Ministry of Justice

The table below sets out the proportion of requests for a registered intermediary that were successfully matched, as well as those that could not be matched, were cancelled by the police or CPS, or where matching was still in progress at the end of the calendar year. This is broken down for victims, prosecution witnesses and defence witnesses for the calendar years 2022-2024 (the most recent years for which published data is available through the Witness Intermediary Scheme annual report):

Unmatched cases include those where:

• A Registered Intermediary (RI) could not be assigned to a case because the Witness Intermediary Team could not provide a RI within the timeframe specified by the end user,
• A RI initially accepted the case but then withdrew,
• the court agreed to adjourn a case and a new request reflecting the new trial date was generated.

Therefore, not all unmatched requests indicate that the individual did not have a RI for their case.

The National Crime Agency, who administer the Witness Intermediary Scheme on behalf of the Ministry of Justice does not collect waiting times between the making of a request for a Registered Intermediary, so no data is available on the number of cases that were delayed due to capacity constraints.

The Ministry of Justice does not hold data on the waiting time between the request for a registered intermediary and matching of the intermediary. The allocation of a Registered Intermediary in each case will be dependent on a number of requirements including the availability of the witness and the investigation officer as well the availability and skillset of the registered intermediary. Where a case is flagged as urgent, the National Crime Agency will endeavour to prioritise the case, including seeking registered intermediary support out of hours or at the weekend.

The Ministry of Justice recruits and trains Registered Intermediaries on an ongoing basis to meet growing demand. These are informed by annual gap analyses to ascertain where demand is growing. In the 3 years to 2024, we have recruited 88 additional RIs to the Scheme.

The table below sets out the rate at which requests for a Registered Intermediary (from both the police and CPS) in each police force area were matched in 2024. We do not hold data on waiting times for intermediaries. We also do not hold data broken down by Crown Court circuit.

The Bill removes a defendants’ right to elect Crown Court trial for all triable either-way offences. The venue will be determined by the magistrates’ courts, which will send cases they consider outside of their jurisdiction to the Crown Court.

The Courts and Tribunals Bill introduces judge-only trials for triable either-way offences where the courts assess that the likely custodial sentence, applying the relevant sentencing guidelines to the alleged facts and any appropriate representations, is three years imprisonment or less. Indictable-only offences are excluded and will not be eligible for this mode of trial, described as the Crown Court Bench Division.

The Courts and Tribunals Bill does not reclassify offences - it changes allocation and mode of trial arrangements within the existing classification framework.

The amount of funding which will be allocated to the transformation programme for Legal Aid Agency digital services is subject to final budget allocation decisions, which are currently ongoing.

On 10 November 2025, as part of the work to implement the reforms recommended in the Rademaker Review, His Majesty’s Prison & Probation Service (HMPPS) instituted an interim grievance process through which members of staff can raise complaints about bullying, harassment, discrimination or victimisation outside of their management line. This complements the existing grievance policy. For the period up to 26 February 2026, 5 complaints were received from staff working in Headquarters, 79 from probation staff and 188 from prison staff.

On 26 January 2026, a new Independent Review, Resolution and Investigations Service (IRRIS) was launched in HMPPS, subsuming the work of the former Tackling Unacceptable Behaviours Unit (TUBU). IRRIS will provide a fully independent route for bullying, harassment, discrimination and victimisation complaints within HMPPS, operating entirely outside line management structures. It will build upon TUBU’s strong work over the last five years, continuing to provide all the existing TUBU services while significantly enhancing its role.

On 10 November 2025, as part of the work to implement the reforms recommended in the Rademaker Review, His Majesty’s Prison & Probation Service (HMPPS) instituted an interim grievance process through which members of staff can raise complaints about bullying, harassment, discrimination or victimisation outside of their management line. This complements the existing grievance policy. For the period up to 26 February 2026, 5 complaints were received from staff working in Headquarters, 79 from probation staff and 188 from prison staff.

