Ministry of Justice

The requested information is not centrally held. Where proceedings are before a court or tribunal in England or Wales, legal aid is available to individuals who qualify for services irrespective of their immigration status or method of entry into England and Wales. Method of entry to England or Wales is not relevant to eligibility for legal aid under the current rules.

Generally, applications for legal aid will be subject to an assessment of the merits of the case and the financial circumstances of the applicant.

An impact assessment will accompany our legislative measures, as is usual practice.

We intend to introduce legislation to mitigate the effect of the PACCAR judgment as soon as parliamentary time allows. The new legislation will clarify that Litigation Funding Agreements are not Damages Based Agreements. The Government recognises the critical role third-party litigation funding plays in access to justice and is committed to ensuring it works fairly for all.

We will outline next steps in due course.

An impact assessment will accompany our legislative measures, as is usual practice.

In developing his recommendations, Sir Brian Leveson and his expert advisers, including Professor David Ormerod, consulted with many external bodies involved in the Criminal Justice System including criminal legal organisations, charities, academics, and members of the judiciary.

The Review conducted a call for evidence on GOV.UK, to ensure it heard as many perspectives as possible. A full list of those who engaged with the Review is at Annex C of Sir Brian’s report.

In addition, when considering Sir Brian’s recommendations and developing our proposals, I have engaged regularly with stakeholders and relevant sectors over the last 12 months including meeting regularly 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) and similar international jurisdictions. For example, I met judges and visited courts in Canada, which uses types of judge-only trial.

The Ministry of Justice routinely publishes data in Offender Management Statistics Quarterly (OMSQ) on the prison population.

The information needed to provide a comprehensive answer to these questions could be provided only at disproportionate cost as central records are not kept in a way that they can be filtered by the required fields to obtain the information.

The Ministry of Justice routinely publishes data in Offender Management Statistics Quarterly (OMSQ) on the prison population.

The information needed to provide a comprehensive answer to these questions could be provided only at disproportionate cost as central records are not kept in a way that they can be filtered by the required fields to obtain the information.

The Ministry of Justice routinely publishes data in Offender Management Statistics Quarterly (OMSQ) on the prison population.

The information needed to provide a comprehensive answer to these questions could be provided only at disproportionate cost as central records are not kept in a way that they can be filtered by the required fields to obtain the information.

The requested information can be found in the table below:

Table: Number of prisoners aged 80 or over broken down by age at sentencing, 30th September 2025, England and Wales [note 1]

Source: Prison NOMIS

[note 1] The data presented in this table excludes prisoners awaiting sentencing that are held on remand.

Data quality - The figures in the table have been drawn from administrative IT systems which, as with any large scale recording system, are subject to possible errors with data entry and processing.

Disclosure control - Where necessary, [c] has been used to suppress values of one or two to prevent the disclosure of individual information. Further disclosure control may be completed where this alone is not sufficient. This could include the secondary suppression of zero values.

Additional resources - Key statistics relating to offenders who are in prison or under Probation Service supervision can be found in the Offender management statistics quarterly (OMSQ) publication - Offender management statistics quarterly - GOV.UK.

Crown copyright (produced by the Ministry of Justice)

The Government inherited a justice system in crisis, with a record and rising open caseload of nearly 80,000 criminal cases waiting to be heard in the Crown Court and too many victims waiting years for justice. That is why the Government commissioned Sir Brian Leveson to conduct an Independent Review of the Criminal Courts. On 2 December, the Deputy Prime Minister announced a major programme of court reform to tackle these unacceptable delays and restore confidence in the criminal justice system. As part of our ongoing efforts to improve timeliness and efficiency in our criminal courts, we also asked Sir Brian to review court operations and make recommendations designed to boost court efficiency in Part 2 of his review. We are awaiting that report in the New Year and will look to act on its recommendations.

We are committed to working with our health partners to ensure that people in prison including those on remand have access to an equivalent standard, range and quality of health care in prisons to that available in the wider community to support their health outcomes. This is reflected in the National Partnership Agreement on Health and Social Care in England. This includes access to a range of treatments and interventions within prison as set out in the national service specification for mental health care in prisons.

For prisoners with severe mental health needs, the Mental Health Act (2025) received Royal Assent in December and contains several flagship reforms to improve access to mental health care and treatment, including, but not limited to, provisions to:

• Introduce a new statutory 28-day time limit for transfers from prison and other places of detention to hospital to reduce unnecessary delays experienced by prisoners who require mental health treatment.

