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.

We are investing at record levels in the courts, including a landmark settlement of £2.78 billion for courts and tribunals in 2026/27.

We are also investing in uncapped Crown Court sitting days, court buildings and technology, and in legal professionals with a significant funding uplift in legal aid.

But the Independent Review of Criminal Courts is clear that investment alone, whilst important, is not enough. Only by pulling every lever we have – investment, efficiency and reform – can we reduce the backlog to acceptable levels and begin to deliver faster and fairer 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.

The Crown Court operates from 84 buildings across England and Wales, with a core estate of over 500 courtrooms. The table below outlines the number of courtrooms in the Crown Court that were not sitting each day in April 2026. To contextualise these figures, in April 2026 the Crown Court sat a total of 9,019 days. This compares to 8,751 in April 2025, 9,571 in April 2024, 7,337 in April 2023, 7,041 in April 2022 and 7,487 in April 2021.

It would be extremely unusual to have 100% courtroom utilisation in any jurisdiction, not least because the system needs to flex at short notice to meet unexpected capacity loss, cope with surges in demand, or accommodate overrunning trials and to allow for additional public and press access.

There is also a difference between system capacity and physical capacity. Running courtrooms requires not just available rooms but also, for example (but not limited to), judicial time, court staff, and sufficient numbers of barristers and solicitors.

We have invested a record £2.78 billion in our courts and tribunals service in 2026/27, including uncapped sitting days in the Crown Court for 2026/27 so that it can run at maximum system capacity. We have also announced additional investment in the workforce and legal professionals, including an additional £92 million per year for criminal legal aid solicitor fees, up to £34 million per year extra for criminal legal aid advocates, and match-funded criminal law pupillages to open a career at the Criminal Bar to more young people from across society.

This financial investment is just one element of our work to tackle the crisis in our criminal courts as it is only by pulling all levers at our disposal – financial investment, modernisation and pragmatic structural reform – that we can put the criminal courts onto a genuinely sustainable footing.

Source System - HMCTS Management Information (Courtroom Planner)

1 - Data extracted from Courtroom Planner on 4 June 2026, for courtrooms allocated to the Crown Court.

2 - Data is based on individual courtrooms in the Crown Court estate. These are rooms whose primary use has been assigned to the Crown Court, not necessarily in a Crown Court venue and excludes rooms that were unavailable to sit for another reason.

3 - Although care is taken when processing and analysing the data, the details are subject to inaccuracies inherent in any large-scale case management system and is the best data that is available.

4 - Data are management information and are not subject to the same level of checks as official statistics.

5 - Data are taken from a live management information system and can change over time and for that reason might differ slightly from any previously published information.

6 - Data has not been cross referenced with case files.

7 - Crown courts do not normally sit on bank holidays or weekends so these have been removed.

8 – Crown court sittings can be intentionally reduced over Christmas and Easter holiday periods, as reflected in the table.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The power to recall is a vital public protection measure. Where an offender serving an IPP sentence is recalled to custody, it is because the Probation Service has assessed that the offender’s risk has escalated to the point where the offender may no longer be safely managed in the community and has evidence that the offender’s behaviour is similar to the behaviour at the time of the offending which attracted the IPP sentence. This means that an IPP offender does not have to have committed a further offence to be recalled.

Successive thematic reviews conducted by HM Chief Inspector of Probation have found that the Probation Service is using recall appropriately and for public protection purposes.

Table 1: Number and Proportion of IPP Recalls Not Involving a Charge for a Further Offence, 2023-2025 [note 1]

With regards to the cost of Parole Board hearings relating to people serving an IPP sentence who had been recalled to custody having not committed a further offence, the data are not routinely available to provide a reasonable estimate, and the work to collate it could not be completed without incurring disproportionate costs.