On 26 January 2026, a new Independent Review, Resolution and Investigations Service (IRRIS) was launched in HMPPS, subsuming the work of the former Tackling Unacceptable Behaviours Unit (TUBU). IRRIS will provide a fully independent route for bullying, harassment, discrimination and victimisation complaints within HMPPS, operating entirely outside line management structures. It will build upon TUBU’s strong work over the last five years, continuing to provide all the existing TUBU services while significantly enhancing its role.

Any individual or organisation in England and Wales has the right to bring a private prosecution where a criminal offence has been committed.

The Government expects all organisations that bring private prosecutions to do so where there is sufficient evidence that the defendant has committed an offence, and where the prosecution is in the public interest.

The Ministry of Justice held a consultation on the regulation of private prosecutors – to ensure consistency, accountability, and transparency in private prosecutions – last year and the Government will set out its next steps shortly.

The information requested is not held centrally.

Waiting times are calculated from receipt of the appeal to the final disposal decision. The final outcome of any appeal is not necessarily achieved at its first listed hearing so we are unable to extract data about waiting times for tribunal hearing dates.

The information requested is not held centrally.

Waiting times are calculated from receipt of the appeal to the final disposal decision. The final outcome of any appeal is not necessarily achieved at its first listed hearing so we are unable to extract data about waiting times for tribunal hearing dates.

The Ministry of Justice published data on those electing for jury trials in either-way cases covering periods from 2014 up to the first quarter of 2023. This information is published in the Criminal Courts Statistics release in Table_AC10: Criminal court statistics quarterly: January to March 2023 - GOV.UK

At present, around 15% of either-way receipts into the Crown Court have an unknown reason for sending recorded in HMCTS reporting systems. Work is underway to reduce this rate of unknowns so that robust data can be published in future releases.

We have set out our expectation that all duty bearers, including Departments and arm’s-length bodies, follow the law as clarified by the Supreme Court ruling and seek specialist legal advice where necessary. The Prime Minister has underlined this recently.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission has submitted a draft Code of Practice on services, public functions and associations to Ministers, and we are reviewing it with the care it deserves. This will provide further guidance to duty bearers.

Ministers have regular discussions with officials, external experts and ministerial colleagues on a range of issues, including national security, defence and resilience, and associated public communications.

As set out in the Strategic Defence Review, the national conversation will be a multi-year engagement designed to embed a whole-of-society approach, where Government, businesses, and the public all play a part in strengthening our resilience. This addresses the risks we face, including threats below and above the threshold of an armed attack.

The Ministry of Justice is actively supporting this work.

The Ministry of Justice publishes information on the number of open criminal cases at the Crown Court for Essex in the ‘Crown Court receipts, disposals and open cases tool’ and for the magistrates’ courts in the ‘Magistrates’ courts receipts, disposals and open cases tool’. Essex can be selected under Local Criminal Justice Board (LCJB).

Data is published for Basildon Crown Court in the Crown Court tool under the Crown Court filter - Criminal court statistics - GOV.UK

Data is not published at court level for the magistrates’ courts. The open caseload for the Basildon magistrates’ court was 1,700 as of the end of September 2025.

The open caseload reflects the workload in the courts at a given time. It will never be zero, as it reflects the volume of cases that are active in the courts at a particular point, including those recently received, those close to being disposed, those which are complex and take time to complete, and those that may be awaiting further hearings.

The Ministry of Justice publishes data on the time taken ‘at court’ in the magistrates’ courts and Crown Court for Essex in the ‘Magistrates’ courts timeliness tool’ and the ‘End-to-end timeliness tool’ (Crown Court).

Magistrates ‘at court’ time refers to the number of days from first listing to completion at the magistrates’ court and for the Crown Court it refers to the time from first listing at the magistrates’ court to completion at the Crown Court.

Data for the Essex Local Criminal Justice Board (LCJB) can be found using the ‘geographic area’ filter - Criminal court statistics - GOV.UK

LCJB is the lowest geographic level of our published Accredited Official Statistics for timeliness. Our published timeliness metrics are produced at a sufficiently 'high' level to reduce the volatility and fluctuations associated with low volumes of cases i.e. using court level data. As a result, we are unable to provide timeliness data for individual courts in Basildon.

