Asked by: Alex Easton (Independent - North Down)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made with the devolved Administrations of the level of public confidence in the consistency and fairness of sentencing decisions across the UK, including in cases involving social media-related offences and serious criminal offences; and whether his Department plans to review the potential impact of sentencing outcomes on public confidence in the criminal justice system.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
Sentencing in individual cases is a matter for the independent courts. In England and Wales, courts sentence offenders within the framework set by Parliament and in accordance with guidelines issued by the independent Sentencing Council. Those guidelines are designed to promote consistency and transparency, while ensuring that courts can take full account of the circumstances of each case, including culpability, harm, and any relevant aggravating and mitigating factors.
Sentencing policy is devolved in Scotland and Northern Ireland. The Government continues to engage constructively with the devolved governments on justice matters where appropriate, but has not made a formal UK-wide assessment of public confidence in sentencing. Differences in approach reflect separate legal systems, but there is shared interest across jurisdictions in maintaining public confidence and effective justice outcomes.
In England and Wales, the Government closely monitors public confidence in the criminal justice system through a range of published data and is committed to ensuring that sentencing outcomes across all offences (including specific communication offences), punish offenders, protect the public, support victims and command confidence. As part of wider sentencing reforms, we are taking forward measures to strengthen the effectiveness and transparency of sentencing, including implementing the recommendations of the Independent Sentencing Review.
Asked by: James Wild (Conservative - North West Norfolk)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, pursuant to the Answer of 1 June 2026 to Question 3327 on Prisoners' Release, in which part of the referenced data the figures can be found for the number of prisoners who (a) have been returned to prison and (b) remain at large.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
Where an individual is deemed unlawfully at large and subject to rearrest, any information held on such cases is used for prison and police operational purposes.
As this information is not part of a routine, quality-assured statistical collection, it is not included in published statistics.
A joint protocol between HMPPS and the National Police Chiefs’ Council ensures timely communication between partner agencies when an individual is released in error and is unlawfully at large.
The protocol sets out steps to re-arrest the individual as quickly as possible. Further work is underway to strengthen the protocol further and improve victim communication, following Dame Lynne Owens’ independent review.
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 estimate his Department has made of the average waiting time between charge and trial in a) magistrates’ courts and b) the Crown Court.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
Whilst data is not routinely published for the period from charge to trial start (i.e. the main hearing for defendants entering a not guilty plea), a bespoke breakdown of the Crown Court ‘End-to-end timeliness tool’ shows that the mean time from charge to trial start in 2025 was 433 days, with a corresponding median of 336 days.
A comparable metric is not available in the magistrates’ courts.
Asked by: Andrew Rosindell (Reform UK - Romford)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether county courts will have additional sitting hours to deal with Section 8 possession orders following the commencement of the Renters Rights Act.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The Ministry of Justice (including its executive agency His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service) is working closely with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to make sure that the courts have sufficient capacity to manage the impact of the Renter’s Rights Act 2025 on the justice system. This includes ensuring sufficient provision of sitting days to deal with case volumes.
This year, there will be 80,200 sitting days in the civil jurisdiction. This is a record allocation, recognising the importance of the civil jurisdiction.
We continue to invest in annual judicial recruitment for c.1000 vacancies across all jurisdictions, including the county courts. The Judicial Appointments Commission reports how many District and Deputy District Judges it has recommended from annual District Judge and c.18-monthly Deputy District Judge recruitment.
The information can be found at - https://judicialappointments.gov.uk/corp-publication/completed-selection-exercises-for-the-2025-26-financial-year/#4-January2026March2026Quarter4. District Judge recruitment is underway for up to 70 candidates and further Deputy District Judge recruitment is planned for later this year.
Asked by: Andrew Rosindell (Reform UK - Romford)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether his Department has made an assessment of reducing the qualification time for people to sit on a first tier tribunal.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
Judges of the First-Tier Tribunal are required by statute (the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007) to have a specific legal qualification and appropriate legal experience. This must be five years’ post qualification experience (PQE), with a minimum of 20% of each year devoted to law-related activity. These statutory requirements help to safeguard judicial standards by ensuring that judges have the appropriate knowledge and skills to be able to apply the law fairly and effectively. Most candidates have significantly more than the minimum PQE when they apply.
Asked by: Kim Johnson (Labour - Liverpool Riverside)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether the interventions available to unreleased prisoners serving sentences of imprisonment for public protection differ from those available to other prisoners serving such sentences.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
There are a range of interventions aimed at reducing reoffending and aiding resettlement into the community. These are allocated on an individual basis. Those working with prisoners serving sentences of imprisonment for public protection (IPP) will identify what interventions or services will be most suitable, based on the presenting need.
