Ministry of Justice

The Ministry of Justice and HM Prison and Probation Service are committed to ensuring that prisoners can access high-quality education and skills provision that supports rehabilitation and reduces re-offending.

The contract does not require Education suppliers to provide routine information about redundancies, and as the majority of teaching staff are employed by external providers, it is not possible to provide the information requested.

HMCTS is developing and piloting AI-enabled support for operational activity such as listing in a way that retains appropriate human oversight and accountability for decisions. In line with HMCTS Responsible AI principles, any work to scale AI-enabled tools will include robust processes for how issues and errors will be identified, challenged and corrected. Lessons learned from pilots in courts such as Preston and Isleworth, and subsequent evaluation will inform what safeguards are required for any future wider deployment. All of these have been subject to human oversight and are there to assist decision making in accordance with a new national listing framework to be introduced.

HMCTS is progressing work to expand AI-enabled transcription to support courts and tribunals. The Department has not published an estimate of time savings from the use of AI to transcribe hearings across the court system. It is worth noting that transcription of hearings is one of several use cases for AI assisted transcription. The main driver for hearing transcription is to make justice more open and transparent.

In line with HMCTS Responsible AI principles, decisions on scaling AI-enabled transcription will be informed by evaluation, including impacts on efficiency, quality and user experience, and will include robust processes for how errors will be identified, challenged and corrected.

HMCTS will evaluate the pilot of AI-enabled support for listing against criteria that will include expected:

• reductions in administrative effort associated with listing;

• improved timeliness and consistency of listing activity;

• the impact on listing accuracy and associated rework; and

• the effect on effective use of court capacity.

This will be considered alongside feedback from operational users and the judiciary on usability and confidence. Findings from this stage of the evaluation will inform decisions on any wider deployment. If we proceed, we will design an evaluation approach in line with Government Social Research standards that we would expect to publish as part of the programme of work.

At this current time there are no plans to operate blitz courts in Essex.

The Government is committed to reducing outstanding caseloads in the Crown Court while maintaining progress across all case types.

Targeted initiatives, sometimes referred to as “blitz” courts, are carefully planned and time-limited exercises designed to make best use of available courtrooms, judicial capacity and sitting days. They are intended to increase overall throughput rather than divert resources from other cases. The plan is for London to use two courts at the Central Criminal Court specifically to accommodate the blitz courts.

Listing decisions in the Crown Court are a matter for the independent judiciary. HMCTS works closely with the judiciary to monitor waiting times and operational pressures across the system to ensure that targeted activity in one area does not lead to unintended delays elsewhere.

We continue to fund increased Crown Court sitting days and for 2026/27 we have removed the financial limits on how many days Crown Courts can sit in order to improve timeliness for all court users.

We agree with Sir Brian’s Leveson’s recommendation in the Independent Review of the Criminal Courts that Prisoner Escort and Custody Services (PECS) should be enabled to use bus lanes when transporting prisoners. However, these decisions are ultimately for local authorities.

PECS vehicles already use bus lanes in Manchester, Bristol, Salford and Nottingham. We are currently engaging with local authorities across the country to expand this, and will work with the Department for Transport to ensure that local authorities are aware of the role they can play in reducing prisoner delays. For example, in London we are working closely with Transport for London to pilot a scheme that retimes traffic signals to prioritise PECS vans on three routes in the capital. Around 300 traffic lights will be adjusted so that PECS vehicles are more likely to receive green lights on their journey to court.

HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) is progressing work to expand the use of AI to support court and tribunal operations across a range of use cases. The Department has not published a single estimate of the cost of rolling out AI across HMCTS, as costs and benefits depend on the specific use case, scope and implementation approach. Any decision to deploy AI-enabled tools more widely would be subject to appropriate evaluation and the development of approved business cases, including affordability and value for money in accordance with HMCTS governance and standards.

The Department and HMCTS have due regard to their obligations under the Public Sector Equality Duty when developing and implementing policy and operational changes. Equality considerations are taken into account as part of the design and evaluation of service changes, and appropriate equality analysis has informed, and will continue to inform, decisions on the adoption and scaling of AI-enabled tools and services within courts and tribunals. This is undertaken on a use-case-by-use-case basis, rather than through a single blanket assessment.

Blitz courts in London will initially focus on assault on emergency workers and will be listed at Central Criminal Court from April. A total of 500 days have been allocated for this first blitz initiative. After prioritising assaults on emergency workers, we will consider other case types including sentencing cases, breaches and trials with no civilian witnesses.

Blitz courts have been trialled previously and have shown positive results in reducing case backlog. The announcement of uncapped sitting days in the Crown Court in 2026/27 will enable more blitz initiatives to take place. The two court rooms which will be used are part of the existing London Crown Court Cluster.

The Lord Chancellor is committed to transparent and merit-based selection processes that maintain the quality of our judiciary. I refer the hon. Member for Wrekin, Mark Pritchard to the answer I gave on 1 May 2025 to Question 47182 (https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2025-04-23/47182).