• Stop courts temporarily detaining people with severe mental illness in prison as a ‘place of safety’ whilst awaiting a hospital bed for treatment or assessment under the Mental Health Act; and

• End the use of remand for own protection under the Bail Act where the court’s sole concern is the defendant’s mental health.

We will implement these reforms as soon as it is safe to do so.

The Sentencing Bill, currently being considered before parliament, introduces a package of amendments to the Bail Act (1976), which, alongside the presumption to suspend short sentences of 12 months or less, will help to address the unsustainable growth in the prison remand population.

Data on the prison population is published as part of the Department’s Offender Management Statistics Quarterly (OMSQ) release, with the latest publication including prison population data as at 30 September 2025.

The requested information (based on the prison population as at 1 December 2025) cannot be provided at the current time because it would provide an early indication of the data underpinning the next iteration of these Accredited Official Statistics, which will be published on 29 January 2026

The Ministry of Justice routinely publishes data in Offender Management Statistics Quarterly (OMSQ) on the prison population.

Table 1: Mean Tariff Length for Offenders Receiving a Life Sentence, by Age at Sentencing and Year of Sentence

Table 2: Median Tariff Length for Offenders Receiving a Life Sentence, by Age at Sentencing and Year of Sentence

Table notes:

1. *Data for 2025 are up to 30 September 2025.

2. Figures are subject to change as more information about tariff becomes available.

3. Tariff length is the time between date of sentencing and tariff expiry date, and does not take into account any time served on remand.

4. Figures do not include offenders who received a Whole Life Order.

Data sources and quality

The figures in these tables have been drawn from administrative IT systems which, as with any large scale recording system, are subject to possible errors with data entry and processing.

Source: Public Protection Unit Database

The requested information can be found in the table below.

Table: Prisoners serving an Extended Determinate Sentence by sentence length, as at 30 September 2025, England and Wales [note 1][note 2]

[note 1] Figures based on Extended Determinate Sentenced prisoners with a recorded sentence length.

[note 2] Judicially Imposed Sentence lengths as recorded on prison-NOMIS

Data quality - The figures in the table have been drawn from administrative IT systems which, as with any large scale recording system, are subject to possible errors with data entry and processing.

Disclosure control - Where necessary, [c] has been used to suppress values of one or two to prevent the disclosure of individual information. Further disclosure control may be completed where this alone is not sufficient. This could include the secondary suppression of zero values.

Additional resources - Key statistics relating to offenders who are in prison or under Probation Service supervision can be found in the Offender management statistics quarterly (OMSQ) publication - Link to 'OMSQ publication' (opens in a new window).

Crown copyright (produced by the Ministry of Justice)

Applications for Probate can be delayed where more information is needed from the applicant, a caveat is in place or where cases are more complex. HM Courts & Tribunals Service is investing in more staff, alongside system and process improvements to improve timeliness and further build capability for the more complex cases, which include cases involving a lost will.

The Ministry of Justice publishes regular data on probate timeliness in our regular quarterly family court statistics bulletin: Family Court Statistics Quarterly - GOV.UK.

Applications for Probate can be delayed where more information is needed from the applicant, a caveat is in place or where cases are more complex. HM Courts & Tribunals Service is investing in more staff, alongside system and process improvements to improve timeliness and further build capability for the more complex cases, which include cases involving a lost will.

The Ministry of Justice publishes regular data on probate timeliness in our regular quarterly family court statistics bulletin: Family Court Statistics Quarterly - GOV.UK.

The Government does not recognise the concept of “parental alienation” syndrome and does not believe it is capable of diagnosis.

The Family Justice Council has published guidance on “responding to a child’s unexplained reluctance, resistance or refusal to spend time with a parent and allegations of alienating behaviour”. The guidance provides a clear framework for assessing whether alienating behaviours are present. The guidance is clear that where the court finds that domestic abuse has occurred then the child’s rejection of the parent is appropriate and justified.

Cafcass practitioners receive mandatory training on alienating behaviours. Cafcass’ training programme includes training on the domestic abuse practice policy (introduced in 2024) and on indicators of understanding why a child does not want to spend family time with a parent guide, including due to alienating behaviours. The training policy and guide make clear that the first step in assessing the reasons for a child not wanting to see a parent is to consider whether domestic abuse is a factor so that Cafcass practitioners can explore the pattern of behaviours in the safest context.

We recognise the impact that family court proceedings can have on parents, particularly victims of domestic abuse, and are committed to long-term reform of the family court to better support users.

The family court has a range of powers to support and protect victims, including prohibiting in-person cross examination of survivors by alleged abusers and automatically providing special measures, such as the ability to provide evidence behind a screen.

