Asked by: Robert Jenrick (Conservative - Newark)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what his planned timetable is for reducing the Crown Court backlog in absolute terms.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
This Government inherited a record and rising courts backlog. The last government promised to reduce the Crown Court backlog to 53,000 by March 2025. Instead, the backlog increased to 76,957 by March 2025.
We have taken immediate action including funding a record-high allocation of 110,000 Crown Court sitting days this financial year to mitigate the backlog. We committed to investing up to £92 million more a year in criminal legal aid solicitors and boosted Magistrates’ sentencing powers from 6 to 12 months.
However, such steps can only mitigate the growth of the backlog. More fundamental reform is necessary to see the backlog reduce in absolute terms. That is why the Government asked Sir Brian Leveson to propose once-in-a-generation reform that will improve timeliness in the courts and deliver swifter justice for victims. We are committed to creating a more stable and sustainable criminal justice system, in which victims and the public can have confidence.
Part one of the Independent Review of Criminal Courts has been published. We are considering Sir Brian’s proposals and will publish a government response in short order . Part two of the Review, considering how the criminal courts can operate as efficiently as possible, is expected to be finalised later this year. We intend to introduce legislation in the second session as soon as parliamentary time allows to implement the necessary reforms.
Asked by: Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government how many additional judges and caseworks have been appointed to support employment tribunals in addressing the backlog of cases since July 2024.
Answered by Baroness Levitt - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
We are maintaining investment in the annual recruitment of about 1,000 judges and tribunal members across all jurisdictions. Annual recruitment requirements are determined by business need and judicial departures.
Since July 2024, 50 fee-paid Employment Judges (EJs) have been appointed, whilst 19 salaried EJs were appointed throughout 2024. Recruitment for up to 36 salaried EJs commenced in March 2025 and recruitment for 50 fee-paid EJs will commence in early 2026. As reported in the 2025 Judicial Diversity Statistics, there were 165 salaried and 143 fee-paid EJs in post in England and Wales as of 1 April 2025.
Since July 2024, we have also appointed an additional 6 caseworkers (legal officers) to support Employment Tribunals. There are currently just over 32 FTE legal officers in post.
Asked by: Lord Strasburger (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government what cases have been completed in court relating to alleged offences by Palestine Action activists; and for each case, when the court made its decision, what was the location of the alleged offence, what type of court heard the case, and what verdict and sentences were handed down.
Answered by Baroness Levitt - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
The Ministry of Justice publishes data on completed court cases for a wide range of offences in England and Wales within the Outcomes by Offences data tool, that can be downloaded from the Criminal Justice Statistics landing page here: Criminal Justice Statistics.
However, data centrally held does not identify whether offences were committed by Palestine Action activists. Whilst this information may be held in court records, examining individual records would be of disproportionate cost.
Asked by: Robert Jenrick (Conservative - Newark)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many people with five or more previous convictions were convicted of shoplifting and avoided a custodial sentence in the last 12 months.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
This Government takes prolific offending extremely seriously and we are determined to ensure that the criminal justice system has the right tools to deal with them.
We are expanding the availability of Intensive Supervision Courts to tackle the causes of prolific offending. We know these problem-solving approaches cut crime, with a 33 percent decrease in the rate of arrests compared to offenders who receive standard sentences. We are also introducing new orders to hit offenders where it hurts – limiting their freedoms in the community and ensuring punishment outside of prison does exactly that. These will include banning offenders from attending pubs, bars and clubs, as well as public events such as football matches and concerts.
For more serious prolific offending, we are clear that custody has a crucial role to play as a robust backstop, within the maximum penalties set out in statute. Previous convictions are a statutory aggravating factor and Sentencing Guidelines are clear that sentencers must consider the nature and relevance of previous convictions.
The information requested is provided in the tables attached and includes further notes.
Asked by: Sarah Coombes (Labour - West Bromwich)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how may and what proportion of people awaiting trial for a motoring offence in court commit further driving offences.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The Ministry of Justice does not hold information on the number or proportion of those awaiting trial for a motoring offence who go onto commit a further offence whilst waiting.