In January 2026, the independent Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) relaunched its website which includes detailed information about the new Judicial Skills and Abilities Framework, and updated guidance about statutory consultation. In addition, the Ministry of Justice works with the JAC and the judiciary to produce the annual Diversity of the Judiciary statistics, with detailed data about judicial appointments.

The Lord Chancellor is committed to transparent and merit-based selection processes that maintain the quality of our judiciary.

Statutory consultation is provided for in legislation and requires the independent Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) to seek views from those with relevant experience, unless the appropriate authority agrees it is not required. It is one of a range of shortlisting and selection tools used by the JAC to ensure that candidates are of good character and have relevant capabilities for the role.

The JAC made changes to the operation of statutory consultation following an independent review in 2022 to provide clearer information about when and how statutory consultation is used. It has recently published an evaluation of those changes alongside updated guidance for candidates and consultees (https://judicialappointments.gov.uk/corp-publication/evaluation-on-the-revised-approach-to-statutory-consultation/).

Candidates can complain to the JAC and, if dissatisfied, to the independent Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman if they believe that their application for appointment has not been handled appropriately.

The independent Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) is designated as a public body under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). The JAC is responsible for meeting its statutory obligations under the FOIA and the Data Protection Act 2018, including ensuring requests are handled in line with the relevant legislation. Decisions on the responses to individual Freedom of Information requests, including any associated legal consideration, are for the JAC.

The JAC as a non-departmental public body is responsible for managing its own resources including in relation to meeting its statutory obligations. The governance and accountability arrangements between the Ministry of Justice and the JAC are set out in the framework document agreed in line with HM Treasury’s Managing Public Money, including in relation to governance and financial matters

We appreciate the considerable work that has gone into the inquiry.

His Majesty’s Prison & Probation Service (HMPPS) has been engaged with the work of the All-Party Parliamentary Group over many years, including in relation to this latest review. HMPPS will give careful consideration, in collaboration with other partners, to those recommendations in the report that are addressed to it.

The Ministry of Justice publishes data on the number of convictions across England and Wales 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 - GOV.UK

The offences that constitute unlawful abortion include procuring an illegal abortion under sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, as well as child destruction under section 1 of the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929.

Information centrally held does not specify how many of these convictions are linked to the use of the pills-by-post scheme.

The Department of Health and Social Care is responsible for the policy relating to the pills-by-post scheme.

The Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2012 (the 2012 Scheme) does not prescribe a time limit for applications to be decided.

Most applications are decided within 12 months. Each case must be considered on its own facts. In most cases, CICA requires information from third parties such as the police and medical authorities in order to decide a claim.

Some applications will by necessity take longer to decide. This could be where information is not available due to ongoing court proceedings, where CICA needs time to assess the long-term impact of complex injuries (e.g. brain injuries), or where there is an application for loss of earnings (which requires at least 28 weeks of loss).

In the financial year 2024-25, the average time to make a decision was 370 days.

The figure does not include applications deferred under paragraph 98 of the 2012 Scheme.

On 9 December 2025, during the House of Lords Committee Stage debate on the Crime and Policing Bill, the Government announced that it would accept, in part, one of the recommendations from Baroness Bertin’s Independent Review on Pornography, namely recommendation 24 which says:

‘The current criminal justice response is ineffective in tackling illegal pornography online. Government should conduct its own legislative review of this regime to ensure that legislation and Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) guidance is fit-for-purpose in tackling illegal pornography in the online world.’

The Government will be reviewing the criminal law relating to pornography, which will give an opportunity to look at the criminal law in this area holistically and consider whether it is fit for purpose in an ever-developing online world. We have accepted in part because the Government cannot accept the recommendation to review CPS guidance. As the CPS is independent, whether to conduct a review of guidance would be a matter for them to decide.

The review will be conducted by the Ministry of Justice. As the review is focused on the criminal law on pornography, it will not appraise the effectiveness of age-verification, age-assurance methods or regulation, which are outside of the scope of the criminal legislation the Ministry of Justice will be reviewing. A Joint Team has been set up, across the Home Office, the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, the Ministry of Justice and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, to rigorously examine the evidence to address the issues from the Pornography Review. It will examine the evidence to inform the Government’s approach to pornography policy.

On 9 December 2025, during the House of Lords Committee Stage debate on the Crime and Policing Bill, the Government announced that it would accept, in part, one of the recommendations from Baroness Bertin’s Independent Review on Pornography, namely recommendation 24 which says:

‘The current criminal justice response is ineffective in tackling illegal pornography online. Government should conduct its own legislative review of this regime to ensure that legislation and Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) guidance is fit-for-purpose in tackling illegal pornography in the online world.’

The Government will be reviewing the criminal law relating to pornography, which will give an opportunity to look at the criminal law in this area holistically and consider whether it is fit for purpose in an ever-developing online world. We have accepted in part because the Government cannot accept the recommendation to review CPS guidance. As the CPS is independent, whether to conduct a review of guidance would be a matter for them to decide.