The publication provides data for ‘England and Wales’ but does not contain a breakdown for England alone. When looking at data for England, the median time spent ‘at court’ across magistrates’ courts was 0 days for the year ending September 2025. This is due to the high proportion of Single Justice Procedure cases which commence and conclude on the same day. For the Crown Court, the median time spent ‘at court’ was 172 days for the same period.

Data on the number of judicial review applications relating to NHS service reconfiguration decisions in England — and the number in which permission to proceed was granted— is included within the official Judicial Review statistics published on the Civil Justice Statistics webpage: Civil justice statistics quarterly - GOV.UK.

These statistics are presented in broad categories and do not separately identify cases concerning NHS service reconfiguration.

A formal investigation has been commissioned into the circumstances surrounding the escape from custody. Additional management checks are also being undertaken in relation to all operational staff who may be called upon to undertake escort duty.

Public safety is the Government’s priority. Following a joint operation by the Metropolitan Police, the National Crime Agency and the French authorities, we have received confirmation that Daniel Boakye has now been detained in France. Arrangements are being made to secure his return to the UK.

A formal investigation has been commissioned into the circumstances surrounding the escape from custody. Additional management checks are also being undertaken in relation to all operational staff who may be called upon to undertake escort duty.

Public safety is the Government’s priority. Following a joint operation by the Metropolitan Police, the National Crime Agency and the French authorities, we have received confirmation that Daniel Boakye has now been detained in France. Arrangements are being made to secure his return to the UK.

Foundation Prison Officer training is designed to ensure that all new prison officers are supported and feel competent in their roles. All new entrants undertake a minimum of ten weeks of training, beginning with a ten-day induction process to familiarise them with the prison environment, including meeting line managers and colleagues and learning key security procedures. This is followed by either seven weeks in the male estate, eight weeks in the female estate, or nine weeks in the Youth Custody Service, delivered through face-to-face training at a central or local learning venue. Officers then return to their establishment for a final week of consolidation and shadowing.

The foundation training package develops verbal communication and interpersonal skills, ensuring new officers are able to identify vulnerable prisoners, support them appropriately, and defuse potential conflict. This includes training in de-escalation techniques and, where the use of force is necessary, instruction on how to do so in line with organisational procedures and the law.

Foundation training also equips officers with the skills required to maintain and update documentation, records and supporting systems, alongside the knowledge of security procedures, including searching techniques and the management and use of keys.

Additionally, the Enable Programme is redeveloping the current foundation training for new entry prison officers into a 12-month modular package, reinforcing the principle of continuous professional development. It positions training as an evolving journey rather than a discrete, front-loaded phase at the start of a career, building on knowledge and application of that through their probationary period.

The revised training aims to support the development of compassionate, competent and confident prison officers, able to deliver a wide range of operational and interpersonal skills underpinned by relational practice and rehabilitative working. The work is strongly aligned with that of Lord Timpson’s Review of Foundation Training Delivery for Prison Officers which focused on improving the learner experience with enhanced support, pride and greater rigour being applied; establishing an operating model with the right people, venues, curriculum, and standards in place; and encouraging a continuous learning environment with clear channels of accountability.

Court of Protection proceedings involve personal, sensitive matters and enable decisions to be made in the best interests of the person, who lacks the mental capacity to make those decisions themselves. The Government has no plans to review the use of transparency orders in the Court of Protection.

A transparency order in the Court of Protection restricts the publication and communication of information from proceedings. They support the principle of open justice by allowing Court of Protection hearings to be heard in public whilst protecting the privacy of vulnerable individuals.

The use of transparency orders is a matter for the judiciary. If the recipient believes an order is unfair, too restrictive, or no longer needed, they can apply to the court to vary it.

