify that the contractor shall deliver prisoners to court by the required times to ensure the efficient and effective running of courts without delay. The key performance indicator relating to the timeliness of prisoner arrivals in court is Contract Delivery Indicator 15, at Annex 1 to Schedule 5 of the contract.

The PECS contracts can be found in the Contracts Finder on the GOV.UK website:

Prisoner Escort and Custody Services (Generation 4) - Lot North - Contracts Finder.

Prisoner Escort and Custody Services (Generation 4) - Lot South - Contracts Finder.

The Ministry of Justice welcomes and encourages applications from everyone irrespective of background, identity, experience, or circumstance, and particularly those underrepresented in our workforce. The Department does not appoint candidates on the basis of protected characteristics. Appointments are made in merit order, in line with the Civil Service Commission's Recruitment Principles.

The Resilience Action Plan sets out the Government’s strategic approach to how we will strengthen our domestic resilience and invest to protect the nation. A range of senior officials from across the Ministry of Justice, including the Permanent Secretary, regularly attend meetings to discuss the implementation of the Resilience Action Plan as well as matters of national security and defence.

The Ministry of Justice does not play a direct role in individual international child abduction cases in Poland. Whether a return order is made in Poland in respect of a child who has been taken to Poland, or what action should be taken in Poland in relation to enforcement of a return order, are matters for Polish courts and the relevant authorities to determine.

However, my officials regularly engage on international child abduction with other States, including discussions with Polish authorities on the subject of enforcement procedures. This has included a Workshop hosted by the Ministry of Justice in April 2025, together with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and other key authorities in England and Wales, to discuss international child abduction with Polish officials and enhance cooperation in this area.

The Ministry of Justice does not play a direct role in individual international child abduction cases in Poland. Whether a return order is made in Poland in respect of a child who has been taken to Poland, or what action should be taken in Poland in relation to enforcement of a return order, are matters for Polish courts and the relevant authorities to determine.

However, my officials regularly engage on international child abduction with other States, including discussions with Polish authorities on the subject of enforcement procedures. This has included a Workshop hosted by the Ministry of Justice in April 2025, together with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and other key authorities in England and Wales, to discuss international child abduction with Polish officials and enhance cooperation in this area.

International parental child abduction cases involving Poland are dealt with under an international and domestic law framework which is entirely separate from the framework for reciprocal enforcement of maintenance orders. When a court is dealing with a case under a particular framework, only those matters which fall to be considered under the relevant framework are applicable.

Sentencing decisions are a matter for the courts, which must follow statutory sentencing guidelines, developed by the Sentencing Council, unless it would be contrary to the interests of justice to do so.

Those guidelines are gender‑neutral, requiring courts to assess culpability, harm, and all relevant aggravating and mitigating factors in each individual case. The law and guidelines allow sentencers to take account of an offender’s personal circumstances where relevant, such as primary caring responsibilities, pregnancy, mental health needs, or experiences of abuse, which may arise more frequently among female offenders.

The Independent Sentencing Review recognised that women in the criminal justice system often present with complex vulnerabilities and are typically lower risk to the public, and that short custodial sentences can be less effective for many women than robust community‑based alternatives. In response, the Government has taken forward reforms through the Sentencing Act 2026 to reduce the unnecessary use of short custodial sentences and expand the use of community‑based disposals where appropriate. These reforms apply to all offenders.

The Government is committed to ensuring sentencing is fair, proportionate, and equitable. Consistency is promoted through statutory guidelines and judicial training. Alongside this, in 2024, the Government has established a Women’s Justice Board to advise on reducing the number of women going to prison with more managed in the community. Community supervision can often be more effective than custody in addressing the root causes of offending, helping women rebuild their lives and reduce reoffending.

Sentencing decisions are a matter for the courts, which must follow statutory sentencing guidelines, developed by the Sentencing Council, unless it would be contrary to the interests of justice to do so.

Those guidelines are gender‑neutral, requiring courts to assess culpability, harm, and all relevant aggravating and mitigating factors in each individual case. The law and guidelines allow sentencers to take account of an offender’s personal circumstances where relevant, such as primary caring responsibilities, pregnancy, mental health needs, or experiences of abuse, which may arise more frequently among female offenders.