Table 3: Number and proportion of Parole Board IPP recall review outcomes of release and open conditions from completed cases, 2022/23 to 2024/25 [note 2] [note 3]

Table 4: Number and proportion of Parole Board IPP recall review outcomes of release and open conditions from completed cases, where the offender was not facing a charge for a further offence, 2022/23 to 2024/25 [note 2] [note 3] [note 4]

We may not disclose the number of recalled IPP prisoners in custody as of 30 April 2026 as the data are a subset of data scheduled to be published at the end of July.

Table notes:

[note 1] The proportions are of total number of IPP recalls. An offender can be recalled multiple times in a year or across years.

[note 2] The outcomes are the final outcomes of each review and do not include intermediate decisions that were subsequently remade such as through reconsideration mechanism.

[note 3] Completed cases are cases that resulted in one of release, knockback and open conditions.

[note 4] Offenders not facing a charge of further offence are those who were not facing a charge of further offence at the point of their recall prior to the recall review.

The power to recall is a vital public protection measure. Where an offender serving an IPP sentence is recalled to custody, it is because the Probation Service has assessed that the offender’s risk has escalated to the point where the offender may no longer be safely managed in the community and has evidence that the offender’s behaviour is similar to the behaviour at the time of the offending which attracted the IPP sentence. This means that an IPP offender does not have to have committed a further offence to be recalled.

Successive thematic reviews conducted by HM Chief Inspector of Probation have found that the Probation Service is using recall appropriately and for public protection purposes.

Table 1: Number and Proportion of IPP Recalls Not Involving a Charge for a Further Offence, 2023-2025 [note 1]

With regards to the cost of Parole Board hearings relating to people serving an IPP sentence who had been recalled to custody having not committed a further offence, the data are not routinely available to provide a reasonable estimate, and the work to collate it could not be completed without incurring disproportionate costs.

Table 3: Number and proportion of Parole Board IPP recall review outcomes of release and open conditions from completed cases, 2022/23 to 2024/25 [note 2] [note 3]

Table 4: Number and proportion of Parole Board IPP recall review outcomes of release and open conditions from completed cases, where the offender was not facing a charge for a further offence, 2022/23 to 2024/25 [note 2] [note 3] [note 4]

We may not disclose the number of recalled IPP prisoners in custody as of 30 April 2026 as the data are a subset of data scheduled to be published at the end of July.

Table notes:

[note 1] The proportions are of total number of IPP recalls. An offender can be recalled multiple times in a year or across years.

[note 2] The outcomes are the final outcomes of each review and do not include intermediate decisions that were subsequently remade such as through reconsideration mechanism.

[note 3] Completed cases are cases that resulted in one of release, knockback and open conditions.

[note 4] Offenders not facing a charge of further offence are those who were not facing a charge of further offence at the point of their recall prior to the recall review.

The power to recall is a vital public protection measure. Where an offender serving an IPP sentence is recalled to custody, it is because the Probation Service has assessed that the offender’s risk has escalated to the point where the offender may no longer be safely managed in the community and has evidence that the offender’s behaviour is similar to the behaviour at the time of the offending which attracted the IPP sentence. This means that an IPP offender does not have to have committed a further offence to be recalled.

Successive thematic reviews conducted by HM Chief Inspector of Probation have found that the Probation Service is using recall appropriately and for public protection purposes.

Table 1: Number and Proportion of IPP Recalls Not Involving a Charge for a Further Offence, 2023-2025 [note 1]

With regards to the cost of Parole Board hearings relating to people serving an IPP sentence who had been recalled to custody having not committed a further offence, the data are not routinely available to provide a reasonable estimate, and the work to collate it could not be completed without incurring disproportionate costs.

Table 3: Number and proportion of Parole Board IPP recall review outcomes of release and open conditions from completed cases, 2022/23 to 2024/25 [note 2] [note 3]

Table 4: Number and proportion of Parole Board IPP recall review outcomes of release and open conditions from completed cases, where the offender was not facing a charge for a further offence, 2022/23 to 2024/25 [note 2] [note 3] [note 4]

We may not disclose the number of recalled IPP prisoners in custody as of 30 April 2026 as the data are a subset of data scheduled to be published at the end of July.