The Government is aware of the increased use of generative AI. Some stakeholders have reported that some potential Employment Tribunal claimants are using generative AI to provide a view on the strengths of their potential claim or to help with drafting elements of their claim. While no formal assessment has been made of the impact of generative AI on the caseload, to acknowledge changing behaviour, HMCTS has developed its own ‘Responsible AI Principles’ guidance to ensure use of AI in the courts and tribunals is appropriate, safe and controlled.

The Government is taking steps to increase the efficiency and resilience of the Employment Tribunal through the recruitment of additional judges, deploying Legal Officers actively to manage cases, the development of modern case management systems and the use of remote hearing technology. We continue to monitor demand in the Employment Tribunal and will consider any further actions needed to manage this.

Prisoner Escort and Custody Services (PECS) are performing strongly, despite continuing pressures across the criminal justice system. In 2025, overall criminal justice system delivery to court was timely in 98.19% of cases; PECS suppliers met contractual expectations by delivering prisoners to court on time in 99.91% of cases.

HM Prison & Probation Service’s Contract Management Team (CMT) provides rigorous oversight through a clear contractual and governance framework, applying commercial levers where delays are attributable to provider actions. The CMT works closely with stakeholders through quarterly Strategic Partnership Boards and monthly Contract Management Boards to drive improvement, address system-wide challenges, and ensure suppliers are held fully to account. If a contractor’s performance falls below the required standard, financial service credits will be applied, in accordance with the contract mechanism. Any persistent or systemic issues can trigger formal improvement notices, rectification plans or other contractual remedies.

We are assessing the potential impact of current reform policies on delivery timeliness, to ensure that the system remains resilient and effective.

We do not collate information on how many cases are referred to the Chief Executive of HMPPS under the Early Removal Scheme or the outcome of such referrals.

Guidance to Prison Governors, and all those involved in administering the scheme including the Chief Executive, is contained in the Prison Service Instruction: The Early Removal Scheme and Release of Foreign National Prisoners (PSI 04/2013) which was last updated on 23 September 2025 and is available at the following link: Early removal scheme and release of foreign national prisoners.

This gives information on the circumstances where removal might undermine the Scheme or public confidence in the criminal justice system.

We do not collate information on how many cases are referred to the Chief Executive of HMPPS under the Early Removal Scheme or the outcome of such referrals.

Guidance to Prison Governors, and all those involved in administering the scheme including the Chief Executive, is contained in the Prison Service Instruction: The Early Removal Scheme and Release of Foreign National Prisoners (PSI 04/2013) which was last updated on 23 September 2025 and is available at the following link: Early removal scheme and release of foreign national prisoners.

This gives information on the circumstances where removal might undermine the Scheme or public confidence in the criminal justice system.

We do not collate information on how many cases are referred to the Chief Executive of HMPPS under the Early Removal Scheme or the outcome of such referrals.

Guidance to Prison Governors, and all those involved in administering the scheme including the Chief Executive, is contained in the Prison Service Instruction: The Early Removal Scheme and Release of Foreign National Prisoners (PSI 04/2013) which was last updated on 23 September 2025 and is available at the following link: Early removal scheme and release of foreign national prisoners.

This gives information on the circumstances where removal might undermine the Scheme or public confidence in the criminal justice system.

As of 30 June 2025, there were 989 Foreign National Offenders (FNOs) in prison in England and Wales serving a sentence for a principal offence involving ‘causing death’.

All FNOs who receive a prison sentence in the UK are referred for deportation at the earliest opportunity including via the Early Removal Scheme for eligible determinate sentenced prisoners, Tariff Expired Removal Scheme for those serving indeterminate sentences, or via Prisoner Transfer Agreement where one is in place and the offender meets the relevant requirements. In all cases they will be barred from ever returning to the UK.

Deportations of FNOs, including murderers and rapists, are up 32%, with more than 8,700 deported since this Government came into power.

Returns of FNOs in the year-ending December 2025 are higher than any levels of returns observed since 2018.

We have recently launched a new innovation challenge with His Majesty’s Government Communications Centre (HMGCC) Co-Creation aimed at combatting the growing threat of drones around prisons.

