Ministry of Justice

We will consult on a new Victims’ Code in due course in order to ensure that we get the information and support for victims right.

The Ministry of Justice recognises the important role that arts and culture can play in engaging children and supporting positive outcomes.

Evidence from the 2025 publication by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, ‘The effects of arts and culture programmes on youth crime: A rapid review’ shows that, whilst the current evidence base is limited, arts and culture programmes can help improve young people’s wellbeing, confidence, relationships and engagement with services. These are all factors associated with a reduced risk of future offending.

This year, the Government is providing more than £100 million of investment in Youth Offending Teams (YOTs) across England and Wales, including through the early intervention Turnaround programme. This gives YOTs the flexibility to use and commission arts and culture interventions where they judge this may be most effective in helping a child’s rehabilitation.

The Single Justice Procedure (SJP) was designed to deal with straightforward, uncontested, non-imprisonable offences in a proportionate and efficient way. Cases are decided by a single magistrate with the support of a legal adviser, in private rather than in open court.

Whilst safeguards are in place, this Government acknowledges that errors have occurred within the SJP. In 2024, it became apparent that certain train operators had been incorrectly using the procedure to prosecute for offences under the Regulation of Railways Act 1889, which are ineligible for prosecution through the SJP. Such instances highlight the importance of robust safeguards to protect fairness.

That is why we launched a consultation on the oversight and regulation of private prosecutors, which included a dedicated chapter on the SJP. The consultation explored measures to strengthen prosecutor accountability and ensure consistent standards in addition to how defendant submissions are handled in the SJP. The consultation closed on 8 May, and our proposals will be outlined in the Government’s response which we will publish in due course.

We are continuing to monitor risks and remain committed to enhancing safeguards in the SJP to maintain public confidence and fairness in the justice system. This includes ongoing engagement with stakeholders, reviewing operational practices and exploring further improvements to transparency.

There is no mechanism to notify the public living in the vicinity of a prison if a Foreign National Offender (FNO) is released.

When a FNO is released into the community, they are subject to supervision and monitoring by the probation service in the same way British citizens released from prison would be. The Home Office will pursue removal of FNOs whether in prison or the community where a deportation order has been made.

The HMPPS Victim Contact Scheme provides a service for the victims of offenders who are convicted of a specified violent, sexual or terrorism offence and are sentenced to twelve months or more imprisonment. Victims who decide to receive the service are allocated a Victim Liaison Officer who will keep the victim updated on key stages throughout the sentence, including when the offender (whether FNO or not) is released.

In the year-ending October 2025, over 5,400 FNOs have been returned which is 12% higher than the 12 months prior.

Releases in error have been increasing for several years and are another symptom of the prison system crisis inherited by this Government. On 11 November, the Deputy Prime Minister announced a five-point action plan setting out initial steps to address this issue.

Totals for releases in error, including a breakdown by releasing prison (or Prisoner Escort Custody Services), are published each July in the HMPPS Annual Digest, available via  HMPPS Annual Digest, April 2024 to March 2025 - GOV.UK , and provide data up to March 2025.

The Government is determined to fix the issue of mistaken releases and ensure the public is properly protected.

It is a top priority for this Government to tackle violence against women and girls, including economic abuse and coercive control. The Law Commission’s 2024 scoping report on financial remedies on divorce considered the issue of domestic abuse in financial remedy cases. The Government is carefully considering this report as it prepares to consult on issues identified by the Law Commission. We will issue our consultation by Spring next year.

It is a matter of concern that perpetrators of domestic abuse may fail to engage with divorce proceedings. The courts have powers to deal with parties who fail to engage, including to make orders confirming a perpetrator has received a divorce application when they have refused to acknowledge it. In September this year, the process of asking the court to make orders about sending applications became easier, when His Majesty’s Courts & Tribunals Service extended the online application system for litigants-in-person.

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 criteria set out in the Bail Act 1976.

Questions about the Crown Prosecution Service are for the Attorney General.

Operation Soteria transformed how the police and the Crown Prosecution Service work together to investigate rape cases, promoting partnership working and ensuring a focus on the suspect’s behaviour and evidence, not the victim’s lifestyle, their choices or their character. This focus should continue in the court room. That is why we have announced new legislation to stop evidence which has the sole aim of undermining the victim – such as about their past sexual behaviour, previous allegations of assault, or compensation claim – being admitted to the courtroom unless it is absolutely necessary and clearly relevant.