We have redesigned the information and guidance for separating families on GOV.UK, making it more user-friendly through extensive user-tested changes. We are also testing a triage tool which will support users to access information specific to their personal circumstances, alongside signposting to relevant support and advice services.

Legal aid is available for parents in certain public and private family law matters subject to the relevant means and merits tests. Beyond legal aid, over £6 million will be provided in 2025–26 to 60 organisations, including Citizens Advice, Law Centres and AdviceNow, to expand free legal information and early support. The Help with Fees scheme ensures that court fees do not prevent parents accessing proceedings.

The Government has not carried out a specific assessment of the levels of mental health issues among parents and young fathers during family court proceedings. However, the Government is aware of the impact involvement in family court proceedings can have on the mental health of both the parents and children involved. and encourages those affected to seek appropriate support from local NHS and voluntary services.

In addition, the charity Support Through Court offers practical, procedural and emotional support to all parents facing court without legal representation. It operates across England and Wales and also offers a national helpline.

We recognise the impact that family court proceedings can have on parents, particularly victims of domestic abuse, and are committed to long-term reform of the family court to better support users.

The family court has a range of powers to support and protect victims, including prohibiting in-person cross examination of survivors by alleged abusers and automatically providing special measures, such as the ability to provide evidence behind a screen.

We have redesigned the information and guidance for separating families on GOV.UK, making it more user-friendly through extensive user-tested changes. We are also testing a triage tool which will support users to access information specific to their personal circumstances, alongside signposting to relevant support and advice services.

Legal aid is available for parents in certain public and private family law matters subject to the relevant means and merits tests. Beyond legal aid, over £6 million will be provided in 2025–26 to 60 organisations, including Citizens Advice, Law Centres and AdviceNow, to expand free legal information and early support. The Help with Fees scheme ensures that court fees do not prevent parents accessing proceedings.

The Government has not carried out a specific assessment of the levels of mental health issues among parents and young fathers during family court proceedings. However, the Government is aware of the impact involvement in family court proceedings can have on the mental health of both the parents and children involved. and encourages those affected to seek appropriate support from local NHS and voluntary services.

In addition, the charity Support Through Court offers practical, procedural and emotional support to all parents facing court without legal representation. It operates across England and Wales and also offers a national helpline.

Information on the number of civil servants employed on temporary contracts is published quarterly by the Office for National Statistics as part of the accredited official statistics release Public Sector Employment, UK: September 2025. This can be accessed at:

(Source: ONS Public Sector Employment reference tables – Table 8 HC, September 2025 edition; MoJ Workforce MI, September 2025)

Public sector employment - Office for National Statistics

As at September 2025, according to the Office for National Statistics Public Sector Employment statistics (Table 8 HC), and published 16 December 2025, 455 civil servants in the Ministry of Justice were on temporary or casual contracts, representing approximately 0.5% of the Department’s civil service headcount (total 96,715).

Ministry of Justice Civil Service Headcount – September 2025

Departmental expenditure on consultancy is published within the Ministry of Justice’s Annual Report and Accounts. The latest report for FY 2024/25 can be found at:
Ministry of Justice – Annual Report and Accounts 2024-25

(See Annex D: Off-payroll engagements, page 303).

For clarity, consultants are not civil servants and are therefore not included in civil service headcount figures. The latest Ministry of Justice, Workforce Management Information (June 2025), publishes total cost of contractors, which is part of the department’s transparency data and can be accessed at:
MoJ_headcount_and_payroll_data_for_June_2025_revised.ods

In support of the Sentencing Bill, the Ministry of Justice will significantly expand the use of electronic monitoring as a vital tool for probation to ensure offenders are managed safely in the community.

This expansion builds on the Department’s long-standing commitment to building the evidence base for electronic monitoring. Our evaluations, alongside external research commissioned by the Department, have provided clear evidence that targeted electronic monitoring conditions can reduce reoffending and support reintegration by providing an effective alternative to custody. A recent study has found that curfew tags reduce reoffending by 20% when used as part of a community sentence. Further to this, our Acquisitive Crime pilot evaluation shows that burglars, robbers, and thieves given a constant whereabouts monitoring condition with a GPS tag were around 20% less likely to reoffend while on the tag.

The safety and wellbeing of those held in our prisons is of vital importance. Healthcare in prisons is the responsibility of the NHS: Prison Service staff work with healthcare partners to ensure that those held in prison have access to the same quality and range of services as the general public receives from the NHS, as required by the Prison Rules 1999.

His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service has well-established and effective procedures in place for managing prisoners who refuse food, and these are being followed in the case of those of the named prisoners who are currently refusing food, with appropriate medical assessment and support in place.