The Counter-Drone Challenge competition closed on 4 December 2025. Selected industry partners will receive up to £60,000 funding to develop proof-of-concept systems over a 12-week period.

The number of full-time equivalent band 3-5 prison officers in each public sector prison is published quarterly as part of the “HM Prison and Probation Service workforce statistics” publication. The latest data, for staff in post on 31st December 2025, is available in Table 15 of this spreadsheet: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/699d794d07d7bff3604d6be2/hmpps-workforce-statistics-tables-dec-2025_final_file.ods.

The number of prisoners in each prison is published as part of the “Offender management statistics quarterly” publication. The latest data, also for 31st December 2025, is available in Table 1_Q_13: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6978d8c475d4437096552064/prison-population-31-Dec-2025.ods.

The list of each prison, their function and whether they are male only is available at this link: Prisons in England and Wales - GOV.UK.

These publicly available resources can be used to calculate the average prison officer to prisoner ratio for male prisons.

The Government is considering the full range of options to strengthen and improve standards to safeguard the security and dignity of the deceased, particularly in the context of a full response to the Fuller Inquiry Phase 2 report which will be provided by summer 2026.

Our consideration has included discussions about a potential role for a relevant partner organisation such as the Human Tissue Authority.

The Ministry of Justice provides all Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) in England and Wales with core grant funding for victims of all crime types, which can be used to commission restorative justice and domestic abuse services. In addition, they receive ring-fenced funding for domestic and sexual abuse services. PCCs are best placed to assess local need and commission services based on the needs of the population in the local area. Restorative justice services should be targeted to the most appropriate cases, where we have clear evidence for the benefits of that approach and should only take place when both the victim and the offender agree, and it is considered safe.

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. We will be increasing funding for victim support services year on year, from 2026 to 2029, recognising the need to meet the rising cost pressures of delivery. I have protected dedicated VAWG victims spending in the department by maintaining 2024-25 funding levels for ringfenced sexual violence and domestic abuse support this year.

Last November, the Government announced the abolition of PCCs, the first in a series of reforms that were set out in the recent Police Reform White Paper. In light of this announcement, we are exploring changes to the delivery of victims funding to ensure this is delivered in the best way in the future. We recognise the important work PCCs and Mayors do to commission vital support services for victims and witnesses, including restorative justice and domestic abuse services. Ensuring ongoing support to victims is a key priority for this Government.

The Ministry of Justice provides all Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) in England and Wales with core grant funding for victims of all crime types, which can be used to commission restorative justice and domestic abuse services. In addition, they receive ring-fenced funding for domestic and sexual abuse services. PCCs are best placed to assess local need and commission services based on the needs of the population in the local area. Restorative justice services should be targeted to the most appropriate cases, where we have clear evidence for the benefits of that approach and should only take place when both the victim and the offender agree, and it is considered safe.

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. We will be increasing funding for victim support services year on year, from 2026 to 2029, recognising the need to meet the rising cost pressures of delivery. I have protected dedicated VAWG victims spending in the department by maintaining 2024-25 funding levels for ringfenced sexual violence and domestic abuse support this year.

Last November, the Government announced the abolition of PCCs, the first in a series of reforms that were set out in the recent Police Reform White Paper. In light of this announcement, we are exploring changes to the delivery of victims funding to ensure this is delivered in the best way in the future. We recognise the important work PCCs and Mayors do to commission vital support services for victims and witnesses, including restorative justice and domestic abuse services. Ensuring ongoing support to victims is a key priority for this Government.

The data requested is provided in the attached excel table. The table includes data covering the period 2020 – 2024 on the number of offenders who were convicted of common assault and battery offences who did not receive an immediate custodial sentence; separated by the number of previous occasions the offender had been convicted for a violence against the person offence where that offence was common assault and battery.

Previous convictions are already a statutory aggravating factor, with Sentencing Guidelines being clear that sentencers must consider the nature and relevance of previous convictions, and the time elapsed since the previous convictions.