The review will be conducted by the Ministry of Justice. As the review is focused on the criminal law on pornography, it will not appraise the effectiveness of age-verification, age-assurance methods or regulation, which are outside of the scope of the criminal legislation the Ministry of Justice will be reviewing. A Joint Team has been set up, across the Home Office, the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, the Ministry of Justice and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, to rigorously examine the evidence to address the issues from the Pornography Review. It will examine the evidence to inform the Government’s approach to pornography policy.

On 9 December 2025, during the House of Lords Committee Stage debate on the Crime and Policing Bill, the Government announced that it would accept, in part, one of the recommendations from Baroness Bertin’s Independent Review on Pornography, namely recommendation 24 which says:

‘The current criminal justice response is ineffective in tackling illegal pornography online. Government should conduct its own legislative review of this regime to ensure that legislation and Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) guidance is fit-for-purpose in tackling illegal pornography in the online world.’

The Government will be reviewing the criminal law relating to pornography, which will give an opportunity to look at the criminal law in this area holistically and consider whether it is fit for purpose in an ever-developing online world. We have accepted in part because the Government cannot accept the recommendation to review CPS guidance. As the CPS is independent, whether to conduct a review of guidance would be a matter for them to decide.

The review will be conducted by the Ministry of Justice. As the review is focused on the criminal law on pornography, it will not appraise the effectiveness of age-verification, age-assurance methods or regulation, which are outside of the scope of the criminal legislation the Ministry of Justice will be reviewing. A Joint Team has been set up, across the Home Office, the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, the Ministry of Justice and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, to rigorously examine the evidence to address the issues from the Pornography Review. It will examine the evidence to inform the Government’s approach to pornography policy.

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.

The Ministry of Justice provides all Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) in England and Wales with annual grant funding to commission local practical, emotional, and therapeutic support services for victims of all crime types. In 2025/26, the funding from MOJ to Norfolk PCC included £0.78 million in ring-fenced funding specifically to support victims of sexual violence and domestic abuse. For 2026/27, we have allocated £1.83 million in victims funding to the PCC for Norfolk, which includes £0.8 million of ring-fenced funding for sexual violence and domestic abuse services.

The budgets for individual PCC areas are routinely published on each area’s website.

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.

The Ministry of Justice provides all Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) in England and Wales with annual grant funding to commission local practical, emotional, and therapeutic support services for victims of all crime types. In 2025/26, the funding from MOJ to Norfolk PCC included £0.78 million in ring-fenced funding specifically to support victims of sexual violence and domestic abuse. For 2026/27, we have allocated £1.83 million in victims funding to the PCC for Norfolk, which includes £0.8 million of ring-fenced funding for sexual violence and domestic abuse services.

The budgets for individual PCC areas are routinely published on each area’s website.

Information relating to the time spent on custodial remand is not centrally held by the Ministry of Justice. To obtain the data to answer this question would involve a manual interrogation of court records which would result in a disproportionate cost to the Department.

Under the Prison Rules and Prison Service Instruction 49/2011 Prisoner Communication Services, prisoners are entitled to confidential access to their legal advisers, including by telephone, in person legal visits, and written correspondence, all of which must take place without being monitored except in exceptional, legally defined circumstances. Prisons must facilitate reasonable opportunities for legal contact, such as providing access to visit rooms, scheduling telephone calls, and ensuring that mail to and from legal representatives is handled promptly and without routine opening or interference.

On 24 December, the Deputy Prime Minister wrote in response to a letter from legal representatives of those who were refusing food. He offered to facilitate a meeting between senior representatives of the healthcare provider and the prisoners’ solicitors. This offer was accepted on 8 January, and the meeting took place on 9 January.

The Ministry of Justice does not hold specific information on the link between having a criminal record and (a) unemployment or (b) Personal Independence Payment (PIP) claimants.

We know that employment can reduce the likelihood of reoffending by up to nine percentage points in the year following release. This is why the Government has committed to supporting ex-offenders into work, including through launching regional Employment Councils, which bring businesses together with prisons, probation and the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) to support offenders in the community.

We recognise that having a criminal record can impact on someone’s employment opportunities, but it should not be an automatic barrier to employment. The criminal records disclosure framework is designed to balance rehabilitation with maintaining safeguarding and public protection principles. Our guidance for employers makes clear that recruitment decisions should be based on a balanced assessment of relevance, context, and risk.

DWP also does not hold data on the criminal record of claimants to PIP as this, together with their employment status, does not form part of the eligibility criteria for the benefit. We continue to work across Government to improve data-sharing and build a clearer picture of people’s employment support needs.

It is anticipated that the Law Commission will publish a final report and draft Bill in relation to the New Funerary Methods project in Spring 2026.

We await the Commission’s findings and recommendations with interest and will respond in due course.

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 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 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.