Asked by: Wendy Morton (Conservative - Aldridge-Brownhills)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps he is taking to prevent mistaken prisoner releases.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
Releases in error are never acceptable, and we are bearing down on those errors that do occur. Following the release in error of Hadush Kebatu from HMP Chelmsford, we took immediate steps to make the processes that take place when a prisoner is released more robust. This includes implementing a clear checklist for governors to determine that every step has been followed before any release takes place.
On 11 November, the Deputy Prime Minister announced this Government’s five-point action plan to address the causes of releases in error. This includes an urgent query process with a dedicated unit and court experts to allow prisons to quickly escalate warrant-related queries and reduce release errors, a multi-million pound investment to deploy digital tools and upgrade outdated paper-based processes, and an independent review into the recent errors and systemic issues, with recommendations to prevent further inaccuracies.
Asked by: Jim Shannon (Democratic Unionist Party - Strangford)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps he is taking to ensure that child sex offenders are separated in prisons.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
Safety in prisons is a key priority. We are working hard to make prisons as safe as possible for those who live and work in them. Safe prisons are vital to enable prisoners to engage in rehabilitative activities that reduce re-offending. Staff are trained to identify where a prisoner may be at risk, and to be able to take appropriate action in response.
A number of reception prisons have specific units for people convicted of sexual offences. In addition to this, a number of other prisons have particular arrangements for vulnerable prisoners – a category which includes, but is not limited to, people convicted of sex offences.
Asked by: Jim Shannon (Democratic Unionist Party - Strangford)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what proportion of people being held in prisons in England and Wales have not been found guilty in a court.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
The Ministry of Justice publishes data on the untried remand population in custody in the Offender Management Statistics Quarterly (OMSQ) publication. This data can be found in Population Table 1_Q_2 of OMSQ: Offender management statistics quarterly: July to September 2025 - GOV.UK.
Asked by: Paul Kohler (Liberal Democrat - Wimbledon)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what estimate he has made of the number of rape trials in England and Wales that were postponed in each year since 2015; and what the principal reasons were for those postponements.
Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
The Ministry of Justice publishes figures for the volume of ineffective trials and reasons on a quarterly basis in the ‘Trial effectiveness at the criminal courts’ tool: Criminal court statistics quarterly: July to September 2025 - GOV.UK. An ineffective trial does not take place on the scheduled trial start date and requires a subsequent rescheduled listing.
A vacated trial is one that is removed from the trial list prior to the date of trial. These trials may or may not be listed for a future date. The trial effectiveness tool also includes data on the volume of vacated trials, but the Ministry of Justice does not currently publish reasons for vacation.
The offence group field can be filtered for ‘02: Sexual offences – All Rape’ and there is also a filter for the reason for ineffective trials.
Asked by: Zöe Franklin (Liberal Democrat - Guildford)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether he has considered introducing a requirement for automatic judicial oversight within a fixed timeframe where state bodies facilitate a significant change in a child’s living arrangements as part of safeguarding practice.
Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
This Government is committed to protecting children from harm. The Children Act 1989 sets out specific duties for local authorities to provide services to children in their area if they are in need and to undertake enquiries if they believe a child has suffered or is likely to suffer significant harm.
Under Section 46 of the Children Act 1989, police may only facilitate a change in a child’s place of residence despite the refusal of a parent with parental responsibility if a child is at immediate risk of significant harm, by exercising Police Protection Powers. In this case, police may only remove a child or keep a child in a safe place for a maximum 72 hours before requiring a court authorisation to sustain the separation from their parent with parental responsibility.
There are already clear expectations that the local authority brings the matter before the family court within the 72-hour time limit, ensuring judicial oversight of continued change in a child’s place of residence.
Under Section 20 of the Children Act 1989, local authorities can also change a child’s place of residence with the consent of all people that hold parental responsibility for that child.
Whether an application is made prior to or after a child's change of residence, the Government recognises that involvement in family court proceedings, including when children are moved for safeguarding purposes, can be a distressing experience for the families involved. That is why the Department for Education has funded research, conducted by Birkbeck university, into the experiences of parents, children and special guardians involved in public law family court proceedings, as well as a policy and literature review of advice and information materials available to parties. The report setting out their findings and recommendations can be found here: https://eprints.bbk.ac.uk/id/eprint/56714/.
The Government welcomes this report and takes the experiences of children and families in the family court system seriously.
Asked by: Zöe Franklin (Liberal Democrat - Guildford)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether national guidance permits (a) police forces and (b) local authority Children’s Services to facilitate a material change in a child’s place of residence without prior court authorisation where one parent with parental responsibility has refused consent.
Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
This Government is committed to protecting children from harm. The Children Act 1989 sets out specific duties for local authorities to provide services to children in their area if they are in need and to undertake enquiries if they believe a child has suffered or is likely to suffer significant harm.
Under Section 46 of the Children Act 1989, police may only facilitate a change in a child’s place of residence despite the refusal of a parent with parental responsibility if a child is at immediate risk of significant harm, by exercising Police Protection Powers. In this case, police may only remove a child or keep a child in a safe place for a maximum 72 hours before requiring a court authorisation to sustain the separation from their parent with parental responsibility.
There are already clear expectations that the local authority brings the matter before the family court within the 72-hour time limit, ensuring judicial oversight of continued change in a child’s place of residence.
Under Section 20 of the Children Act 1989, local authorities can also change a child’s place of residence with the consent of all people that hold parental responsibility for that child.