When a prisoner refuses food, prison staff will act immediately in accordance with the Prison Safety Policy Framework. This includes notifying healthcare professionals and conducting regular welfare checks. The Framework also provides for close monitoring of the person’s health by healthcare staff. Additionally, prison chaplaincy teams are available to provide pastoral care.

The Ministry of Justice publishes information on convictions and sentencing information for sexual offences in the Outcomes by Offence data tool, that can be downloaded from the Criminal Justice Statistics landing page here: Criminal justice statistics quarterly - GOV.UK.

However, it is not possibly to identify whether the offender was a foreign national. This information may be held in court records but to examine individual court records would incur disproportionate costs.

The Ministry of Justice publishes information on convictions and sentencing information for sexual offences in the Outcomes by Offence data tool, that can be downloaded from the Criminal Justice Statistics landing page here: Criminal justice statistics quarterly - GOV.UK.

However, it is not possibly to identify whether the offender was a foreign national. This information may be held in court records but to examine individual court records would incur disproportionate costs.

The Ministry of Justice publishes information on convictions and sentencing information for sexual offences in the Outcomes by Offence data tool, that can be downloaded from the Criminal Justice Statistics landing page here: Criminal justice statistics quarterly - GOV.UK.

However, it is not possibly to identify whether the offender was a foreign national. This information may be held in court records but to examine individual court records would incur disproportionate costs.

A breakdown of Foreign National Offenders (FNOs) by offence group is published in the Annual prison population statistics and the most recent publication can be found here: prison-population-2025.ods. Please see Table_1_A_26, which shows the breakdown as of 30 June 2025.

As these statistics are published annually, we are not able to provide a more recent breakdown.

Between 1 November 2024 and 31 October 2025, we removed over 2,700 FNOs under the Early Removal Scheme, that is more than the number removed over the same period in the 2024, and a significant 74% increase compared to the same period in 2023. It will free up much-needed space in our prisons.

The Ministry of Justice is committed to ensuring that individuals held in custody, including those on remand, have access to appropriate rehabilitative, educational, and wellbeing support while in prison.

Remand prisoners are eligible to access the core education provision available in prisons. This may include literacy, numeracy, English for Speakers of Other Languages, basic digital skills, and library services. On arrival, all prisoners undergo initial screening for learning needs and receive an individual Learning and Work Plan to support progression. Governors must ensure that education is available to all prisoners who can benefit, in line with Prison Rule 32, and remand prisoners are encouraged to participate in these opportunities. In addition to education, remand prisoners can take part in work related activities where they wish to and where operationally feasible. These activities provide purposeful engagement and help maintain routine and structure during custody.

Together with our health partners, we are committed to ensuring that people in prison have access to an equivalent standard, range and quality of health care in prisons to that available in the wider community. This is reflected in the National Partnership Agreement on Health and Social Care in England. All people in prison, including those held on remand, have access to integrated mental health services commissioned by NHS England. This includes access to a range of treatments and interventions within prison as set out in the national service specification for mental health care in prisons.

For prisoners with severe mental health needs, the Mental Health Act received Royal Assent earlier this month and contains several flagship reforms to improve access to mental health care and treatment, including, but not limited to, provisions to:

• Introduce a new statutory 28-day time limit for transfers from prison and other places of detention to hospital to reduce unnecessary delays experienced by prisoners who require mental health treatment.

• Stop courts temporarily detaining people with severe mental illness in prison as a ‘place of safety’ whilst awaiting a hospital bed for treatment or assessment under the Mental Health Act; and

• End the use of remand for own protection under the Bail Act where the court’s sole concern is the defendant’s mental health.

We will implement these reforms as soon as it is safe to do so.

The Ministry of Justice publishes data on prosecutions and average custodial sentence lengths at criminal courts in England and Wales in the Outcomes by Offences data tool, including offences under the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003. They can be downloaded from the Criminal Justice Statistics landing page here: Criminal Justice Statistics

The table below provides the number of prosecutions over the past 5 years for offences under the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003. There have been no offenders sentenced to immediate custody during this period.

The Ministry of Justice publishes data on prosecutions and average custodial sentence lengths at criminal courts in England and Wales in the Outcomes by Offences data tool, including offences under the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003. They can be downloaded from the Criminal Justice Statistics landing page here: Criminal Justice Statistics

The table below provides the number of prosecutions over the past 5 years for offences under the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003. There have been no offenders sentenced to immediate custody during this period.

I recognise the valuable role of the thousands of Voluntary Sector organisations that work in partnership with Prisons and Probation to provide vital support to people serving their sentence in prison and returning to the community.