Between 5 July 2024 and 29 April 2025, the Ministry of Justice recorded lost or stolen:

179 laptops

475 mobile phones

11 other electronic devices

All Ministry of Justice laptops and mobile phones are encrypted and protected to National Cyber Security Centre standards. The Department has mandatory reporting procedures for lost or stolen items, and incidents are investigated in line with security policy.

Treatment and clinical prescribing decisions are the responsibility of services commissioned by NHS in prisons and local authority service providers in the community.

Responsibility for continuity of care for prison leavers, including access to medications and clinical care rests with prison drug and alcohol treatment providers liaising with community treatment providers.

The promotion of one medicine over another is strictly regulated in England and Wales.

The data requested are provided in the attached excel tables. The tables include data covering the period 2020 – 2024 on:

- The number of offenders who were convicted of a child sex offence who did not receive an immediate custodial sentence by number of previous occasions where the offender was convicted of a child sex offence.

- The number of offenders who were convicted of an indictable offence but did not receive an immediate custodial sentence, by the number of previous convictions (between 7-10 previous convictions).

- The number of offenders who were convicted of a theft offence who did not receive immediate custody, by number of previous convictions (between 3-10 previous convictions).

- The number of offenders convicted of theft from a shop who did not receive an immediate custodial sentence by number of previous convictions for the same offence.

As set out in previous responses, this data is not regularly published or held in an easily accessible format. The information supplied has been sourced from a bespoke retrieval from the Police National Computer database.

Previous convictions are already a statutory aggravating factor, with Sentencing Guidelines being clear that sentencers must consider the nature and relevance of previous convictions, and the time elapsed since the previous convictions.

The data requested are provided in the attached excel tables. The tables include data covering the period 2020 – 2024 on:

- The number of offenders who were convicted of a child sex offence who did not receive an immediate custodial sentence by number of previous occasions where the offender was convicted of a child sex offence.

- The number of offenders who were convicted of an indictable offence but did not receive an immediate custodial sentence, by the number of previous convictions (between 7-10 previous convictions).

- The number of offenders who were convicted of a theft offence who did not receive immediate custody, by number of previous convictions (between 3-10 previous convictions).

- The number of offenders convicted of theft from a shop who did not receive an immediate custodial sentence by number of previous convictions for the same offence.

As set out in previous responses, this data is not regularly published or held in an easily accessible format. The information supplied has been sourced from a bespoke retrieval from the Police National Computer database.

Previous convictions are already a statutory aggravating factor, with Sentencing Guidelines being clear that sentencers must consider the nature and relevance of previous convictions, and the time elapsed since the previous convictions.

The data requested are provided in the attached excel tables. The tables include data covering the period 2020 – 2024 on:

- The number of offenders who were convicted of a child sex offence who did not receive an immediate custodial sentence by number of previous occasions where the offender was convicted of a child sex offence.

- The number of offenders who were convicted of an indictable offence but did not receive an immediate custodial sentence, by the number of previous convictions (between 7-10 previous convictions).

- The number of offenders who were convicted of a theft offence who did not receive immediate custody, by number of previous convictions (between 3-10 previous convictions).

- The number of offenders convicted of theft from a shop who did not receive an immediate custodial sentence by number of previous convictions for the same offence.

As set out in previous responses, this data is not regularly published or held in an easily accessible format. The information supplied has been sourced from a bespoke retrieval from the Police National Computer database.

Previous convictions are already a statutory aggravating factor, with Sentencing Guidelines being clear that sentencers must consider the nature and relevance of previous convictions, and the time elapsed since the previous convictions.

The data requested are provided in the attached excel tables. The tables include data covering the period 2020 – 2024 on:

- The number of offenders who were convicted of a child sex offence who did not receive an immediate custodial sentence by number of previous occasions where the offender was convicted of a child sex offence.

- The number of offenders who were convicted of an indictable offence but did not receive an immediate custodial sentence, by the number of previous convictions (between 7-10 previous convictions).