Table notes:

[note 1] The proportions are of total number of IPP recalls. An offender can be recalled multiple times in a year or across years.

[note 2] The outcomes are the final outcomes of each review and do not include intermediate decisions that were subsequently remade such as through reconsideration mechanism.

[note 3] Completed cases are cases that resulted in one of release, knockback and open conditions.

[note 4] Offenders not facing a charge of further offence are those who were not facing a charge of further offence at the point of their recall prior to the recall review.

The power to recall is a vital public protection measure. Where an offender serving an IPP sentence is recalled to custody, it is because the Probation Service has assessed that the offender’s risk has escalated to the point where the offender may no longer be safely managed in the community and has evidence that the offender’s behaviour is similar to the behaviour at the time of the offending which attracted the IPP sentence. This means that an IPP offender does not have to have committed a further offence to be recalled.

Successive thematic reviews conducted by HM Chief Inspector of Probation have found that the Probation Service is using recall appropriately and for public protection purposes.

Table 1: Number and Proportion of IPP Recalls Not Involving a Charge for a Further Offence, 2023-2025 [note 1]

With regards to the cost of Parole Board hearings relating to people serving an IPP sentence who had been recalled to custody having not committed a further offence, the data are not routinely available to provide a reasonable estimate, and the work to collate it could not be completed without incurring disproportionate costs.

Table 3: Number and proportion of Parole Board IPP recall review outcomes of release and open conditions from completed cases, 2022/23 to 2024/25 [note 2] [note 3]

Table 4: Number and proportion of Parole Board IPP recall review outcomes of release and open conditions from completed cases, where the offender was not facing a charge for a further offence, 2022/23 to 2024/25 [note 2] [note 3] [note 4]

We may not disclose the number of recalled IPP prisoners in custody as of 30 April 2026 as the data are a subset of data scheduled to be published at the end of July.

Table notes:

[note 1] The proportions are of total number of IPP recalls. An offender can be recalled multiple times in a year or across years.

[note 2] The outcomes are the final outcomes of each review and do not include intermediate decisions that were subsequently remade such as through reconsideration mechanism.

[note 3] Completed cases are cases that resulted in one of release, knockback and open conditions.

[note 4] Offenders not facing a charge of further offence are those who were not facing a charge of further offence at the point of their recall prior to the recall review.

The power to recall is a vital public protection measure. Where an offender serving an IPP sentence is recalled to custody, it is because the Probation Service has assessed that the offender’s risk has escalated to the point where the offender may no longer be safely managed in the community and has evidence that the offender’s behaviour is similar to the behaviour at the time of the offending which attracted the IPP sentence. This means that an IPP offender does not have to have committed a further offence to be recalled.

Successive thematic reviews conducted by HM Chief Inspector of Probation have found that the Probation Service is using recall appropriately and for public protection purposes.

Table 1: Number and Proportion of IPP Recalls Not Involving a Charge for a Further Offence, 2023-2025 [note 1]

With regards to the cost of Parole Board hearings relating to people serving an IPP sentence who had been recalled to custody having not committed a further offence, the data are not routinely available to provide a reasonable estimate, and the work to collate it could not be completed without incurring disproportionate costs.

Table 3: Number and proportion of Parole Board IPP recall review outcomes of release and open conditions from completed cases, 2022/23 to 2024/25 [note 2] [note 3]

Table 4: Number and proportion of Parole Board IPP recall review outcomes of release and open conditions from completed cases, where the offender was not facing a charge for a further offence, 2022/23 to 2024/25 [note 2] [note 3] [note 4]

We may not disclose the number of recalled IPP prisoners in custody as of 30 April 2026 as the data are a subset of data scheduled to be published at the end of July.

Table notes:

[note 1] The proportions are of total number of IPP recalls. An offender can be recalled multiple times in a year or across years.