We welcome the Independent Sentencing Review’s recommendation to explore how we can better harness the value of the Third Sector and build even stronger partnerships to enable better targeting of probation resource and improve outcomes for offenders.

We are currently in the process of re-procuring our commissioned rehabilitative services (CRS) contracts. 76% of current CRS contracts are led by the Third Sector. Our new contracts will improve on our current offering with expanded and improved consistency of service available in both custody and community.

We will continue to work with the Voluntary Sector as implementation of the Independent Sentencing Review progresses.

The Ministry of Justice routinely publishes data in Offender Management Statistics Quarterly (OMSQ) on the prison population.

Table 1: Number of prisoners serving life sentence who were aged 25 years or younger at sentencing, with a tariff of 25 years or more, broken down by sex, ethnicity and imprisonment status.

Table notes:

1. Tariff length is the time between date of sentencing and tariff expiry date, and does not take into account any time served on remand.

2. Offenders who are 25 years old or younger at sentencing includes everyone not yet 26 years old at sentencing.

3. Figures include offenders who received a Whole Life Order.

Disclosure control

An asterisk (*) has been used to suppress values of two or one. This is to prevent disclosure of individual information. Further disclosure control may be completed where this alone is not sufficient.

Source: Prison NOMIS and Public Protection Unit Database

Data sources and quality

The figures in the above tables have been drawn from administrative IT systems which, as with any large scale recording system, are subject to possible errors with data entry and processing.

The Ministry of Justice routinely publishes data in Offender Management Statistics Quarterly (OMSQ) on the prison population.

Table 1: Mean Tariff Length for Offenders Who Committed Murder, by Year of Sentence

Table notes:

1. *Data for 2025 are up to 30 September 2025.
2. Figures are subject to change as more information about tariff becomes available.
3. Tariff length is the time between date of sentencing and tariff expiry date, and does not take into account any time served on remand.
4. Figures do not include offenders who received a Whole Life Order.

Source: Public Protection Unit Database

Data sources and quality

The figures in the above tables have been drawn from administrative IT systems which, as with any large scale recording system, are subject to possible errors with data entry and processing.

Our cross-government Violence Against Women and Girls strategy places prevention at its heart. Building a positive agenda for men – and acknowledging the challenges young men and boys face in today’s society – is a critical part of this work. To this end, we will host a Men and Boys Summit this year, which the Deputy Prime Minister and I are pleased to be leading on behalf of the Prime Minister. We will share further details in due course.

Our cross-government Violence Against Women and Girls strategy places prevention at its heart. Building a positive agenda for men – and acknowledging the challenges young men and boys face in today’s society – is a critical part of this work. To this end, we will host a Men and Boys Summit this year, which the Deputy Prime Minister and I are pleased to be leading on behalf of the Prime Minister. We will share further details in due course.

Our cross-government Violence Against Women and Girls strategy places prevention at its heart. Building a positive agenda for men – and acknowledging the challenges young men and boys face in today’s society – is a critical part of this work. To this end, we will host a Men and Boys Summit this year, which the Deputy Prime Minister and I are pleased to be leading on behalf of the Prime Minister. We will share further details in due course.

For many years the Secretary of State has asked the independent Parole Board for advice on whether a prisoner serving an imprisonment for public protection (IPP) or a life sentence is suitable for transfer to open conditions. Where the Parole Board recommends that a prisoner is so suitable, the Secretary of State is not bound to accept the recommendation, and it is the Secretary of State who is ultimately responsible for determining whether a life or IPP prisoner is safe to be managed in an open prison.

The following tables provide the number and proportion of recommendations made by the Parole Board which were rejected in each month in 2025 for prisoners serving (1) an IPP sentence and (2) a life sentence.

Table 1: Outcomes of consideration of IPP open condition recommendations

Table 2: Outcomes of Consideration of life sentence open condition recommendations

1. These figures have been drawn from administrative IT systems which, as with any large-scale recording system, are subject to possible errors with data entry and processing.

Data have been provided for the period 1 January 2025 to 31 March 2025 to align with the publication of the Parole Board’s data on recommendations for open conditions.

Public protection remains the priority and prisoners will only be approved for a move to open conditions if it is assessed that it is safe to do so.

The UK Government is currently in the process of reviewing the Isle of Man’s Assisted Dying Bill as part of our constitutional responsibilities towards the Crown Dependencies.

The Lord Chancellor is responsible for making a recommendation as to whether Crown Dependency primary legislation should receive Royal Assent.

The UK Government is currently in the process of reviewing the Isle of Man’s Assisted Dying Bill as part of our constitutional responsibilities towards the Crown Dependencies.