- The number of offenders who were convicted of a theft offence who did not receive immediate custody, by number of previous convictions (between 3-10 previous convictions).

- The number of offenders convicted of theft from a shop who did not receive an immediate custodial sentence by number of previous convictions for the same offence.

As set out in previous responses, this data is not regularly published or held in an easily accessible format. The information supplied has been sourced from a bespoke retrieval from the Police National Computer database.

Previous convictions are already a statutory aggravating factor, with Sentencing Guidelines being clear that sentencers must consider the nature and relevance of previous convictions, and the time elapsed since the previous convictions.

The Government is in the process of establishing a Preventative Analytics for Youth Justice Advisory Panel. As the Panel has not yet been established, no recommendations have been made on specific data sources or the sharing of data with youth justice partners for the purposes of support and safeguarding.

At this early stage, we are not able to state the specific datasets which will be accessed. Exploratory work is required to identify what data would be useful for the purposes of prevention, where it is held, and how to use it responsibly, ethically, and legally. However, it is anticipated that the programme will draw on data already held by government departments, local youth justice services, and local authorities. This may include information about a child’s contact with the youth justice system, education, health services, social care, or other relevant services.

Where data is shared between public authorities, we expect this will take place under established legal gateways for example the Digital Economy Act or the UK General Data Protection Regulation. Where additional permissions are required (e.g. due to the terms of a privacy notice), then such permissions will be sought. The Department will ensure appropriate governance arrangements are made and documented (e.g. through Data Protection Impact Assessments and Data Sharing Agreements).

At this stage, we are not able to describe how the data will be used in the sense of defining specific processing techniques. The purpose of the advisory panel is to guide the development of these techniques in an effective, ethical, and legal manner. That said, the programme will not make automated decisions about individual children or replace professional judgement; rather it will provide evidence-based insights to help practitioners identify where interventions may be most effective. Strong safeguards will be sought to ensure fairness, transparency and protection against bias.

The Government intends to establish the Advisory Panel on preventative analytics for youth justice by spring. Work is already underway and further details will be set out in due course.

The Government is in the process of establishing a Preventative Analytics for Youth Justice Advisory Panel. As the Panel has not yet been established, no recommendations have been made on specific data sources or the sharing of data with youth justice partners for the purposes of support and safeguarding.

At this early stage, we are not able to state the specific datasets which will be accessed. Exploratory work is required to identify what data would be useful for the purposes of prevention, where it is held, and how to use it responsibly, ethically, and legally. However, it is anticipated that the programme will draw on data already held by government departments, local youth justice services, and local authorities. This may include information about a child’s contact with the youth justice system, education, health services, social care, or other relevant services.

Where data is shared between public authorities, we expect this will take place under established legal gateways for example the Digital Economy Act or the UK General Data Protection Regulation. Where additional permissions are required (e.g. due to the terms of a privacy notice), then such permissions will be sought. The Department will ensure appropriate governance arrangements are made and documented (e.g. through Data Protection Impact Assessments and Data Sharing Agreements).

At this stage, we are not able to describe how the data will be used in the sense of defining specific processing techniques. The purpose of the advisory panel is to guide the development of these techniques in an effective, ethical, and legal manner. That said, the programme will not make automated decisions about individual children or replace professional judgement; rather it will provide evidence-based insights to help practitioners identify where interventions may be most effective. Strong safeguards will be sought to ensure fairness, transparency and protection against bias.

The Government intends to establish the Advisory Panel on preventative analytics for youth justice by spring. Work is already underway and further details will be set out in due course.

The Government is in the process of establishing a Preventative Analytics for Youth Justice Advisory Panel. As the Panel has not yet been established, no recommendations have been made on specific data sources or the sharing of data with youth justice partners for the purposes of support and safeguarding.

At this early stage, we are not able to state the specific datasets which will be accessed. Exploratory work is required to identify what data would be useful for the purposes of prevention, where it is held, and how to use it responsibly, ethically, and legally. However, it is anticipated that the programme will draw on data already held by government departments, local youth justice services, and local authorities. This may include information about a child’s contact with the youth justice system, education, health services, social care, or other relevant services.