Victims and witnesses in sexual offence cases can request in advance of trial to observe proceedings remotely once they have given evidence. Courts will make every effort to accommodate these requests, which may include re-listing the trial in a courtroom with suitable technology. However, remote observation cannot be guaranteed in every case, as it depends on the availability of appropriate facilities and resources.

The listing of Ground Rules Hearings (GRHs) is a matter for the judiciary. GRHs are typically held in cases involving vulnerable witnesses, such as children or individuals with communication difficulties, to ensure they are questioned in a fair and appropriate way during trial. However, judges also have discretion to direct a GRH for intimidated witnesses, including complainants in sexual offence cases, where they consider it appropriate in the circumstances of the case.

Victims and witnesses in sexual offence cases can request in advance of trial to observe proceedings remotely once they have given evidence. Courts will make every effort to accommodate these requests, which may include re-listing the trial in a courtroom with suitable technology. However, remote observation cannot be guaranteed in every case, as it depends on the availability of appropriate facilities and resources.

The listing of Ground Rules Hearings (GRHs) is a matter for the judiciary. GRHs are typically held in cases involving vulnerable witnesses, such as children or individuals with communication difficulties, to ensure they are questioned in a fair and appropriate way during trial. However, judges also have discretion to direct a GRH for intimidated witnesses, including complainants in sexual offence cases, where they consider it appropriate in the circumstances of the case.

The Ministry of Justice is committed to a high standard, whole system approach to cases of rape and sexual abuse. This is supported by the expertise of our Independent Advisor on the Criminal Justice Response to Sexual Violence.

We will soon be publishing our cross-government Violence Against Women and Girls (VAWG) Strategy. This will set out strategic direction and concrete actions to prevent violence and abuse, pursue perpetrators, and support victims, including across the criminal justice system. This strategy will work in tandem with the recently published Crown Prosecution Service VAWG strategy, which sets out how they will work with partners to ensure a consistent, best practice response to VAWG.

We will work closely with the Home Office and the Department for Health and Social care as Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) and Integrated Care Board reforms unfold and this will inform our consideration of implementation of the Duty to Collaborate under the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024. The Ministry of Justice has recently announced that it will be investing £550 million in victim support services over the next three years – the biggest investment in victim support services to date.

We are taking this opportunity to review and strengthen the commissioning and delivery of victims’ services. In light of the announcement to abolish the PCC function in May 2028, we will also explore changes to the delivery of victims funding to ensure this is delivered in the best way in the future.

The removal of the defendants’ right to elect is compatible with Article 6 of the ECHR. Whilst jury trial will remain an important feature of the criminal justice system following these reforms, it is important to recognise that there is no constitutional right to a jury trial. As you will be aware, the vast majority of criminal trials in this country are conducted fairly, without a jury. 90% of all criminal cases are dealt with by magistrates. Only around 3% of all criminal trials are heard by a jury currently.

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.

The Ministry of Justice does not hold the requested information requested data in an easily accessible format. Right to Work data is collected during the vetting stage but is not retained within the employment record. As a result, extracting this information would require a manual review of individual vetting files, which would incur a disproportionate cost.

Whilst the jury trial will remain an important feature of the criminal justice system following reforms, it is important to recognise that there is no constitutional right to a jury trial. The removal of the defendants’ right to elect or right to insist on a jury trial irrespective of the seriousness of the offence is compatible with Article 6 of the ECHR. As you will be aware, the vast majority of criminal trials in this country are conduct fairly, without a jury. 90% of all criminal cases are dealt with by magistrates. Only around 3% of all criminal trials are heard by a jury currently.

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.

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. The significant delays in our courts are corrosive of public confidence in our justice system. In many cases, witnesses and victims are pulling out of the court process, resulting in the collapse of trials and justice not being served. That is why this Government is determined to tackle the crisis and why we asked Sir Brian Leveson to undertake his Independent Review of the Criminal Courts. 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. The central purpose of these reforms is precisely to restore public confidence in the justice system.

Whilst jury trial will remain an important feature of the criminal justice system following reforms, it is important to recognise that there is no constitutional right to a jury trial. The removal of the defendants’ right to elect is compatible with Article 6 of the ECHR. As you will be aware, the vast majority of criminal trials in this country are conducted fairly, without a jury. 90% of all criminal cases are dealt with by magistrates. Only around 3% of all criminal trials are heard by a jury currently.