The Lord Chancellor is responsible for making a recommendation as to whether Crown Dependency primary legislation should receive Royal Assent.

The independent judiciary have their own procedures and policies. Guidance for judicial office holders on the appropriate and responsible use of AI has been issued by the judiciary and is publicly available on the judiciary’s website.

The judiciary’s approach to AI is designed to ensure that any use of AI by judicial office holders is safe, transparent, and consistent with the principles of fairness and non-discrimination, while preserving judicial independence.

HM Courts & Tribunals Service has developed its own Responsible AI Principles to provide guardrails for the development, delivery and maintenance of AI systems to ensure use of AI in the courts and tribunals is appropriate, safe and controlled.

No-one is being detained under the Terrorism Act 2000 for supporting, or being a member of, Palestine Action.

The decision to remand an individual in custody or to grant bail is solely a matter for the independent judiciary acting in accordance with the Bail Act 1976. With limited exceptions, the Bail Act creates a presumption in favour of bail for defendants involved in criminal proceedings. This recognises that a person should not be deprived of his/her liberty unless that is necessary for the protection of the public or the delivery of justice.

There is a well-established process that enables remanded prisoners to apply to the court for bail, and we have expanded the Bail Information Service over the last year to provide more support.

We take the security of people’s personal data extremely seriously.

Firstly, to ensure transparency about the cyber- attack and that we reached as many potentially impacted individuals as possible, the Ministry of Justice published a notice shortly after it became aware of the criminal cyber-attack at 08:15 on 19 May on GOV.UK

The notice provided information about the cyber-attack and directed concerned members of the public to the National Cyber Security Centre’s webpage, which contained information on how to protect against the impact of a data breach.

The Legal Aid Agency (LAA) also set up dedicated Customer Services support via a telephone line and email for providers and clients who had concerns regarding the data breach. We did not write to all clients, to all the addresses that we had, because some of those addresses would no longer be current, and that would potentially create another data breach in itself.

The published statement referred to above sets out information about who may have been impacted and the nature of the information which may have been accessed. As far as we are aware, no data has been shared or put out in the public domain. An injunction has been put in place to prohibit sharing of this data. Anyone who does so could be sent to prison. If it is identified that a specific individual is at risk, action will be taken to try to contact them.

In the interests of security, we cannot confirm the method by which unauthorised access was gained to the LAA’s online digital systems or details about specific steps taken or measures implemented to protect LAA systems against any future cyber-attacks.

Security of the new systems has been paramount as we have rebuilt the LAA’s digital systems following the attack. The compromised digital portal has been replaced by a new, secure single sign-in tool for LAA online services (SiLAS). SiLAS has been designed and built in line with UK government and industry best practice for secure development. Security has been included from the ground up, including multi factor authentication, with independent testing activities to validate that the appropriate security controls are in place.

A dedicated team will monitor and update the service to ensure it evolves to remain resilient to emerging threats and is supported by a security operations capability. While no system can be entirely risk free, we are confident that we have taken the right steps to protect the service and its users.

Responsibility for disaster recovery planning for digital systems lies with Justice Digital rather than the LAA. Prior to the cyber- attack there was no digital disaster recovery plan in place. However, had we had a fully funded disaster recovery system, any immediate restoration would have simply restored the systems without resolving the vulnerabilities that enabled the cyber- attack to occur. Justice Digital now have a new Service Owner structure in place where clear Service Standards will be defined and monitored. This will include digital disaster recovery plans for each digital product.

Prior to the cyber- attack the LAA had in place prepared business continuity plans for business-critical processes and services to ensure that access to justice could be maintained in the event of a system outage. These plans were tried and tested, and we were confident that the measures would be effective for our initial response. These measures gave us sufficient time to design and implement longer term measures to meet the specific needs of the incident that were introduced in June 2025.

At every stage, we have acted to protect public access to justice and to support providers in delivering legal aid. We have achieved this without affecting court backlogs or police station activity.

Our business continuity planning was effective in maintaining access to justice from the outset of the attack and the need to have longer term options in place is one of the lessons that we have taken from this incident.

A formal lessons learned approach will systematically analyse lessons from the Ministry of Justice’s and LAA’s preparation for and response to the cyber-attack. This work will cover pre-incident risk management and the response to the incident itself. This will inform future resilience planning, governance improvement and risk mitigation strategies across the Ministry of Justice and its agencies.

We take the security of people’s personal data extremely seriously.