The Independent Sentencing Review recognised that women in the criminal justice system often present with complex vulnerabilities and are typically lower risk to the public, and that short custodial sentences can be less effective for many women than robust community‑based alternatives. In response, the Government has taken forward reforms through the Sentencing Act 2026 to reduce the unnecessary use of short custodial sentences and expand the use of community‑based disposals where appropriate. These reforms apply to all offenders.

The Government is committed to ensuring sentencing is fair, proportionate, and equitable. Consistency is promoted through statutory guidelines and judicial training. Alongside this, in 2024, the Government has established a Women’s Justice Board to advise on reducing the number of women going to prison with more managed in the community. Community supervision can often be more effective than custody in addressing the root causes of offending, helping women rebuild their lives and reduce reoffending.

Sentencing decisions are a matter for the courts, which must follow statutory sentencing guidelines, developed by the Sentencing Council, unless it would be contrary to the interests of justice to do so.

Those guidelines are gender‑neutral, requiring courts to assess culpability, harm, and all relevant aggravating and mitigating factors in each individual case. The law and guidelines allow sentencers to take account of an offender’s personal circumstances where relevant, such as primary caring responsibilities, pregnancy, mental health needs, or experiences of abuse, which may arise more frequently among female offenders.

The Independent Sentencing Review recognised that women in the criminal justice system often present with complex vulnerabilities and are typically lower risk to the public, and that short custodial sentences can be less effective for many women than robust community‑based alternatives. In response, the Government has taken forward reforms through the Sentencing Act 2026 to reduce the unnecessary use of short custodial sentences and expand the use of community‑based disposals where appropriate. These reforms apply to all offenders.

The Government is committed to ensuring sentencing is fair, proportionate, and equitable. Consistency is promoted through statutory guidelines and judicial training. Alongside this, in 2024, the Government has established a Women’s Justice Board to advise on reducing the number of women going to prison with more managed in the community. Community supervision can often be more effective than custody in addressing the root causes of offending, helping women rebuild their lives and reduce reoffending.

When the previous (incorrect) answer was provided, it was the result of a simple search being run against criteria in the service management system and the result published.

When the corrected response was provided, it was a result of a manual search through records ensuring that duplicates were removed, and then checked against the ID numbers of assets known to be present.

Improvements in prison management arising from the Managing Women in Crisis Working Group have not yet been shared more widely, but H M Prison & Probation Service will shortly be publishing its 12-month progress report to H M Inspectorate of Prison’s thematic report ‘Time to Care: What helps women cope in prison’, setting out the measures it has put in place.

The cumulative length of service, in years, held by public sector band 3-5 prison officers is given in the following table. Figures are given as at 31 December each year.

Table 1 – Cumulative length of service¹ of public sector band 3-5 prison officers² in England and Wales, as at 31 December each year from 2010 to 2025³

Notes:

1. The length of service in HMPPS is calculated from most recent hire date. Where staff have transferred in from another Government Department or have transferred in through HMPPS taking over a function, length of service is calculated from entry to HMPPS

2. Band 3-5 Officers includes Band 3-4 / Prison Officers (incl. specialists), Band 4 / Supervising Officers, and Band 5 / Custodial Managers

3. The dates reflect the Full Time Equivalent and cumulative years of service at that particular point of the year.

I can confirm that the Ministry of Justice does not hold policy or operational responsibility for health care in police custody settings. However, in order to resolve any lack of clarity that may exist, the Department will shortly respond formally to the coroner on that basis.

I welcome the positive work happening in Greater Manchester to support women involved in the criminal justice system, and the work of women’s community sector organisations that provide crucial infrastructure for the criminal justice system.

His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) currently funds specialist support for women on probation through Commissioned Rehabilitative Services (CRS) delivered by third sector organisations, including providers of women’s centres. HMPPS is committed to ensuring CRS contracts deliver holistic, gender-specific support that meets women’s needs, informed by service users, stakeholders and providers.

