Lord Garnier

There are 41 Local Criminal Justice Boards (LCJBs) in total, 37 in England and 4 in Wales.

Information on the running and membership of LCJBs can be found in the National Guidance at: National Guidance for Local Criminal Justice Boards (publishing.service.gov.uk).

The Criminal Justice Board last met on 12 July 2021. We are looking to hold the next meeting later this year.

The Ministry of Justice does not hold this information. Local Criminal Justice Boards are voluntary partnerships and are not governed by statute and are not an executive body. We do not therefore keep a record of meeting dates.

The Ministry of Justice does not hold this information. Local Criminal Justice Boards are voluntary partnerships and are not governed by statute and are not an executive body. We do not therefore keep a record of meeting dates.

The Ministry of Justice publishes information on detailed sentence and custodial sentence length, in England and Wales, for the years 2017 to 2021, available in the Outcomes by Offence data tool (MS Excel Spreadsheet, 21 MB).

In this dataset, the age range for offenders 25 and over was not broken down further prior to 2017 – please refer to note 5 in the tables. Further breakdowns by age range are therefore not available before 2017. Where data is provided for 2012 to 2017, the 25 + age range is aggregated.

The data requested is provided in the attached tables.

Responses are collated from two different data sources. Please refer to the footnotes of the tables to understand the differences.

HL1598 and HL1599:

The Ministry of Justice publishes information on detailed sentence and custodial sentence length, in England and Wales, for the years 2017 to 2021 available, in the Outcomes by Offence data tool (MS Excel Spreadsheet, 21 MB).

In this dataset, the age range for offenders 25 and over was not broken down further prior to 2017 – please refer to note 5 in the tables. Further breakdowns by age range are therefore not available before 2017.

The data requested is provided in the attached tables. Please note that court data records length as the custodial period specified in the sentence.

HL1594 and HL1595:

Requested information can be found in the attached data tables.

The sentence length information is the Judicially Imposed Sentence Length (JISL) which reflects the custodial period plus time to be served on post-release Probation supervision.

Responses are collated from two different data sources. Please refer to the footnotes of the tables to understand the differences.

HL1598 and HL1599:

The Ministry of Justice publishes information on detailed sentence and custodial sentence length, in England and Wales, for the years 2017 to 2021 available, in the Outcomes by Offence data tool (MS Excel Spreadsheet, 21 MB).

In this dataset, the age range for offenders 25 and over was not broken down further prior to 2017 – please refer to note 5 in the tables. Further breakdowns by age range are therefore not available before 2017.

The data requested is provided in the attached tables. Please note that court data records length as the custodial period specified in the sentence.

HL1594 and HL1595:

Requested information can be found in the attached data tables.

The sentence length information is the Judicially Imposed Sentence Length (JISL) which reflects the custodial period plus time to be served on post-release Probation supervision.

Responses are collated from two different data sources. Please refer to the footnotes of the tables to understand the differences.

HL1598 and HL1599:

The Ministry of Justice publishes information on detailed sentence and custodial sentence length, in England and Wales, for the years 2017 to 2021 available, in the Outcomes by Offence data tool (MS Excel Spreadsheet, 21 MB).

In this dataset, the age range for offenders 25 and over was not broken down further prior to 2017 – please refer to note 5 in the tables. Further breakdowns by age range are therefore not available before 2017.

The data requested is provided in the attached tables. Please note that court data records length as the custodial period specified in the sentence.

HL1594 and HL1595:

Requested information can be found in the attached data tables.

The sentence length information is the Judicially Imposed Sentence Length (JISL) which reflects the custodial period plus time to be served on post-release Probation supervision.

The Ministry of Justice publishes information on detailed sentence and custodial sentence length, in England and Wales, for the years 2017 to 2021, available in the Outcomes by Offence data tool (MS Excel Spreadsheet, 21 MB).

In this dataset, the age range for offenders 25 and over was not broken down further prior to 2017 – please refer to note 5 in the tables. Further breakdowns by age range are therefore not available before 2017. Where data is provided for 2012 to 2017, the 25 + age range is aggregated.

The data requested is provided in the attached tables.

The Ministry of Justice publishes information on detailed sentence and custodial sentence length, in England and Wales, for the years 2017 to 2021, available in the Outcomes by Offence data tool (MS Excel Spreadsheet, 21 MB).

In this dataset, the age range for offenders 25 and over was not broken down further prior to 2017 – please refer to note 5 in the tables. Further breakdowns by age range are therefore not available before 2017. Where data is provided for 2012 to 2017, the 25 + age range is aggregated.

The data requested is provided in the attached tables.

Responses are collated from two different data sources. Please refer to the footnotes of the tables to understand the differences.