Of the 3% of criminal trial cases that proceed to a jury trial in the Crown Court, over half would still proceed to the Crown Court and get a jury trial post-reform. The remainder would be expected to stay in the magistrates’ courts or would be allocated to the new ‘swift courts’.

The new ‘swift courts’ will operate within the existing Crown Court, and this means they will be dealing with the same cases that come into the Crown Court. As mode of trial allocations and trial listing remain a matter for the independent judiciary and are dependent on case mix, the Ministry of Justice is unable to comment on how cases arriving at the Crown Court will be distributed between ‘swift courts’ and jury trials.

Following reforms to the criminal courts, appellants will continue to have the right to appeal convictions and sentences received in both magistrates’ courts and the Crown Court. Permission to appeal will be granted by the judiciary where the appeal has a real prospect of success.

The Ministry of Justice does not collect or hold data which would link the use of DNA testing, or any other type of evidence produced by the prosecution, with the overall efficiency of criminal trials. Therefore, it is not possible to make an estimate of any cost savings.

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.

The Government is carefully considering the recommendations made by Jonathan Hall KC and will publish his report in due course.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Ministers will introduce detailed proposals to Parliament as soon as Parliamentary time allows.

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.

My Department is committed to the Government’s pledge to halve Violence Against Women and Girls (VAWG) in a decade.

The Ministry of Justice will be investing £550 million in victim support services over the next three years – the biggest investment in victim support services to date.

I have committed two years of grant funding to the 42 Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) in England and Wales. They commission local practical, emotional, and therapeutic support services for victims of all crime types, including victims of technology-facilitated abuse and online violence against women and girls. The funding from the Ministry of Justice includes ‘core’ funding, which is for PCCs to allocate at their discretion, based on their assessment of local need, as well as funding that is ring-fenced for sexual violence and domestic abuse services.

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.

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.

The Ministry of Justice does not collate data on cases that are not progressed due to lost, missing or damaged evidence. We keep our data gathering processes under constant review and will need to consider whether the areas identified in the question can feasibly be collected.

Reducing the number of cases which are either delayed or collapse all together due to lost or missing evidence or mislaying of documents is important. As part of our ongoing efforts to improve timeliness and efficiency in our criminal courts, we asked Sir Brian Leveson to undertake a review of the 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. It is vital that all partners, across the justice system, work together to create a sustainable justice system, including through the Criminal Justice Board, chaired by the Deputy Prime Minister.

The Ministry of Justice does not hold a specific membership with LinkedIn. However, our spend on LinkedIn for the financial year 2024/2025 was £155,247.65.

Please note this cost covers multiple recruitment services and advertising that span across all our operationally critical frontline roles. For example, those in HMPPS and HMCTS. All our campaign activity is data driven to maximise our reach to our target audiences.

The Department’s spend for other subscriptions in 2024/2025 is £628,213.00. These subscriptions/memberships cover things such as The Solicitors Regulation Authority, The Bar Council, and the Office for National Statistics and ensure we are able to operate compliantly and effectively.

A full Equalities Impact Assessment will be published alongside legislation as is usual practice. This will include an assessment of the potential impact of these reforms on minority ethnic groups. The criminal court reforms are not expected to impact trial outcomes, only how trials are heard.

The Budget 2025 was announced on 26 November 2025 and table C.2 confirms our Spending Review settlement of £2.3bn for 2026-2027, £2.3bn for 2027-2028, £2.3bn for 2028-2029 and £2.0bn for 2029-2030.

Of which we must spend the following split to complete the 14,000 prison place programme: £1.2bn for 2026-2027, £1.2bn for 2027-2028, £1,2bn for 2028-2029 and £1.14bn for 2029-2030. This is a total investment of £4.7bn over this period.

All other areas of spend will be subject to future allocations discussions in the usual way.

The Government will repeal the presumption of parental involvement when Parliamentary time allows. Doing so requires amendments to the Children Act 1989 which will be taken forward once an appropriate legislative vehicle is identified. This remains a Ministerial priority, and we will announce further plans for implementation in due course.

His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) co-commissioned an independent report to inform understanding of the prevalence of gambling harms among those in prison and on probation in the community: Report on Gambling Harms and the Criminal Justice System.

We are committed to rehabilitating those impacted by gambling and its harms, through a rehabilitative culture, positive relationships and pro-social staff. Together with this, HMPPS delivers a broad range of interventions to address individuals’ criminogenic risks and needs, including accredited offending behaviour programmes. In addition, the NHS provides support for individuals who are experiencing gambling addiction.