The Ministry of Justice is providing a further £7.2 million in 2025-2026 to support the women’s community sector. This funding is aimed at building sustainability, expanding interventions and increasing capacity, including residential provision where needed. Funding for future years is subject to internal allocations.

On 9 December 2025, during the House of Lords Committee Stage debate on the Crime and Policing Bill, the Government announced that it would accept, in part, recommendation 24 of Baroness Bertin’s Independent Review on Pornography:

‘The current criminal justice response is ineffective in tackling illegal pornography online. Government should conduct its own legislative review of this regime to ensure that legislation and Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) guidance is fit-for-purpose in tackling illegal pornography in the online world.’

The Ministry of Justice will be reviewing the criminal law relating to pornography, which will give an opportunity to look holistically and consider whether it is fit for purpose in an ever-developing online world. This will involve reviewing the effectiveness of existing legislation which criminalises the possession and publication of illegal pornographic material both online and offline. We have accepted in part because the Government cannot accept the recommendation to review CPS guidance. As the CPS is independent, whether to conduct a review of guidance would be a matter for them to decide.

As the review is focused on the criminal law set out above, it will not appraise the adequacy of age-verification, age-assurance methods or regulation.

On 9 December 2025, during the House of Lords Committee Stage debate on the Crime and Policing Bill, the Government announced that it would accept, in part, recommendation 24 of Baroness Bertin’s Independent Review on Pornography:

‘The current criminal justice response is ineffective in tackling illegal pornography online. Government should conduct its own legislative review of this regime to ensure that legislation and Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) guidance is fit-for-purpose in tackling illegal pornography in the online world.’

The Ministry of Justice will be reviewing the criminal law relating to pornography, which will give an opportunity to look holistically and consider whether it is fit for purpose in an ever-developing online world. This will involve reviewing the effectiveness of existing legislation which criminalises the possession and publication of illegal pornographic material both online and offline. We have accepted in part because the Government cannot accept the recommendation to review CPS guidance. As the CPS is independent, whether to conduct a review of guidance would be a matter for them to decide.

As the review is focused on the criminal law set out above, it will not appraise the adequacy of age-verification, age-assurance methods or regulation.

On 9 December 2025, during the House of Lords Committee Stage debate on the Crime and Policing Bill, the Government announced that it would accept, in part, recommendation 24 of Baroness Bertin’s Independent Review on Pornography:

‘The current criminal justice response is ineffective in tackling illegal pornography online. Government should conduct its own legislative review of this regime to ensure that legislation and Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) guidance is fit-for-purpose in tackling illegal pornography in the online world.’

The Ministry of Justice will be reviewing the criminal law relating to pornography, which will give an opportunity to look holistically and consider whether it is fit for purpose in an ever-developing online world. This will involve reviewing the effectiveness of existing legislation which criminalises the possession and publication of illegal pornographic material both online and offline. We have accepted in part because the Government cannot accept the recommendation to review CPS guidance. As the CPS is independent, whether to conduct a review of guidance would be a matter for them to decide.

As the review is focused on the criminal law set out above, it will not appraise the adequacy of age-verification, age-assurance methods or regulation.

There is no backlog of cases in the Planning Court concerning challenges to planning permissions granted under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. This position has been confirmed by the Court.

Significant claims in the Planning Court are managed in accordance with the targets set out in the Practice Direction. Other cases in the Planning Court are managed in accordance with the arrangements which apply to claims in the Administrative Court. The Planning Liaison Judge oversees claims in the Planning Court and ensures these are progressed efficiently.

Sentencing decisions in individual cases are a matter for the courts.

This Government has set a clear goal to reduce the number of women going to prison, with more managed in the community. The Sentencing Act represents a generational shift in reforming sentencing, offender management, and community supervision. The presumption for courts to suspend short custodial sentences, along with the increased use of suspended sentences, and increased flexibility to defer a sentence for longer, is expected to reduce the number of women going to prison.

The Government takes the recovery and enforcement of financial penalties seriously and remains committed to ensuring penalties are paid. His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service uses robust methods to do so including taking money from an offender’s benefits or salary and seizing and selling goods. In addition, the court can send offenders to prison for non-payment.

