Asked by: Baroness Berridge (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the results of the two-tiered test of enhanced support for jurors in Crown Courts centres that was announced in May 2024.
Answered by Baroness Levitt - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
Jury service is an important civic duty. Whilst many people find it worthwhile, we recognise that some trials can be challenging.
The “Enhanced Support for Jurors” pilot concluded in March 2025 and is currently being evaluated. The results will help inform longer-term support for jurors, including in cases involving serious violence or sexual offending.
If a juror is left distressed by any aspect of their service, they are encouraged to seek specialist support through their GP or the NHS 111 helpline, which includes a dedicated mental health option.
Asked by: Baroness Berridge (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the psychological and mental health impact on jurors of sitting on serious cases of physical or sexual violence.
Answered by Baroness Levitt - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
Jury service is an important civic duty. Whilst many people find it worthwhile, we recognise that some trials can be challenging.
The “Enhanced Support for Jurors” pilot concluded in March 2025 and is currently being evaluated. The results will help inform longer-term support for jurors, including in cases involving serious violence or sexual offending.
If a juror is left distressed by any aspect of their service, they are encouraged to seek specialist support through their GP or the NHS 111 helpline, which includes a dedicated mental health option.
Asked by: Andrew Snowden (Conservative - Fylde)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if he will make an assessment of the potential merits of bringing forward legislative proposals to compensate people who carry out community service as part of a criminal sentence that is later overturned.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
There is no specific route to claim compensation related to any work or community service undertaken as part of a sentence, which is subsequently overturned.
For individuals who have suffered a miscarriage of justice, section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act provides for the Secretary of State to pay compensation to an individual, subject to meeting the statutory test. This is administrated by the Miscarriages of Justice Application Service. If an individual is deemed eligible, the level of award is determined by an Independent Assessor, and in October 2025, we increased the maximum cap for compensation by 30%.
Asked by: Andrew Snowden (Conservative - Fylde)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, pursuant to the written answer 106063 of 14 January 2026 on Community Orders: Appeals, how many people have received compensation for work undertaken following their sentence being overturned.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
There is no specific route to claim compensation related to any work or community service undertaken as part of a sentence, which is subsequently overturned.
For individuals who have suffered a miscarriage of justice, section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act provides for the Secretary of State to pay compensation to an individual, subject to meeting the statutory test. This is administrated by the Miscarriages of Justice Application Service. If an individual is deemed eligible, the level of award is determined by an Independent Assessor, and in October 2025, we increased the maximum cap for compensation by 30%.
Asked by: Ayoub Khan (Independent - Birmingham Perry Barr)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, when his Department's amendment of Section 288(2) of the Sentencing Code will take effect.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
The Sentencing Act 2026 received Royal Assent on 22 January 2026. This measure commences automatically 2 months after Royal Assent, on 22 March 2026.
Asked by: Paul Kohler (Liberal Democrat - Wimbledon)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what estimate he has made of the number of rape trials in England and Wales that were postponed in each year since 2015; and what the principal reasons were for those postponements.
Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
The Ministry of Justice publishes figures for the volume of ineffective trials and reasons on a quarterly basis in the ‘Trial effectiveness at the criminal courts’ tool: Criminal court statistics quarterly: July to September 2025 - GOV.UK. An ineffective trial does not take place on the scheduled trial start date and requires a subsequent rescheduled listing.
A vacated trial is one that is removed from the trial list prior to the date of trial. These trials may or may not be listed for a future date. The trial effectiveness tool also includes data on the volume of vacated trials, but the Ministry of Justice does not currently publish reasons for vacation.
The offence group field can be filtered for ‘02: Sexual offences – All Rape’ and there is also a filter for the reason for ineffective trials.
Asked by: Paul Kohler (Liberal Democrat - Wimbledon)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what the average length of time was from charge to completion in court for rape cases in England and Wales in each year since 2016.
Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
The Ministry of Justice publishes figures for Crown Court timeliness on a quarterly basis in the ‘End-to-end timeliness tool (Crown Court)’. This includes time taken from charge to completion for rape cases: Criminal court statistics quarterly: July to September 2025 - GOV.UK.