[note 2] The outcomes are the final outcomes of each review and do not include intermediate decisions that were subsequently remade such as through reconsideration mechanism.

[note 3] Completed cases are cases that resulted in one of release, knockback and open conditions.

[note 4] Offenders not facing a charge of further offence are those who were not facing a charge of further offence at the point of their recall prior to the recall review.

The NHS is responsible for delivering healthcare services, including mental health services, in prisons in England and Wales.

All prisoners, including those serving IPP sentences, have access to integrated mental health services. Healthcare provision is based on assessed clinical need and is not determined by sentence type. Consequently, routine data sets do not generally allow for identification of specific diagnoses across patient groups based on the prisoner’s sentence category. Any detailed or bespoke analysis of clinical conditions among cohorts defined by sentence type would, therefore, need to be led by DHSC and NHS England, who are responsible for the relevant data and its governance.

More broadly, the Government remains determined to support the rehabilitation of IPP prisoners, through the IPP Action Plan, which we published on 17 July 2025. The Plan puts an important emphasis on effective frontline delivery in our prisons and the Probation Service, to ensure that those serving IPP sentences have robust and effective sentence plans and that they are in the location most appropriate to their needs. It also includes a commitment to explore ways to better identify and support IPP prisoners with mental health needs, ensuring they can access appropriate treatment and interventions as part of their sentence progression.

The Government is committed to ensuring that all prisoners, including those serving Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) sentences, have access to appropriate rehabilitative support. Access to education, employment training and resettlement services is provided to all prisoners regardless of sentence type.

Prisoners serving IPP sentences are eligible to access the same educational offer as those serving determinate sentences, including literacy, numeracy, English for Speakers of Additional Languages, digital skills and library services, in line with Prison Rule 32. They may also participate in vocational training and work-related activity subject to operational availability. Each prison is responsible for determining an education offer that meets the needs of their cohort. The Department has not made a comparative assessment between IPP and determinate sentence prisoners in respect of access to these services and this could not be obtained without incurring disproportionate cost.

Resettlement services are likewise available to people serving IPP sentences, delivered according to individual need and sentence plans. The Government’s IPP Action Plan published in July 2025, places a strong emphasis on effective sentence planning, frontline delivery and ensures prisoners are located in establishments where they can access the services required to support progression towards a safe and sustainable release.

The Government remains determined to support the rehabilitation of IPP prisoners, through the IPP Action Plan, which we published on 17 July 2025. The Plan sets out actions and associated targets, to ensure that those serving IPP sentences, including those who have never been released, have robust and effective sentence plans and that they are held in a prison most appropriate to their needs. These measures offer the most effective and responsible way to support the safe and sustainable release of those serving the sentence.

Progress against the IPP Action Plan is reported in the HMPPS annual report on the IPP sentence, most recently published on 17 July 2025. This report includes a focus on specific cohorts of individuals serving IPP sentences, including those who have never been released, in recognition of the particular needs of such prisoners. The next HMPPS annual report is due to be published in Summer 2026, this will set out in detail the progress made on supporting IPP prisoners.

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.

The Government inherited a justice system in crisis - with a record and rising Crown Court caseload and victims facing intolerable delays for justice. That is why the Government asked Sir Brian Leveson to undertake an Independent Review of the Criminal Courts and make recommendations for how to restore stability and confidence in the criminal courts.

Sir Brian’s report set out a blueprint for pragmatic structural reform in our criminal courts and made clear that it is only by pulling every lever we have – investment, efficiency and reform – that we can we turn the tide on the backlog and begin to swifter justice for all. The Courts and Tribunals Bill is the first step to putting the reform blueprint into law.