Firstly, to ensure transparency about the cyber- attack and that we reached as many potentially impacted individuals as possible, the Ministry of Justice published a notice shortly after it became aware of the criminal cyber-attack at 08:15 on 19 May on GOV.UK

The notice provided information about the cyber-attack and directed concerned members of the public to the National Cyber Security Centre’s webpage, which contained information on how to protect against the impact of a data breach.

The Legal Aid Agency (LAA) also set up dedicated Customer Services support via a telephone line and email for providers and clients who had concerns regarding the data breach. We did not write to all clients, to all the addresses that we had, because some of those addresses would no longer be current, and that would potentially create another data breach in itself.

The published statement referred to above sets out information about who may have been impacted and the nature of the information which may have been accessed. As far as we are aware, no data has been shared or put out in the public domain. An injunction has been put in place to prohibit sharing of this data. Anyone who does so could be sent to prison. If it is identified that a specific individual is at risk, action will be taken to try to contact them.

In the interests of security, we cannot confirm the method by which unauthorised access was gained to the LAA’s online digital systems or details about specific steps taken or measures implemented to protect LAA systems against any future cyber-attacks.

Security of the new systems has been paramount as we have rebuilt the LAA’s digital systems following the attack. The compromised digital portal has been replaced by a new, secure single sign-in tool for LAA online services (SiLAS). SiLAS has been designed and built in line with UK government and industry best practice for secure development. Security has been included from the ground up, including multi factor authentication, with independent testing activities to validate that the appropriate security controls are in place.

A dedicated team will monitor and update the service to ensure it evolves to remain resilient to emerging threats and is supported by a security operations capability. While no system can be entirely risk free, we are confident that we have taken the right steps to protect the service and its users.

Responsibility for disaster recovery planning for digital systems lies with Justice Digital rather than the LAA. Prior to the cyber- attack there was no digital disaster recovery plan in place. However, had we had a fully funded disaster recovery system, any immediate restoration would have simply restored the systems without resolving the vulnerabilities that enabled the cyber- attack to occur. Justice Digital now have a new Service Owner structure in place where clear Service Standards will be defined and monitored. This will include digital disaster recovery plans for each digital product.

Prior to the cyber- attack the LAA had in place prepared business continuity plans for business-critical processes and services to ensure that access to justice could be maintained in the event of a system outage. These plans were tried and tested, and we were confident that the measures would be effective for our initial response. These measures gave us sufficient time to design and implement longer term measures to meet the specific needs of the incident that were introduced in June 2025.

At every stage, we have acted to protect public access to justice and to support providers in delivering legal aid. We have achieved this without affecting court backlogs or police station activity.

Our business continuity planning was effective in maintaining access to justice from the outset of the attack and the need to have longer term options in place is one of the lessons that we have taken from this incident.

A formal lessons learned approach will systematically analyse lessons from the Ministry of Justice’s and LAA’s preparation for and response to the cyber-attack. This work will cover pre-incident risk management and the response to the incident itself. This will inform future resilience planning, governance improvement and risk mitigation strategies across the Ministry of Justice and its agencies.

We take the security of people’s personal data extremely seriously.

Firstly, to ensure transparency about the cyber- attack and that we reached as many potentially impacted individuals as possible, the Ministry of Justice published a notice shortly after it became aware of the criminal cyber-attack at 08:15 on 19 May on GOV.UK

The notice provided information about the cyber-attack and directed concerned members of the public to the National Cyber Security Centre’s webpage, which contained information on how to protect against the impact of a data breach.

The Legal Aid Agency (LAA) also set up dedicated Customer Services support via a telephone line and email for providers and clients who had concerns regarding the data breach. We did not write to all clients, to all the addresses that we had, because some of those addresses would no longer be current, and that would potentially create another data breach in itself.

The published statement referred to above sets out information about who may have been impacted and the nature of the information which may have been accessed. As far as we are aware, no data has been shared or put out in the public domain. An injunction has been put in place to prohibit sharing of this data. Anyone who does so could be sent to prison. If it is identified that a specific individual is at risk, action will be taken to try to contact them.

In the interests of security, we cannot confirm the method by which unauthorised access was gained to the LAA’s online digital systems or details about specific steps taken or measures implemented to protect LAA systems against any future cyber-attacks.

Security of the new systems has been paramount as we have rebuilt the LAA’s digital systems following the attack. The compromised digital portal has been replaced by a new, secure single sign-in tool for LAA online services (SiLAS). SiLAS has been designed and built in line with UK government and industry best practice for secure development. Security has been included from the ground up, including multi factor authentication, with independent testing activities to validate that the appropriate security controls are in place.