His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) co-commissioned an independent report to inform understanding of the prevalence of gambling harms among those in prison and on probation in the community: Report on Gambling Harms and the Criminal Justice System.

We are committed to rehabilitating those impacted by gambling and its harms, through a rehabilitative culture, positive relationships and pro-social staff. Together with this, HMPPS delivers a broad range of interventions to address individuals’ criminogenic risks and needs, including accredited offending behaviour programmes. In addition, the NHS provides support for individuals who are experiencing gambling addiction.

Any release in error is unacceptable, and public safety is the Government’s first duty. In such cases, we coordinate across multiple agencies including the police to ensure individuals are returned to custody. The majority of those released in error are recaptured swiftly.

Releases in error are another long-term symptom of the prison system crisis this Government inherited. While the overwhelming majority of offenders are released correctly, we are bearing down on those errors that do occur.

On 11 November, the Deputy Prime Minister announced a five-point action plan. This includes strengthening release checks across prisons, a multi-million pound investment in new technology, and an independent review, which will report its recommendations in spring next year.

The Bernard Lodge inquiry was commissioned initially as an ad hoc investigation with no statutory powers. The investigation was converted to a statutory inquiry under section 15 of the Inquiries Act 2005 on 23 February 2009.

The Chairs of the Bernard Lodge and Azelle Rodney Inquiries completed their investigations and submitted reports, which were published on 15 December 2009 and 5 July 2013, respectively.

The term “immigration related offences” covers a wide range of offending behaviour including making illegal entry to the country, overstaying leave to remain, employing illegal workers and facilitating breaches of immigration law.

As a result, providing reoffending data across all of these offence types would come at disproportionate cost and it is difficult to make generalised assumptions about future risk of offending.

More broadly the Government is tackling the root causes of reoffending by investing in a range of services which address offenders’ underlying criminogenic needs and support their rehabilitation journey. This includes education, employment, accommodation and access to substance misuse treatment.

The term “immigration related offences” covers a wide range of offending behaviour including making illegal entry to the country, overstaying leave to remain, employing illegal workers and facilitating breaches of immigration law.

As a result, providing reoffending data across all of these offence types would come at disproportionate cost and it is difficult to make generalised assumptions about future risk of offending.

More broadly the Government is tackling the root causes of reoffending by investing in a range of services which address offenders’ underlying criminogenic needs and support their rehabilitation journey. This includes education, employment, accommodation and access to substance misuse treatment.

The term “immigration related offences” covers a wide range of offending behaviour including making illegal entry to the country, overstaying leave to remain, employing illegal workers and facilitating breaches of immigration law.

As a result, providing reoffending data across all of these offence types would come at disproportionate cost and it is difficult to make generalised assumptions about future risk of offending.

More broadly the Government is tackling the root causes of reoffending by investing in a range of services which address offenders’ underlying criminogenic needs and support their rehabilitation journey. This includes education, employment, accommodation and access to substance misuse treatment.

We publish proven reoffending statistics quarterly, including detailed data by sentence type, offence type, and offender characteristics. The next publication is due at the end of January 2026 (Proven reoffending statistics - GOV.UK).

We are tackling the root causes of reoffending by investing in a range of services which address offenders’ underlying criminogenic needs and support their rehabilitation journey. This includes education, employment, accommodation and access to substance misuse treatment.

For example, to support employment, we are delivering vocational courses, a future skills programme, and expanding the prisoner apprenticeship scheme. All 93 resettlement prisons have key roles in place to prepare prisoners for employment on release, and we have launched regional Employment Councils, which for the first time bring businesses together with prisons, probation, and the Department for Work and Pensions to support prison leavers.

Reoffending rates for adults sentenced to less than 12 months in custody remain high – in the latest data, just over 60% reoffended within a year. Ministry of Justice research shows that community orders and suspended sentences are up to 4 percentage points more effective at reducing reoffending than short custodial sentences. That is why we are introducing a presumption to suspend custodial sentences of 12 months or less via the Sentencing Bill, and expanding Intensive Supervision Courts (ISCs), which aim to reduce reoffending by diverting individuals from short custodial sentences into enhanced community-based orders.

We are not, however, abolishing short sentences. Judges will always have the power to send offenders to prison where they have breached a court order, where there is a significant risk of physical or psychological harm to a particular individual, or in exceptional circumstances.