Offence group can be filtered for ‘02: Sexual offences – all rape’. Both the mean and median time from charge to completion can be found in the table, dating back to 2016.
Asked by: Zöe Franklin (Liberal Democrat - Guildford)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether he has considered introducing a requirement for automatic judicial oversight within a fixed timeframe where state bodies facilitate a significant change in a child’s living arrangements as part of safeguarding practice.
Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
This Government is committed to protecting children from harm. The Children Act 1989 sets out specific duties for local authorities to provide services to children in their area if they are in need and to undertake enquiries if they believe a child has suffered or is likely to suffer significant harm.
Under Section 46 of the Children Act 1989, police may only facilitate a change in a child’s place of residence despite the refusal of a parent with parental responsibility if a child is at immediate risk of significant harm, by exercising Police Protection Powers. In this case, police may only remove a child or keep a child in a safe place for a maximum 72 hours before requiring a court authorisation to sustain the separation from their parent with parental responsibility.
There are already clear expectations that the local authority brings the matter before the family court within the 72-hour time limit, ensuring judicial oversight of continued change in a child’s place of residence.
Under Section 20 of the Children Act 1989, local authorities can also change a child’s place of residence with the consent of all people that hold parental responsibility for that child.
Whether an application is made prior to or after a child's change of residence, the Government recognises that involvement in family court proceedings, including when children are moved for safeguarding purposes, can be a distressing experience for the families involved. That is why the Department for Education has funded research, conducted by Birkbeck university, into the experiences of parents, children and special guardians involved in public law family court proceedings, as well as a policy and literature review of advice and information materials available to parties. The report setting out their findings and recommendations can be found here: https://eprints.bbk.ac.uk/id/eprint/56714/.
The Government welcomes this report and takes the experiences of children and families in the family court system seriously.
Asked by: Zöe Franklin (Liberal Democrat - Guildford)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment his Department has made of the potential impact of safeguarding practices on requiring parents to seek retrospective court remedies.
Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
This Government is committed to protecting children from harm. The Children Act 1989 sets out specific duties for local authorities to provide services to children in their area if they are in need and to undertake enquiries if they believe a child has suffered or is likely to suffer significant harm.
Under Section 46 of the Children Act 1989, police may only facilitate a change in a child’s place of residence despite the refusal of a parent with parental responsibility if a child is at immediate risk of significant harm, by exercising Police Protection Powers. In this case, police may only remove a child or keep a child in a safe place for a maximum 72 hours before requiring a court authorisation to sustain the separation from their parent with parental responsibility.
There are already clear expectations that the local authority brings the matter before the family court within the 72-hour time limit, ensuring judicial oversight of continued change in a child’s place of residence.
Under Section 20 of the Children Act 1989, local authorities can also change a child’s place of residence with the consent of all people that hold parental responsibility for that child.
Whether an application is made prior to or after a child's change of residence, the Government recognises that involvement in family court proceedings, including when children are moved for safeguarding purposes, can be a distressing experience for the families involved. That is why the Department for Education has funded research, conducted by Birkbeck university, into the experiences of parents, children and special guardians involved in public law family court proceedings, as well as a policy and literature review of advice and information materials available to parties. The report setting out their findings and recommendations can be found here: https://eprints.bbk.ac.uk/id/eprint/56714/.
The Government welcomes this report and takes the experiences of children and families in the family court system seriously.
Asked by: Lord Wigley (Plaid Cymru - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government how many staff are employed at each of the prisons in Wales; and how many of those staff are Welsh speakers.
Answered by Lord Timpson - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The number of staff and self-reported Welsh language speakers in each Welsh prison can be found in the table below:
| Welsh Speaking | Non-Welsh Speaking | Unknown | Total |
Swansea | 23 | 27 | 274 | 324 |
Berwyn | 28 | 80 | 640 | 748 |
Cardiff | 14 | 42 | 361 | 417 |
Usk/Prescoed | 10 | 53 | 190 | 253 |
Total | 75 | 202 | 1,465 | 1,742 |
Headcount of staff in post on 30 September 2025.
Whether staff can speak Welsh is a self-reported variable, with the vast majority of staff not reporting this information, so the true numbers of Welsh speakers is likely to be higher.