A dedicated team will monitor and update the service to ensure it evolves to remain resilient to emerging threats and is supported by a security operations capability. While no system can be entirely risk free, we are confident that we have taken the right steps to protect the service and its users.

Responsibility for disaster recovery planning for digital systems lies with Justice Digital rather than the LAA. Prior to the cyber- attack there was no digital disaster recovery plan in place. However, had we had a fully funded disaster recovery system, any immediate restoration would have simply restored the systems without resolving the vulnerabilities that enabled the cyber- attack to occur. Justice Digital now have a new Service Owner structure in place where clear Service Standards will be defined and monitored. This will include digital disaster recovery plans for each digital product.

Prior to the cyber- attack the LAA had in place prepared business continuity plans for business-critical processes and services to ensure that access to justice could be maintained in the event of a system outage. These plans were tried and tested, and we were confident that the measures would be effective for our initial response. These measures gave us sufficient time to design and implement longer term measures to meet the specific needs of the incident that were introduced in June 2025.

At every stage, we have acted to protect public access to justice and to support providers in delivering legal aid. We have achieved this without affecting court backlogs or police station activity.

Our business continuity planning was effective in maintaining access to justice from the outset of the attack and the need to have longer term options in place is one of the lessons that we have taken from this incident.

A formal lessons learned approach will systematically analyse lessons from the Ministry of Justice’s and LAA’s preparation for and response to the cyber-attack. This work will cover pre-incident risk management and the response to the incident itself. This will inform future resilience planning, governance improvement and risk mitigation strategies across the Ministry of Justice and its agencies.

We take the security of people’s personal data extremely seriously.

Firstly, to ensure transparency about the cyber- attack and that we reached as many potentially impacted individuals as possible, the Ministry of Justice published a notice shortly after it became aware of the criminal cyber-attack at 08:15 on 19 May on GOV.UK

The notice provided information about the cyber-attack and directed concerned members of the public to the National Cyber Security Centre’s webpage, which contained information on how to protect against the impact of a data breach.

The Legal Aid Agency (LAA) also set up dedicated Customer Services support via a telephone line and email for providers and clients who had concerns regarding the data breach. We did not write to all clients, to all the addresses that we had, because some of those addresses would no longer be current, and that would potentially create another data breach in itself.

The published statement referred to above sets out information about who may have been impacted and the nature of the information which may have been accessed. As far as we are aware, no data has been shared or put out in the public domain. An injunction has been put in place to prohibit sharing of this data. Anyone who does so could be sent to prison. If it is identified that a specific individual is at risk, action will be taken to try to contact them.

In the interests of security, we cannot confirm the method by which unauthorised access was gained to the LAA’s online digital systems or details about specific steps taken or measures implemented to protect LAA systems against any future cyber-attacks.

Security of the new systems has been paramount as we have rebuilt the LAA’s digital systems following the attack. The compromised digital portal has been replaced by a new, secure single sign-in tool for LAA online services (SiLAS). SiLAS has been designed and built in line with UK government and industry best practice for secure development. Security has been included from the ground up, including multi factor authentication, with independent testing activities to validate that the appropriate security controls are in place.

A dedicated team will monitor and update the service to ensure it evolves to remain resilient to emerging threats and is supported by a security operations capability. While no system can be entirely risk free, we are confident that we have taken the right steps to protect the service and its users.

Responsibility for disaster recovery planning for digital systems lies with Justice Digital rather than the LAA. Prior to the cyber- attack there was no digital disaster recovery plan in place. However, had we had a fully funded disaster recovery system, any immediate restoration would have simply restored the systems without resolving the vulnerabilities that enabled the cyber- attack to occur. Justice Digital now have a new Service Owner structure in place where clear Service Standards will be defined and monitored. This will include digital disaster recovery plans for each digital product.

Prior to the cyber- attack the LAA had in place prepared business continuity plans for business-critical processes and services to ensure that access to justice could be maintained in the event of a system outage. These plans were tried and tested, and we were confident that the measures would be effective for our initial response. These measures gave us sufficient time to design and implement longer term measures to meet the specific needs of the incident that were introduced in June 2025.

At every stage, we have acted to protect public access to justice and to support providers in delivering legal aid. We have achieved this without affecting court backlogs or police station activity.

Our business continuity planning was effective in maintaining access to justice from the outset of the attack and the need to have longer term options in place is one of the lessons that we have taken from this incident.

A formal lessons learned approach will systematically analyse lessons from the Ministry of Justice’s and LAA’s preparation for and response to the cyber-attack. This work will cover pre-incident risk management and the response to the incident itself. This will inform future resilience planning, governance improvement and risk mitigation strategies across the Ministry of Justice and its agencies.