Where data is shared between public authorities, we expect this will take place under established legal gateways for example the Digital Economy Act or the UK General Data Protection Regulation. Where additional permissions are required (e.g. due to the terms of a privacy notice), then such permissions will be sought. The Department will ensure appropriate governance arrangements are made and documented (e.g. through Data Protection Impact Assessments and Data Sharing Agreements).

At this stage, we are not able to describe how the data will be used in the sense of defining specific processing techniques. The purpose of the advisory panel is to guide the development of these techniques in an effective, ethical, and legal manner. That said, the programme will not make automated decisions about individual children or replace professional judgement; rather it will provide evidence-based insights to help practitioners identify where interventions may be most effective. Strong safeguards will be sought to ensure fairness, transparency and protection against bias.

The Government intends to establish the Advisory Panel on preventative analytics for youth justice by spring. Work is already underway and further details will be set out in due course.

The Government is in the process of establishing a Preventative Analytics for Youth Justice Advisory Panel. As the Panel has not yet been established, no recommendations have been made on specific data sources or the sharing of data with youth justice partners for the purposes of support and safeguarding.

At this early stage, we are not able to state the specific datasets which will be accessed. Exploratory work is required to identify what data would be useful for the purposes of prevention, where it is held, and how to use it responsibly, ethically, and legally. However, it is anticipated that the programme will draw on data already held by government departments, local youth justice services, and local authorities. This may include information about a child’s contact with the youth justice system, education, health services, social care, or other relevant services.

Where data is shared between public authorities, we expect this will take place under established legal gateways for example the Digital Economy Act or the UK General Data Protection Regulation. Where additional permissions are required (e.g. due to the terms of a privacy notice), then such permissions will be sought. The Department will ensure appropriate governance arrangements are made and documented (e.g. through Data Protection Impact Assessments and Data Sharing Agreements).

At this stage, we are not able to describe how the data will be used in the sense of defining specific processing techniques. The purpose of the advisory panel is to guide the development of these techniques in an effective, ethical, and legal manner. That said, the programme will not make automated decisions about individual children or replace professional judgement; rather it will provide evidence-based insights to help practitioners identify where interventions may be most effective. Strong safeguards will be sought to ensure fairness, transparency and protection against bias.

The Government intends to establish the Advisory Panel on preventative analytics for youth justice by spring. Work is already underway and further details will be set out in due course.

The Government is in the process of establishing a Preventative Analytics for Youth Justice Advisory Panel. As the Panel has not yet been established, no recommendations have been made on specific data sources or the sharing of data with youth justice partners for the purposes of support and safeguarding.

At this early stage, we are not able to state the specific datasets which will be accessed. Exploratory work is required to identify what data would be useful for the purposes of prevention, where it is held, and how to use it responsibly, ethically, and legally. However, it is anticipated that the programme will draw on data already held by government departments, local youth justice services, and local authorities. This may include information about a child’s contact with the youth justice system, education, health services, social care, or other relevant services.

Where data is shared between public authorities, we expect this will take place under established legal gateways for example the Digital Economy Act or the UK General Data Protection Regulation. Where additional permissions are required (e.g. due to the terms of a privacy notice), then such permissions will be sought. The Department will ensure appropriate governance arrangements are made and documented (e.g. through Data Protection Impact Assessments and Data Sharing Agreements).

At this stage, we are not able to describe how the data will be used in the sense of defining specific processing techniques. The purpose of the advisory panel is to guide the development of these techniques in an effective, ethical, and legal manner. That said, the programme will not make automated decisions about individual children or replace professional judgement; rather it will provide evidence-based insights to help practitioners identify where interventions may be most effective. Strong safeguards will be sought to ensure fairness, transparency and protection against bias.

The Government intends to establish the Advisory Panel on preventative analytics for youth justice by spring. Work is already underway and further details will be set out in due course.