Whether an application is made prior to or after a child's change of residence, the Government recognises that involvement in family court proceedings, including when children are moved for safeguarding purposes, can be a distressing experience for the families involved. That is why the Department for Education has funded research, conducted by Birkbeck university, into the experiences of parents, children and special guardians involved in public law family court proceedings, as well as a policy and literature review of advice and information materials available to parties. The report setting out their findings and recommendations can be found here: https://eprints.bbk.ac.uk/id/eprint/56714/.
The Government welcomes this report and takes the experiences of children and families in the family court system seriously.
Asked by: Zöe Franklin (Liberal Democrat - Guildford)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment his Department has made of the potential impact of safeguarding practices on requiring parents to seek retrospective court remedies.
Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
This Government is committed to protecting children from harm. The Children Act 1989 sets out specific duties for local authorities to provide services to children in their area if they are in need and to undertake enquiries if they believe a child has suffered or is likely to suffer significant harm.
Under Section 46 of the Children Act 1989, police may only facilitate a change in a child’s place of residence despite the refusal of a parent with parental responsibility if a child is at immediate risk of significant harm, by exercising Police Protection Powers. In this case, police may only remove a child or keep a child in a safe place for a maximum 72 hours before requiring a court authorisation to sustain the separation from their parent with parental responsibility.
There are already clear expectations that the local authority brings the matter before the family court within the 72-hour time limit, ensuring judicial oversight of continued change in a child’s place of residence.
Under Section 20 of the Children Act 1989, local authorities can also change a child’s place of residence with the consent of all people that hold parental responsibility for that child.
Whether an application is made prior to or after a child's change of residence, the Government recognises that involvement in family court proceedings, including when children are moved for safeguarding purposes, can be a distressing experience for the families involved. That is why the Department for Education has funded research, conducted by Birkbeck university, into the experiences of parents, children and special guardians involved in public law family court proceedings, as well as a policy and literature review of advice and information materials available to parties. The report setting out their findings and recommendations can be found here: https://eprints.bbk.ac.uk/id/eprint/56714/.
The Government welcomes this report and takes the experiences of children and families in the family court system seriously.
Asked by: Al Pinkerton (Liberal Democrat - Surrey Heath)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment has been made of the potential contribution of family court processes, including repeated proceedings and contact litigation, to ongoing harm for victims of domestic abuse and their children.
Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
This Government recognises the impact that family court proceedings have on children and adult survivors of domestic abuse, which is why we are prioritising strong safeguarding and specialist support for those navigating the system.
The Government acknowledges that repeated court hearings can retraumatise adult and child victims of domestic abuse. The Pathfinder pilot was launched in Dorset and North Wales in February 2022 and has now been expanded to 10 court areas in England and Wales, which accounts for around a quarter of private law proceedings in England and Wales. Further expansion will be announced in due course. The Pathfinder model improves coordination between the family court and agencies, including local authorities and the police, particularly in cases involving domestic abuse. This approach reduces the number of cases returning to court, protecting children and families from further trauma.
By introducing a Child Impact Report early in the process and having a more investigative process, judges are enabled to assess risks thoroughly and make more sustainable orders. This child-centred, trauma-informed approach improves early risk identification, strengthens multiagency collaboration, and helps ensure that children’s voices are heard and that the psychological impact of contact arrangements is fully considered by the court.
This Government has taken steps to ensure that family court procedures more effectively identify and prevent patterns of coercive or controlling behaviour. Practice Direction 12 J has been amended to require courts to assess patterns of behaviour rather than isolated incidents, to modernise terminology, and to strengthen safeguards for vulnerable parties. Alongside this, section 91(14) orders, also referred to as “barring orders”, may be issued by the family court where further applications would put a child or adult, such as a victim of domestic abuse, at risk of harm, particularly where proceedings could be a form of continuing domestic abuse. Courts can issue a s91(14) order of their own motion or on application. Where such an order is in place, the court is required to consider whether circumstances have materially changed before granting permission to make a new application.
The Government welcomes the publication of the Domestic Abuse Commissioner’s report “Everyday Business: Addressing domestic abuse and continuing harm through a family court review and reporting mechanism.” We are carefully considering the recommendations made in the report and will publish a full response shortly.
Asked by: Paul Kohler (Liberal Democrat - Wimbledon)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what the average length of time was from charge to completion in court for rape cases in England and Wales in each year since 2016.
Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
The Ministry of Justice publishes figures for Crown Court timeliness on a quarterly basis in the ‘End-to-end timeliness tool (Crown Court)’. This includes time taken from charge to completion for rape cases: Criminal court statistics quarterly: July to September 2025 - GOV.UK.
Offence group can be filtered for ‘02: Sexual offences – all rape’. Both the mean and median time from charge to completion can be found in the table, dating back to 2016.
Asked by: Al Pinkerton (Liberal Democrat - Surrey Heath)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what recent assessment has been made of the potential merits of increasing funding for support services available to families navigating family court proceedings in cases involving domestic abuse.
Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
This Government recognises the significant impact of domestic abuse on children and adult victims involved in family court proceedings, which is why we are committed to reforms that improve multi-agency working and provide better support.
Central to these reforms is the expansion of the Pathfinder model which seeks to improve outcomes for children and families involved in private family law proceedings, including those who have experienced domestic abuse. The voice of the child is amplified through a Child Impact Report which assesses the child’s experiences and needs, ensuring these are heard and communicated to the court.
Under the Pathfinder model, victims of domestic abuse are also offered specialist support from an Independent Domestic Violence Adviser. The model currently operates in 10 court areas, backed by £13 million investment in the current financial year.