A small number of initiatives are designed specifically, or primarily, for IPP prisoners. These are not necessarily formal interventions, but they provide holistic, therapeutic services and unit-based approaches, aimed at increasing hope and reducing feelings of dejection, in order to increase insight, and improve relationships and engagement. Examples include the progression regimes currently in four prisons across the estate, and the Midlands Therapeutic Service.
Asked by: Kim Johnson (Labour - Liverpool Riverside)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many and what proportion of recommendations made by Local Advisory Panels to downgrade prisoners from Category A status were (a) agreed by the Category A Review Team, (b) approved by senior decision-makers within the High Security function and (c) not approved in each of the last ten years.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
Prisoners held as Category A / Restricted Status are subject to a structured review process, with a formal review after two years and annually thereafter. These reviews are informed by progress reports and considered by a Local Advisory Panel (LAP), which makes recommendations to the Category A Team. Where continued Category A status is recommended and agreed, reviews may be completed without escalation, though all cases are referred to the Executive Director at least every five years. Only the Executive Director (or delegated authority) may approve downgrades, in line with Prison Service Instruction (PSI) 08/2013, The review of security category – category A / restricted status prisoners.
The Category A Team conducts around 850 reviews each year (909 in 2025). Approximately one third involve legal representation, in which cases requests for oral hearings are routinely made.
Between 2016 and 2025, there were an estimated 3,046 requests for an oral hearing, including 246 formal pre-action requests. Over the same period, the Executive Director granted 39 oral hearings. All LAP recommendations to downgrade are referred directly to the Executive Director for decision. Between 2016 and 2025, annual LAP recommendations ranged from 44 to 111, with approvals ranging from 18 to 58.
More detailed breakdowns cannot be provided without manually reviewing approximately 8,500 individual decisions, which would exceed the disproportionate cost threshold.
Asked by: Kim Johnson (Labour - Liverpool Riverside)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many requests were (a) made, (b) granted and (c) refused for Category A oral hearings in each of the last ten years.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
Prisoners held as Category A / Restricted Status are subject to a structured review process, with a formal review after two years and annually thereafter. These reviews are informed by progress reports and considered by a Local Advisory Panel (LAP), which makes recommendations to the Category A Team. Where continued Category A status is recommended and agreed, reviews may be completed without escalation, though all cases are referred to the Executive Director at least every five years. Only the Executive Director (or delegated authority) may approve downgrades, in line with Prison Service Instruction (PSI) 08/2013, The review of security category – category A / restricted status prisoners.
The Category A Team conducts around 850 reviews each year (909 in 2025). Approximately one third involve legal representation, in which cases requests for oral hearings are routinely made.
Between 2016 and 2025, there were an estimated 3,046 requests for an oral hearing, including 246 formal pre-action requests. Over the same period, the Executive Director granted 39 oral hearings. All LAP recommendations to downgrade are referred directly to the Executive Director for decision. Between 2016 and 2025, annual LAP recommendations ranged from 44 to 111, with approvals ranging from 18 to 58.
More detailed breakdowns cannot be provided without manually reviewing approximately 8,500 individual decisions, which would exceed the disproportionate cost threshold.
Asked by: Ben Obese-Jecty (Conservative - Huntingdon)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, pursuant to the Answer of 29 May 2026 to Question 3026 on Men, if he will list the key sector partners he plans to invite to the National Summit on Men and Boys.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
The Prime Minister committed to holding a National Summit on Men and Boys in 2026 to bring together key sector partners and Government, to raise awareness and develop plans to tackle issues facing Men and Boys. He asked the Deputy Prime Minister to lead this work.
By convening Departments and partners under the Deputy Prime Minister’s leadership, we can ensure a joined-up approach that delivers meaningful, measurable impact.
We have not yet set an invitation list for the Men and Boys Summit but will be seeking to convene a wide range of stakeholders – including from businesses, charities, and other relevant organisations.
Asked by: Bradley Thomas (Conservative - Bromsgrove)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the potential impact of criminal court delays on civil proceedings awaiting those judgements.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The Government inherited a record and rising Crown Court backlog, with victims facing intolerable delays for justice. We asked Sir Brian Leveson to undertake an Independent Review of the Criminal Courts. In response the Government is delivering record financial investment in the courts, implementing system efficiencies, and legislating for pragmatic structural reforms to how and where some criminal cases are heard.
Where there are related criminal proceedings, the civil courts already have established case management powers to take account of any resulting delay. Under Practice Direction 23A in the Civil Procedure Rules, parties may apply for a stay on civil proceedings where there are related criminal proceedings, and the common law allows the court to determine that application in light of the particular facts and the interests of justice. These mechanisms mitigate the potential detrimental impact of extended criminal proceedings, ensuring that parties have appropriate access to justice in the civil courts.
The Government keeps the performance of both the criminal and civil courts under continual review and closely monitors the impact of delays across the justice system.