HL1598 and HL1599:

The Ministry of Justice publishes information on detailed sentence and custodial sentence length, in England and Wales, for the years 2017 to 2021 available, in the Outcomes by Offence data tool (MS Excel Spreadsheet, 21 MB).

In this dataset, the age range for offenders 25 and over was not broken down further prior to 2017 – please refer to note 5 in the tables. Further breakdowns by age range are therefore not available before 2017.

The data requested is provided in the attached tables. Please note that court data records length as the custodial period specified in the sentence.

HL1594 and HL1595:

Requested information can be found in the attached data tables.

The sentence length information is the Judicially Imposed Sentence Length (JISL) which reflects the custodial period plus time to be served on post-release Probation supervision.

The concept of top-tier parole cases being determined by independent panel members sitting alongside the Secretary of State is one of two options described in the Root and Branch Review for the future management of such cases. The alternative option is that following a Parole Board decision to release a top-tier case, the Secretary of State would have the power to review and refuse the decision on the basis that he does not agree with the Parole Board that the statutory release test is met – and that would be subject to an appeal to the Upper Tribunal.

We are not yet in a position to announce which of the two options the government will seek to include in the legislation that will be required to implement the parole reforms proposed in the Review. Further detail on how the preferred option will operate will be developed ahead of the introduction of the legislation and announced in due course.

The government considers that the proposals set out in the Root and Branch Review are compatible with the Human Rights Act and the UK’s obligations under the European Convention of Human Rights. The Government does not consider that it is required to produce an assessment of compatibility of its proposals in the review, as the Government's position is not to disclose the legal advice it receives. When the provisions of any Bill are brought forward to implement the proposals, the Government will comply with its obligations under section 19 of the Human Rights Act 1998.

The independent Parole Board take a holistic approach when assessing a prisoner’s risk for the purposes of considering whether to direct the prisoner’s release or recommend the prisoner’s transfer to open conditions. Where a prisoner has not completed a programme or other work specified in their sentence plan by the time of their next parole review, that does not constitute an insurmountable barrier to release or progression.

The Parole Oversight Group will bring together senior representatives of all parts of the parole system to ensure that it functions effectively and to identify any potential further improvements. Terms of Reference for the group, including how it will be constituted, will be drafted and agreed as part of wider plans to implement the findings of the Root and Branch Review. When doing so, we will consider the appropriateness of the Group’s activities and decision-making being made publicly available.

No individual prisoners submitted evidence to the Root and Branch Review of the Parole System. The Review was concerned with the operation of the parole system as a whole and sought evidence and views from representatives who have broad first-hand knowledge and expertise in prisoners’ experience of the parole process. This included HMPPS practitioners, prominent charities and legal representatives who work directly with prisoners going through the process. That evidence was used to identify the main issues for prisoners and how the system could be improved.

The Government did not produce a formal Equalities Statement or an Impact Assessment prior to publishing the Root and Branch Review but a detailed assessment of the equalities and other potential impacts of the proposals will be carried out as we develop the legislation that will be needed to implement the measures. An Equalities Statement and a full Impact Assessment will be prepared for publication when the legislation is introduced.

We consider that the proposed measures in the Root and Branch Review will not have significant equalities or safety impacts. The majority of prisoners going through the parole process will not be affected by the main proposals which are targeted at the top tier of the most serious cases. We consider those measures to be proportionate and justified by the need to enhance public protection when it comes to those who have committed the most serious offences and present the highest risk.

Absconds from prison have more than halved since 2010 and are extremely rare. All open prisons now have local Abscond Reduction Strategies in place to ensure that the risk of abscond is minimised and to share good practice around the Open Prison Estate.

Open prisons hold only prisoners who have been formally assessed as being suitable to hold in conditions of lower security. Following a decision by the Deputy Prime Minister last year, when it comes to the Parole Board recommending that indeterminate sentence prisoners be transferred to open conditions, there will now be greater Ministerial scrutiny.

Public protection is our top priority. When a prisoner absconds, the Police are immediately notified and are responsible for locating the offender. The majority of absconders are quickly recaptured and returned to custody.

This table shows the number of absconds for prisoners who were eligible for parole at the time they absconded.

Data has been drawn from large-scale IT systems and as with all such systems, is subject to errors with data entry and processing.

Table 1: Shows the number of ‘top tier’ offenders released by the Parole Board between 1 April 2015 and 31 March 2020 and supervised by probation providers in England and Wales, who were subsequently convicted of an SFO.

Table notes:

1. These conviction figures are provisional and subject to change as outstanding cases are completed.

2. Figures only include convictions for serious further offences that have been notified to the national SFO Team, HMPPS.

3. Figures include cases where the offender committed suicide or died prior to any trial, where the judicial process concluded that they were responsible.

4. Data Sources and Quality. The data have come from administrative IT systems which, as with some large-scale recording systems, are subject to possible errors with data entry and processing and may be amended as part of data cleansing or updates.