We are currently considering Sir Brian’s remaining recommendations and will publish our full response in the summer. In the meantime, the Deputy Prime Minister has also announced several initial measures we are taking forward to drive efficiency, including supporting the judiciary to undertake ‘blitz courts’ (where courts list similar cases together over a short period of time – concentrating court resources and the expertise required), rolling out case coordinators in every Crown Court centre and supporting the Lady Chief Justice to publish the first ever National Listing Framework and pilot an AI Listing Assistant.

Alongside structural reforms and inefficiencies, we are also delivering record financial investment. We have uncapped Crown Court sitting days for 2026/27, which means there is no longer a financial limit on the amount of work the Crown Court can undertake; and we have announced additional funding of up to £34 million a year for criminal legal aid advocates and £92 million per year for criminal legal aid solicitor fee schemes.

This Government is resolutely committed to delivering meaningful change for victims of child sexual abuse and will do everything in its power to prevent the horrors of these appalling crimes. Cases of such abuse committed in nurseries and early years settings are particularly shocking.

The Ministry of Justice publishes data on prosecutions and convictions for a wide range of offences, including sexual offences in the Outcomes by Offences data tool, that can be downloaded from the Criminal Justice Statistics landing page here: Criminal justice statistics - GOV.UK. It is not possible to identify where sexual offences have been committed nor the exact age of the victim. This information may be held in court records, but to examine individual court records would be of disproportionate costs.

The Tackling Child Sexual Abuse Progress Update, published in April 2025, sets out clearly the actions the Government is taking to respond to the final recommendations of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA), alongside broader measures to address the evolving threat from child sexual abuse and exploitation.

For the Ministry of Justice, this includes:

• Introducing a new mandatory reporting duty under the Crime and Policing Act 2026. This requires individuals undertaking key roles with responsibility for children in England to report sexual abuse and creates a new criminal offence of obstructing an individual from making a report under the duty.

• Making it easier for victims to pursue justice by removing the three-year time limit for victims and survivors of child sexual abuse to bring personal injury claims through the civil courts.

• Providing funding for the Centre for Expertise on Child Sexual Abuse to develop a directory of child sexual abuse support services across England and Wales.

This sits alongside a broader programme of cross-government work on CSA, including the creation of a new Child Protection Authority to make the child protection system clearer and more joined up, and the rollout of the multi-agency Child House model across all NHS regions in England to provide survivors with specialist, trauma informed care.

More widely, the Ministry of Justice is investing £550 million in victim support services over the next three years – the biggest investment in victim support services to date. This includes ringfenced funding for Police and Crime Commissioners for community-based domestic abuse and sexual violence services, including Children’s Independent Sexual Violence Advisers.

A range of psychology-related occupations are categorised under the “occupational psychologist” profession in official statistics. As of 8 June 2026, 496 registered psychologists were employed by HM Prison & Probation Service. 490 of these (99%) are forensic psychologists. The other groups in the occupational psychologist category are: trainee psychologists (all of whom are training to be forensic psychologists); groupworkers; treatment managers; and psychology administrators.

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.

HM Prison & Probation Service, in partnership with the NHS, has revised the Dying Well in Custody Charter Self-Assessment Toolkit. This voluntary toolkit includes good practice examples and is designed to support local partnership activity.

Information on how many prisons have undertaken voluntary self-assessment using the toolkit is not held centrally and could not be obtained without incurring disproportionate cost.

In addition, the Ministry of Justice is developing an Older Prisoners Strategy which will include advice on arrangements for supporting elderly prisoners including end of life care.

Private prosecutions brought by individuals or companies play an important role in the justice system. However, in recent years, some private prosecutors have been found to have acted unlawfully, improperly and well below the standards the public expects, and concerns have also been raised about the operation of safeguards within the Single Justice Procedure.

This is why the Ministry of Justice consulted on “Regulation and oversight of private prosecutions and strengthening safeguards in the Single Justice Procedure”, which closed in May 2025. The consultation generated a significant number of detailed responses, reflecting the complexity of the issues involved. The Government is considering these carefully alongside related policy and delivery issues to ensure that the response is fully informed. The Government response will be published in due course.

