Asked by: Gregory Campbell (Democratic Unionist Party - East Londonderry)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many perpetrators of cyber crime were (a) prosecuted and (b) convicted in (i) 2022, (ii) 2023 and (iii) 2024.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
There are no offences specifically defined in legislation as “cyber crime,” however the Computer Misuse Act 1990 has a number of offences that could be considered as such.
The Ministry of Justice routinely publishes data concerning prosecutions and convictions available here: Criminal Justice Statistics.
Asked by: Jim McMahon (Labour (Co-op) - Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many and what proportion of magistrates come from working class backgrounds in (a) England and (b) Greater Manchester.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The Judicial Office collects demographic information on magistrates, including professional background; however, providing this information is voluntary. Low declaration rates mean that there is insufficient data to allow for any meaningful analysis or interpretation at this time. We, and the judiciary, are committed to working to improve the completeness and quality of socio-economic data across the judiciary, including magistrates.
Asked by: Alex Brewer (Liberal Democrat - North East Hampshire)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps his Department is taking to implement the Law Commission’s July 2022 recommendations for reforming weddings law in England and Wales.
Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
The Government announced on 2 October that we intend to reform weddings law when parliamentary time allows. The reforms reflect a commitment to making marriage law fairer, simpler and more modern, whilst also protecting the solemnity and dignity of marriage. We want to create a level playing field for all groups, including allowing humanist weddings to be legally recognised for the first time. We will be consulting on the details early next year.
Asked by: Alex Brewer (Liberal Democrat - North East Hampshire)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps the Government has taken to review the provisions of the Marriage Act 1949.
Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
The Government announced on 2 October that we intend to reform weddings law when parliamentary time allows. The reforms reflect a commitment to making marriage law fairer, simpler and more modern, whilst also protecting the solemnity and dignity of marriage. We want to create a level playing field for all groups, including allowing humanist weddings to be legally recognised for the first time. We will be consulting on the details early next year.
Asked by: Robert Jenrick (Conservative - Newark)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether the proposed removal of the right to trial by jury for offences carrying a maximum sentence of less than three years will apply retrospectively to defendants who have already entered a plea of not guilty and elected for jury trial.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
Ministers will introduce detailed proposals to Parliament as soon as Parliamentary time allows.
Asked by: James McMurdock (Independent - South Basildon and East Thurrock)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the potential impact of removing the right to elect for a jury trial on perceptions of the justice system of a) victims, b) witnesses and c) defendants.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (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 and too many victims waiting years for justice. One of the first priorities of this Government has been to tackle this crisis, which is why we asked Sir Brian Leveson to undertake his independent review. On 2 December, the Deputy Prime Minister responded to the first part of that review and set out why reform is necessary, alongside investment and modernisation.
Jury trials are the cornerstone of our justice system and will remain in place for the most serious crimes. It is the obligation of Government to guarantee everybody a fair trial and timely justice is fundamental to fairness.
The vast majority of criminal cases are already heard in magistrates’ courts without juries, with 90% of all criminal cases being dealt with by magistrates. But the status quo is not working for victims, defendants or anyone involved in the justice system. We need to do things differently and prevent defendants from gaming the system. Currently, triable-either-way offences make up around 40% of all cases. Triable-either-way offences allow a defendant to insist on their choice of having a jury trial at the taxpayer’s expense and greater length, irrespective of the seriousness of the offence. What this means it that, currently, according to Crown Prosecution Service figures, over 4,000 defendants, whose cases could have been heard in the magistrates’ court with magistrates’ court sentencing powers, were heard in the Crown Court because the defendant was able to insist on a full jury trial. This means that in each of those cases, money and significant time and resource was spent on a jury trial, not only at taxpayer’s expense but all those in the system.
Under the Government’s proposals, the mode of trial will be triaged by the Court, which will determine whether a case needs to be heard in the Crown Court, or could be heard more swiftly in the Magistrates’ Court. The latest figures show offences heard by magistrates already complete more than four times faster than similar cases in the Crown Court. Only reform will free up the space and time needed to prioritise the most serious cases – including those that can and should have a jury trial. We think that will benefit victims, witnesses, and defendants alike.
Asked by: James McMurdock (Independent - South Basildon and East Thurrock)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the potential impact of removing a defendant’s right to elect trial by jury for triable-either-way offences on public confidence in the criminal justice system.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (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 and too many victims waiting years for justice. One of the first priorities of this Government has been to tackle this crisis, which is why we asked Sir Brian Leveson to undertake his independent review. On 2 December, the Deputy Prime Minister responded to the first part of that review and set out why reform is necessary, alongside investment and modernisation.
Jury trials are the cornerstone of our justice system and will remain in place for the most serious crimes. It is the obligation of Government to guarantee everybody a fair trial and timely justice is fundamental to fairness.
The vast majority of criminal cases are already heard in magistrates’ courts without juries, with 90% of all criminal cases being dealt with by magistrates. But the status quo is not working for victims, defendants or anyone involved in the justice system. We need to do things differently and prevent defendants from gaming the system. Currently, triable-either-way offences make up around 40% of all cases. Triable-either-way offences allow a defendant to insist on their choice of having a jury trial at the taxpayer’s expense and greater length, irrespective of the seriousness of the offence. What this means it that, currently, according to Crown Prosecution Service figures, over 4,000 defendants, whose cases could have been heard in the magistrates’ court with magistrates’ court sentencing powers, were heard in the Crown Court because the defendant was able to insist on a full jury trial. This means that in each of those cases, money and significant time and resource was spent on a jury trial, not only at taxpayer’s expense but all those in the system.
Under the Government’s proposals, the mode of trial will be triaged by the Court, which will determine whether a case needs to be heard in the Crown Court, or could be heard more swiftly in the Magistrates’ Court. The latest figures show offences heard by magistrates already complete more than four times faster than similar cases in the Crown Court. Only reform will free up the space and time needed to prioritise the most serious cases – including those that can and should have a jury trial. We think that will benefit victims, witnesses, and defendants alike.
Asked by: Robert Jenrick (Conservative - Newark)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether any offenders currently detained in (a) separation and (b) close supervision centres are challenging their detention.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
There are no ongoing judicial review challenges made with regards to separation centres and no ongoing challenges that have reached the courts with regards to close supervision centres.
Asked by: Robert Jenrick (Conservative - Newark)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, for what reasons Jonathan Hall KC’s review into Separation Centres has not yet been published; and when he plans to publish that review.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
The Government is carefully considering the recommendations made by Jonathan Hall KC and will publish his report in due course.
Asked by: Robert Jenrick (Conservative - Newark)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many transgender prisoners with convictions for (a) sexual and (b) violent offences are housed within the general female prison estate; and how many of those prisoners have been granted a Ministerial exemption to remain there in the last 12 months.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
As of 1 December, there were no transgender women, including individuals with Gender Recognition Certificates, in the general women's prison estate with any convictions for sexual offences and five or fewer transgender women with convictions for violent offences. (Where statistics include a total of five or fewer, the exact figure is not given, for data protection reasons.)
The individuals with convictions for violent offences received Ministerial exemptions to be held in the general women's estate under the previous Government. No exemptions have been provided by this Government since it came into power.