Asked by: Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they consider (1) the European Court of Human Rights, and (2) the International Criminal Court, to be foreign courts.
Answered by Baroness Levitt - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and International Criminal Court (ICC) are international courts based respectively in France and the Netherlands. The UK is a State Party to both the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the Rome Statute, the international treaties which established the ECtHR and ICC respectively. It is also a founding member of both instruments.
The Human Rights Act 1998 and the ICC Act 2001 give effect to the UK's obligations under the ECHR and Rome Statute. We respect the independence of both courts.
Asked by: Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to defend the integrity of airspace above the prison estate from drone incursions which facilitate the delivery of illicit materials to prisoners.
Answered by Lord Timpson - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) is working hard to deter, detect and disrupt the use of illegal drones to deliver contraband into prisons.
Restricted Fly Zones have been introduced around all closed prisons and young offender institutions. These restrictions make all unauthorised drone incursions a crime and support police and prison collaboration to disrupt illegal drone use. Those using drones to smuggle illicit items which drive violence and criminality in custody may face up to a decade behind bars.
This year, we are investing over £40 million in physical security across 34 prisons.
Whilst we cannot share our counter drone tactics, as that would aid sophisticated serious and organised criminals, HMPPS uses suitable technology, alongside physical countermeasures and intelligence tools, with the support of Law Enforcement Agencies, to disrupt those who use drones. We are also working with UK and global partners to understand the tactics used abroad and identify opportunities to strengthen our response to illicit drone activity.
Asked by: Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government how many times the defence of reasonable chastisement has been raised in English courts since 2015; and whether it has led to any acquittals.
Answered by Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede
The information requested is not held centrally.
Asked by: Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government, following the decision of the Supreme Court in Abbasi and another v Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2025] [UKSC 15] on 16 April, what discussions they have had with the Lady Chief Justice of England and Wales and other senior jurists about the use of lifelong anonymity orders and gagging orders in the Family Court under Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights.
Answered by Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede
The Government extends its deepest sympathies to parents and families affected by these difficult circumstances.
At this stage, no formal discussions have taken place with the Lady Chief Justice or other senior jurists. While we will not comment on decisions made by the independent judiciary, we accept the need for greater transparency in family courts while also – where appropriate - protecting the identities of the children and families involved.
Asked by: Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the impact of the new guidance published by the Sentencing Council on public confidence in the criminal justice system.
Answered by Lord Timpson - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
This Government’s position is clear – we are seeking to remove the unequal treatment before the law in these guidelines.
We asked the Council to reconsider their guidelines in the first instance – and they have now agreed to put these guidelines on pause. We are grateful for their constructive engagement on this issue.
On 01 April, we introduced legislation to address the specific issue with these guidelines and we will work with the House to fast-track it.
We will also consider a broader review of the Sentencing Council’s role and powers over the coming months. It is right that we take time to consider more fundamental reforms such as this.
Asked by: Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government when they intend to next discuss sentencing guidelines with the Sentencing Council.
Answered by Lord Timpson - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The Lord Chancellor recently met with the Chairman of the Sentencing Council to discuss the Imposition guideline, and they had a constructive discussion. It was agreed that the Lord Chancellor would set out her position in writing, which the Sentencing Council will then consider before the guideline is due to come into effect.
Ministers will meet with Sentencing Council as needed for continued engagement.
Asked by: Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to address barriers to marriage faced by lower income couples following the publication of new research by the Marriage Foundation.
Answered by Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede
The Law Commission’s 2022 report on weddings law made 57 recommendations for the reform of weddings law and set out its view that its recommendations would provide greater choice for couples, lowering the cost of weddings and making them more accessible to all.
Marriage will always be one of our most important institutions. That is why we are carefully considering the Law Commission’s report and have a duty to take the time to consider these important issues. We will set out our position on weddings reform in the coming months.
Asked by: Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to protect the safety and security of the judiciary in the normal course of their duties in family and other court settings.
Answered by Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede
Judicial security is paramount in enabling our independent judges to carry out their vital work freely and impartially. There are robust court security and safety systems in place to protect the judiciary and all court users from individuals and groups threatening violence or aggression. HMCTS has reviewed and refreshed physical security measures over the past year in partnership with the judiciary and is participating in the Security Taskforce newly created by the Lady Chief Justice.
These include controls to detect and prevent such threats. Specific measures include CCTV, alarms and access control systems. Court users are also subject to a security search on entry to detect and confiscate potential weapons, with Court Security Officers exercising powers to exclude, restrain and remove individuals or groups threatening violence.
These arrangements are continuously reviewed to ensure security is as effective as reasonably practicable. Throughout the upcoming financial year, the Government is investing an additional £22 million to deliver a programme of measures to further strengthen court and hearing room security arrangements. These include providing additional Court Security Officers and physical security systems to further reduce risks.
Asked by: Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to ensure taxpayer value for money in respect of the work of the Independent Monitoring Authority.
Answered by Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede
As a Non-Departmental Public Body sponsored by the Ministry of Justice, the Department has a responsibility to ensure the Independent Monitoring Authority (IMA) makes effective and efficient use of public funds, whilst also ensuring the IMA’s operational independence is protected, including its ability to make impartial assessments when exercising its functions, and that it is appropriately funded to do so. The IMA’s current level of funding is deemed to be appropriate, however will be reviewed, alongside all the Department’s public bodies, as part of the Department’s settlement at spending review 2025.
Asked by: Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they plan to implement the proposal of the Law Commission in its Celebrating Marriage: A New Weddings Law, published on 18 July 2022 (HC 557), to place regulatory conditions on the officiant rather than the location in which the wedding takes place.
Answered by Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede
The Law Commission’s 2022 report on weddings law made 57 recommendations for the wholesale reform of weddings law, including recommendations for an officiant-based weddings model. This would shift the focus of regulation from the building or venue where the wedding takes place to the officiant. The Law Commission set out its view that its recommendations would provide greater choice for couples in deciding how and where they get married, and the form and content of the ceremony.
I am sure you will agree that marriage will always be one of our most important institutions, and we have a duty to consider any changes to the law carefully. As a new Government, we need time to consider this issue, and we will set out our position on weddings reform in the coming months.