The Ministry of Justice does not hold, and does not have access to, centrally collated data identifying whether people who appeal against conviction or sentence from the magistrates’ courts are legally represented. As a result, we are unable to provide figures for the proportion of such appellants who are unrepresented. We are working towards a more robust evidence base so that we can track issues transparently and support future improvements.

The Ministry of Justice routinely publishes data on appeals of magistrates’ court decisions heard at the Crown Court. This can be accessed through the Criminal Justice Statistics Quarterly publications (Criminal court statistics quarterly: October to December 2025 - GOV.UK).

However, the Ministry of Justice does not hold data on the parties involved in appeal hearings or whether they involve vulnerable complainants.

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.

On Tuesday 9 June, the Deputy Prime Minister attended a panel event at LADbible. This forms part of his programme of regional engagement and will be an opportunity for him to listen to a large group of influential voices and content creators and continue to set out men and boys as an HMG priority and why it matters.

A wider series of public facing events is being planned over the coming months, including regional roundtables with the men and boys’ sector and advocates, and meetings with stakeholders to discuss topics such as media literacy and masculinity; social connection and loneliness, and fatherhood to inform the National Summit later in 2026. The exact dates, locations, and topics of these events have not yet been confirmed.

Within HM Prisons and Probation Service (HMPPS), security vetting is carried out to ensure individuals who wish to take up employment within the organisation can uphold the security and integrity standards expected of their role and ensure prisons and probation remain safe for rehabilitation to take place.

In response to this question, information on the average time taken to complete staff security vetting is not held centrally in the format requested.

Responsibility for staff security vetting within HMPPS is split across different teams and service providers, and there is no single centrally held dataset capturing end‑to‑end average completion times by quarter. Without a centrally held dataset, we are unable to provide the average time taken to complete HMPPS security vetting in response to the question.

The Ministry of Justice publishes data on convictions for a wide range of offences, in the Outcomes by Offences data tool, that can be downloaded from the Criminal Justice Statistics landing page here: Criminal Justice Statistics.

The Ministry of Justice publishes data on convictions for a wide range of offences, in the Outcomes by Offences data tool, that can be downloaded from the Criminal Justice Statistics landing page here: Criminal Justice Statistics.

The Ministry of Justice publishes data on convictions for a wide range of offences, in the Outcomes by Offences data tool, that can be downloaded from the Criminal Justice Statistics landing page here: Criminal Justice Statistics.

The Government believes that coroners’ decisions can be effectively and appropriately challenged by means of the existing mechanisms of judicial review or application for a first or fresh inquest under section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988.

As soon as Parliamentary time allows, we will bring forward amendments to section 13 to enable the High Court, in appropriate circumstances, to direct the Record of Inquest to be amended without the need for a fresh inquest. This will provide the court with greater flexibility to ensure that it can fulfil its role as expediently as possible and in a way that best serves the interests of justice.

Where referrals for a determination under Schedule 3, paragraph 15 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 are received, they will be responded to on an individual basis as soon as practicable.

The Government published its consultation, “A Fairer End to Relationships”, on Friday 5 June.

This consultation proposes some of the biggest reforms to family law in decades, bringing the law into the 21st century and increasing protection for millions.

The consultation seeks views on building a legal framework for cohabitants, one that reflects the realities of modern family life and safeguards the most vulnerable. Over 3.5 million couples live together without getting married or entering a civil partnership, a number that has more than doubled over the past three decades. Despite this, cohabiting couples and their children have very limited financial protection should a relationship end.

In our manifesto, we committed to strengthening the rights and protections available to women in cohabiting couples as part of our wider ambition to halve violence against women and girls in a decade. The consultation is the first step towards reform.

The consultation will remain open until 14 August 2026, and is available at: A fairer end to relationships - GOV.UK.

We welcome the EHRC’s draft Code of Practice which has now been laid in Parliament. There will now be a 40-day period for Parliament to scrutinise and ratify this. We must let that process happen.