5. Figures are based on conviction data that was produced in September 2021.

6. Data is presented by year of release by the Parole Board and not by year of SFO conviction.

The Root and Branch Review of the parole system announced that the government proposes to introduce an additional layer of Ministerial oversight, based on a precautionary approach to public protection, when the top-tier of parole eligible offenders are being considered for release.

There are two circumstances where this Ministerial power to review cases could apply. First, where the Parole Board cannot confidently conclude that the release test has been met and decide to refer the case to the Secretary of State, all such cases will be referred to Ministers to review and make a decision about release.

Secondly, where the Parole Board directs the release of a top-tier offender, there would be a power for Ministers to review the case and refuse release if they consider the release test had not been satisfied. In these circumstances, HMPPS officials with relevant knowledge and skills, will on behalf of the Secretary of State, examine each decision in scope of the power to assess whether the particular characteristics require the case to be referred to Ministers.

Public concern surrounding the operation of the Parole system has been evidenced by reactions to a number of decisions by the Parole Board in recent years – including the decision in 2021 to release Colin Pitchfork and his subsequent recall to prison shortly afterwards – and these decisions have damaged confidence in the Parole system. The government considers that, where very serious and high-risk offenders are being assessed for release, it is necessary to introduce further scrutiny and safeguards in the decision-making process to make sure that such prisoners are not released if they continue to present a threat to the public.

With regard to the statutory release test, our intention is not to replace the current test, but instead to clarify what is meant by “necessary for the protection of the public”, with a greater emphasis on being satisfied that the public would not be put at risk. In addition, a list of criteria the Board is required to take into account will be included in the release test; that proposed list was set out in the Root and Branch Review.

The Root and Branch Review is attached.

The Root and Branch Review proposes to increase the number of Parole Board members who have experience in ‘law enforcement’, and mandate that members with this experience sit on panels who review offenders in the ‘top-tier’ of cases. The scope of what is meant by "law enforcement" will encompass those from a police background but is also likely to include those who have worked in other law enforcement agencies.

Alongside the Root and Branch Review, the government published historic release data for the top-tier cohort of parole cases. This can be found in the accompanying attachment.

The data shows the number of parole reviews completed for top-tier cases since 2016/17 broken down by offence type and how many of the completed reviews resulted in a release decision. This can be summarised as follows:

It is anticipated that release decisions in top-tier cases are the most likely cases to be caught by the new powers for ministerial oversight. The data illustrates that the new policies will apply to a small percentage of the Parole Board’s overall caseload.

National data on all prisoner enrolments (starts) and completions in prison-delivered accredited Offending Behaviour Programmes (OBPs) are collected and published annually and published as part of the HM Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) Annual Digest, but this does not provide further break-down by sentence type.

The table attached provides the number of indeterminate sentenced prisoners serving an Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) sentence who enrolled on and completed accredited OBPs, in each financial year since 2017. Changes to accredited programme delivery were implemented in response to the threat of COVID-19, with programmes affected throughout 2020/21. This resulted in far fewer starts and completions compared with those in previous years. During the period covered the numbers serving an Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) sentence also fell.

Whilst the number of places available has decreased, IPP prisoners have remained a priority for spaces.

The Government’s primary responsibility is to protect the public. Accredited programmes aim to protect the public and reduce reoffending and are part of a range of rehabilitation and risk reduction opportunities available. HMPPS remains committed to supporting the progression of those serving IPP sentences in custody, so that the Parole Board may direct their release, or as the case may be, re-release, as soon as it is safe to do so.

We do not hold data on the numbers of prisoners with sentences of Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) on a waiting list to begin an accredited offending behaviour programme (OBP) prior to late 2020. New data collection systems were established in response to the pandemic to aid future recovery planning for OBPs.

This table below shows the number of IPP prisoners waiting to commence an accredited general or sexual offending programme based on information gathered from prisons which run the courses. The information has been drawn from local records and, as with any large-scale reporting tool, may be subject to inaccuracies as well as subject to change.

The Government’s primary responsibility is to protect the public. Accredited programmes aim to protect the public and reduce reoffending and are part of a range of rehabilitation and risk reduction opportunities available. HM Prison and Probation Service remains committed to supporting the progression of those serving IPP sentences in custody, so that the Parole Board may direct their release, or as the case may be, re-release, as soon as it is safe to do so.

National data on all prisoner enrolments (starts) and completions in prison-delivered accredited offending behaviour programmes (OBPs) are collected and published annually and published as part of HM Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) Annual Digest, but this does not provide further break-down by progression through the estate or by sentence type.

The table attached provides the average number of accredited offending behaviour programmes completed by prisoners subject to Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) sentences prior to being transferred to open conditions, and ahead of release, in each financial year since 2017. No transfers to open conditions in 2020/21 involved individuals who had completed an accredited programme, hence no number is recorded.