HMCTS is investing over £14 million to replace an outdated IT system used to support the collection and enforcement of financial penalties. Although the functionality of the modernised system will initially be largely like for like, it will provide HMCTS with a stable foundation for more sophisticated technology features to be delivered in the future to provide further improvements to increase collections.

For national security reasons, we are unable to share the names of the industry partners.

Personal representatives (the umbrella term for anyone legally responsible for administering a deceased person’s estate) have a statutory duty to administer the estate lawfully. They must act in beneficiaries’ best interests and keep clear, separate estate accounts as a matter of good practice. Accurate records are essential because the court may require, sworn on oath, a full inventory of the estate and a detailed account of the administration. Any interested party can apply for such an order, enabling scrutiny of how the estate has been managed and informing whether further action against the personal representative is appropriate.

The Government is not aware of any problems with personal representative accountability mechanisms and has no plans to change them.

There is no compulsory will registration system in England and Wales, though testators may voluntarily register a will with certain public or private bodies. The Principal Registry offers a public scheme allowing wills to be deposited and stored for a £23 fee, with a certificate issued

The Law Commission considered compulsory registration as part of their review of the Law of Wills but concluded it would add unnecessary complexity to the will‑making process as well as raise uncertainty over the validity of unregistered wills, including reduced flexibility for testators making wills near death.

There is no maximum time limit in which personal representatives must distribute an estate after probate has been granted.

A personal representative is under a statutory duty to administer the deceased person’s estate according to the law and without undue delay. He or she must safeguard the estate and, with due diligence, collect and realise the assets, pay the deceased person’s debts, and distribute the legacies and the residue of the estate to the beneficiaries entitled in accordance with the will. Personal representatives can be held liable if they mis-administer the estate.

There are legitimate reasons why it may take time to fully distribute an estate. For example, it may require the sale of a property, the settling of tax issues or administering assets outside of the UK. Other reasons that personal representatives may delay the distribution of the estate include waiting out the time limit for family provision claims under the Inheritance Act 1975 and for creditors to bring claims against the estate.

If beneficiaries have concerns about the administration of the estate, they can make an application to the court to compel a personal representative to provide an inventory and account of their administration of an estate. In addition, applications can be made to remove and replace a personal executive where there are grounds to do so.

The Director General of Operations for HM Prison and Probation Service responded to the coroner’s Prevention of Future Deaths report following the inquest into the death of Christine McDonald on 26 July 2024. The response is available on the Chief Coroner’s website.

HMPPS is now preparing a response to the coroner’s Prevention of Future Death report.

We have introduced a period of enhanced management assurance for all external escorts. Under these strengthened measures, a manager of the same grade or a more senior grade is required to check the application of restraints prior to an escort and ensure additional restraint arrangements are utilised where necessary. In addition, all operational staff who may be involved in an escort have been required to complete refreshed competency activity.

The High Court has been clear that the making of an injunction to grant lifelong anonymity to protect the identity of a now adult person convicted of a serious offence as a child, should be exceptional. In practice, such injunctions are made very rarely.

The court will consider whether there is a real and immediate risk of serious physical harm or death or if the offender’s rights under the European Convention on Human Rights justify making the injunction as a necessary and proportionate step. In doing so the court will balance these factors against the right of the media and others to freedom of expression.

An application can be made to the High Court to end an injunction. To be successful, it must be demonstrated that the conditions justifying the making of the injunction are no longer in place.

This Government has no current plans to establish periodic review procedures for these injunctions.

The Prevention of Future Deaths report following the death of Stephen Sleaford was addressed to the Lord Chancellor and the Minister of State for Prisons. The Director General of Operations for HM Prison and Probation Service responded on their behalf because the matters of concern raised in the report were of an operational nature.

No separate response from the Ministry of Justice is considered necessary.

The Director General of Operations for HM Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) responded to the coroner’s Prevention of Future Deaths report following the inquest into the death on 20 January 2025. This response addressed the matters of concern raised in the report and a separate response from the prison was not considered necessary. For reasons that are not clear, whilst it is dated 11 June 2024, the report was not received by HMPPS until November 2024, and the response was then provided promptly.