We are carefully considering the new Code and any implications for the prison estate, including the allocation of transgender prisoners, in which context Local and Complex Case Boards currently play an important role.

The vast majority of transgender women are held in men's prisons. Of the small number that are in women's prisons, the majority are held on E Wing, a separate unit co-located within HMP Downview that is not part of the general female estate.

We welcome the EHRC’s draft Code of Practice which has now been laid in Parliament. There will now be a 40-day period for Parliament to scrutinise and ratify this. We must let that process happen.

We are carefully considering the new Code and any implications for the prison estate, including the allocation of transgender prisoners, in which context Local and Complex Case Boards currently play an important role.

The vast majority of transgender women are held in men's prisons. Of the small number that are in women's prisons, the majority are held on E Wing, a separate unit co-located within HMP Downview that is not part of the general female estate.

At HMPs Guys Marsh, Kirklevington Grange, Warren Hill and the new prison in Buckinghamshire, work remains ongoing following ISG’s administration in September 2024. Pre-construction work is either underway or complete at these sites, including design work, and all have been appointed a new contractor.

40 Rapid Deployment Cells have been delivered at HMP The Verne and are operational.

At HMPs Guys Marsh, Kirklevington Grange, Warren Hill and the new prison in Buckinghamshire, work remains ongoing following ISG’s administration in September 2024. Pre-construction work is either underway or complete at these sites, including design work, and all have been appointed a new contractor.

40 Rapid Deployment Cells have been delivered at HMP The Verne and are operational.

At HMPs Guys Marsh, Kirklevington Grange, Warren Hill and the new prison in Buckinghamshire, work remains ongoing following ISG’s administration in September 2024. Pre-construction work is either underway or complete at these sites, including design work, and all have been appointed a new contractor.

40 Rapid Deployment Cells have been delivered at HMP The Verne and are operational.

At HMPs Guys Marsh, Kirklevington Grange, Warren Hill and the new prison in Buckinghamshire, work remains ongoing following ISG’s administration in September 2024. Pre-construction work is either underway or complete at these sites, including design work, and all have been appointed a new contractor.

40 Rapid Deployment Cells have been delivered at HMP The Verne and are operational.

At HMPs Guys Marsh, Kirklevington Grange, Warren Hill and the new prison in Buckinghamshire, work remains ongoing following ISG’s administration in September 2024. Pre-construction work is either underway or complete at these sites, including design work, and all have been appointed a new contractor.

40 Rapid Deployment Cells have been delivered at HMP The Verne and are operational.

At HMPs Guys Marsh, Kirklevington Grange, Warren Hill and the new prison in Buckinghamshire, work remains ongoing following ISG’s administration in September 2024. Pre-construction work is either underway or complete at these sites, including design work, and all have been appointed a new contractor.

40 Rapid Deployment Cells have been delivered at HMP The Verne and are operational.

At HMPs Guys Marsh, Kirklevington Grange, Warren Hill and the new prison in Buckinghamshire, work remains ongoing following ISG’s administration in September 2024. Pre-construction work is either underway or complete at these sites, including design work, and all have been appointed a new contractor.

40 Rapid Deployment Cells have been delivered at HMP The Verne and are operational.

At HMPs Guys Marsh, Kirklevington Grange, Warren Hill and the new prison in Buckinghamshire, work remains ongoing following ISG’s administration in September 2024. Pre-construction work is either underway or complete at these sites, including design work, and all have been appointed a new contractor.

40 Rapid Deployment Cells have been delivered at HMP The Verne and are operational.

At HMPs Guys Marsh, Kirklevington Grange, Warren Hill and the new prison in Buckinghamshire, work remains ongoing following ISG’s administration in September 2024. Pre-construction work is either underway or complete at these sites, including design work, and all have been appointed a new contractor.

40 Rapid Deployment Cells have been delivered at HMP The Verne and are operational.