The Government’s primary responsibility is to protect the public. Accredited programmes aim to protect the public and reduce reoffending and are part of a range of rehabilitation and risk reduction opportunities available. HMPPS remains committed to supporting the progression of those serving IPP sentences in custody, so that the Parole Board may direct their release, or as the case may be, re-release, as soon as it is safe to do so.

The requested information is not held centrally and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

The Government’s primary responsibility is to protect the public. Accredited programmes aim to protect the public and reduce reoffending and are part of a range of rehabilitation and risk reduction opportunities available. HM Prison and Probation Service remains committed to supporting the progression of those serving IPP sentences in custody, so that the Parole Board may direct their release, or as the case may be, re-release, as soon as it is safe to do so.

The IPP Action Plan is regularly reviewed to ensure that it is responsive to the needs of those serving IPP sentences, whether in prison or in the community. During the COVID-19 pandemic, and in accordance with measures mandated in the interests of public health, HM Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) implemented exceptional delivery models which inevitably had some impact on all operational work. A large number of IPP prisoners have been released each year since the IPP Action Plan first introduced in 2016, and the Plan will be refreshed, reviewed and republished after careful consideration of the forthcoming Justice Select Committee’s Report and recommendations.

A progression unit for prisoners serving IPP sentences with a conviction for a sexual offence has been open at HMP Littlehey for the last three years. The unit provides an environment where prisoners feel safe and receive support to focus on their progression. As with the other workstreams within the IPP action plan, HMPPS will review the progress of the unit this year, which will also take account of any relevant aspects of the report and recommendations of the Justice Select Committee.

HMPPS continue to engage with senior managers in prisons run under contract, to ensure that the IPP Action Plan initiatives are reflected in their delivery plans. For example, each contracted site has an IPP single point of contact for Psychology Services.

The IPP Action Plan is regularly reviewed to ensure that it is responsive to the needs of those serving IPP sentences, whether in prison or in the community. During the COVID-19 pandemic, and in accordance with measures mandated in the interests of public health, HM Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) implemented exceptional delivery models which inevitably had some impact on all operational work. A large number of IPP prisoners have been released each year since the IPP Action Plan first introduced in 2016, and the Plan will be refreshed, reviewed and republished after careful consideration of the forthcoming Justice Select Committee’s Report and recommendations.

A progression unit for prisoners serving IPP sentences with a conviction for a sexual offence has been open at HMP Littlehey for the last three years. The unit provides an environment where prisoners feel safe and receive support to focus on their progression. As with the other workstreams within the IPP action plan, HMPPS will review the progress of the unit this year, which will also take account of any relevant aspects of the report and recommendations of the Justice Select Committee.

HMPPS continue to engage with senior managers in prisons run under contract, to ensure that the IPP Action Plan initiatives are reflected in their delivery plans. For example, each contracted site has an IPP single point of contact for Psychology Services.

The Government is considering what improvements can be made to the settlement left by the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. Our constitution is always evolving, and it is entirely proper, sixteen years on from the Act, to examine that settlement in the round and to take stock of subsequent debate and of continuing interest in both Houses.

The Lord Chancellor has said that he places great importance on taking an open and consultative approach to any proposals for reform, and the Government will make its plans known in due course.

The Government is considering what improvements can be made to the settlement left by the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. Our constitution is always evolving, and it is entirely proper, sixteen years on from the Act, to examine that settlement in the round and to take stock of subsequent debate and of continuing interest in both Houses.

The Lord Chancellor has said that he places great importance on taking an open and consultative approach to any proposals for reform, and the Government will make its plans known in due course.

Prior to the March lockdown there were over 450 Crown Court rooms available for use. Jury trials were paused on 23rd March. Since then we have undertaken reconfiguration of our estate to comply with social distancing measures.

The availability of rooms fluctuates day by day, but as of the end of December 2020 we had over 290 Crown Court rooms available for Jury trials across the existing HMCTS estate, plus 120 rooms available for non-jury trial business. This comprises more than 80% of the total conventional Crown Court estate. In addition, we have 13 Jury rooms from Nightingale venues, which provide a total of 40 rooms overall across the estate. There are circa 80 Crown Court rooms not currently in use for hearings for a variety of reasons, including use as overspill accommodation in multi-hander (i.e. multi-defendant) trials to facilitate use of operational courtrooms, unsuitability for socially distanced hearings or to allow for continued maintenance.

Each Crown Court will, at times, have unused court rooms as utilisation of rooms is dependent upon a number of factors which include listing practices, availability of parties and trial outcomes.

This Government is doing everything possible to respond to the challenge of COVID-19, and the impact it has had on the justice system. We are working hard to deliver additional capacity through Nightingale Courts with an aim to have a total of 60 such courtrooms open by the end of March 2021.