Asked by: Robert Jenrick (Conservative - Newark)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what information his Department holds on the longest projected length of time between charge and trial in a single case of sexual assault which is yet to be heard in court.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The Ministry of Justice does not carry out projections for length of time between charge and trial for specific offences.
The Ministry of Justice publishes end-to-end timeliness data each quarter, including for sexual offences, which enables users to calculate average length of time at various stages of the process. Link to publication: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/685c1091c07c71e5a870984f/timeliness_tool.xlsx.
Asked by: Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Labour - Clapham and Brixton Hill)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment she has made of the adequacy of staffing levels in HM Courts and Tribunals Service.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
All courts and tribunals budgets are set as a consequence of the annual Concordat process through which Ministers and the independent judiciary agree key decisions on funding and operational capacity of HM Courts and Tribunals Service. This process is supported by analysis that aims to ensure that funding is used efficiently and that all areas of resourcing, including for staffing, are sufficient to support operational capacity at the agreed level.
Asked by: Andrew Snowden (Conservative - Fylde)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether she will have discussions with the Solicitors Regulation Authority on standards of ethical behaviour of (a) solicitors’ and (b) barristers’ during (i) police interviews and (ii) court proceedings.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The legal profession and regulation of the profession in England and Wales operates independently of government. This framework is set out in the Legal Services Act 2007. Regulation of the sector is carried out by independent regulators, overseen by the Legal Services Board (LSB). The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) is responsible for regulating the professional conduct of solicitors and law firms in England and Wales, while the Bar Standards Board (BSB) regulates barristers.
An independent legal services sector is a pillar of the rule of law. Accordingly, it would not be appropriate for ministers or their officials to seek to influence how individual solicitors or barristers are regulated.
Nevertheless, while ministers do not play any role in individual disciplinary matters, the Ministry of Justice maintains regular dialogue with the legal regulators in respect of their statutory functions. This ensures that regulatory independence is respected while also supporting the wider objective of protecting consumers and maintaining public confidence in the justice system.
Solicitors advising clients during police interviews or throughout court proceedings are bound by professional duties, as set out in the SRA’s Code of Conduct. Barristers are bound by the BSB Handbook, which requires them to act with honesty, integrity, and independence. Both regulators have powers to investigate allegations of professional misconduct and to take disciplinary action where necessary. For solicitors, this includes sanctions such as fines or referral to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, which can suspend or strike a solicitor off the roll. The BSB can refer cases of professional misconduct to the independent Bar Tribunals and Adjudication Service, whose Disciplinary Tribunal has powers to impose sanctions, including suspension or disbarment.
Asked by: Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Labour - Clapham and Brixton Hill)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what recent assessment she has made of the potential impact of judicial vacancies on the timeliness of hearings in the Crown Court.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
Data on timeliness and ineffective trials (including judge/magistrate availability) at the criminal courts is available here: Criminal court statistics quarterly: January to March 2025 - GOV.UK.
There is no evidence to suggest that judicial vacancies have a significant impact on the timeliness of hearings in the Crown Court.
The Ministry of Justice, working in partnership with HMCTS and the judiciary, continuously monitor judicial capacity across the justice system. We are continuing to invest in regular judicial recruitment of around 1,000 judges and tribunal members each year across all jurisdictions.
There is no evidence that sitting days were lost due to judicial or recorder shortage in the last 12 months.
Asked by: Sarah Coombes (Labour - West Bromwich)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what proportion of offenders convicted of (a) dangerous driving, (b) driving under the influence and (c) causing serious (i) injury and (ii) death by (A) careless and (B) dangerous driving have also previously failed to who fail to produce (a) a driving licence, (2) an MOT certificate and (3) insurance certificate.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
The Ministry of Justice publishes data on prosecutions for a wide range of offences, including dangerous driving, driving under the influence, and causing serious injury or death by careless and dangerous driving 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 those who were convicted of an offence and had been previously convicted for failing to produce either a driving licence, an MOT certificate or insurance certificates. This information may be held in court records but to examine individual court records would be of disproportionate costs.