Asked by: Alberto Costa (Conservative - South Leicestershire)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment his Department has made of the effectiveness of the Our Family Wizard mobile application in facilitating mediation in child custody disputes.
Answered by Mike Freer - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
The Ministry of Justice has not made a specific assessment of the effectiveness of the Our Family Wizard mobile application in supporting mediation, but we are aware that it is one of a number of digital applications that may support parents to effectively co-parent their children post-separation.
The Government is currently consulting on how we can best support families resolve their disputes outside of court, which can be found at: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/supporting-earlier-resolution-of-private-family-law-arrangements. Specific feedback is being sought on the role that online tools can play in supporting separating parents.
Asked by: Alberto Costa (Conservative - South Leicestershire)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment his Department has made of the potential merits of giving extended sentencing powers for magistrates on a permanent basis.
Answered by Mike Freer - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
The Government has always been clear that we needed flexibility to vary Magistrates’ Court Sentencing Powers, and that is why it took the power to do so last year in the Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022.
Since extending Magistrates’ Court Sentencing Powers in May 2022, we have been monitoring data to identify the impacts of the policy change, including increases in election and appeal rates.
We are currently experiencing downstream pressures in the criminal justice system, as manifested in Operation Safeguard, and it is important that the government ensures a cohesive cross-system response to this growing pressure. Whilst the increase to magistrates’ court sentencing powers is not the only factor behind this pressure, and our data on the impact is still limited, we believe it is safest to temporarily reduce magistrates’ court sentencing powers to 6 months so that the Crown Court retains power over decisions in respect of longer sentences.
It is nearly one year on from the implementation of the extended powers, and this pause gives us time to review the measure, taking into account how it is being used and assessing relevant data across the criminal justice system, with a view to reinstating the powers should this be supported by the evidence.
This change is no reflection on the magistracy or their use of the extended powers: the Government places immense value on the continuing and outstanding contribution of Magistrates to the justice system.
Asked by: Alberto Costa (Conservative - South Leicestershire)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment his Department has made of the effectiveness of the extended sentencing powers for Magistrates.
Answered by Mike Freer - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
The Government has always been clear that we needed flexibility to vary Magistrates’ Court Sentencing Powers, and that is why it took the power to do so last year in the Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022.
Since extending Magistrates’ Court Sentencing Powers in May 2022, we have been monitoring data to identify the impacts of the policy change, including increases in election and appeal rates.
We are currently experiencing downstream pressures in the criminal justice system, as manifested in Operation Safeguard, and it is important that the government ensures a cohesive cross-system response to this growing pressure. Whilst the increase to magistrates’ court sentencing powers is not the only factor behind this pressure, and our data on the impact is still limited, we believe it is safest to temporarily reduce magistrates’ court sentencing powers to 6 months so that the Crown Court retains power over decisions in respect of longer sentences.
It is nearly one year on from the implementation of the extended powers, and this pause gives us time to review the measure, taking into account how it is being used and assessing relevant data across the criminal justice system, with a view to reinstating the powers should this be supported by the evidence.
This change is no reflection on the magistracy or their use of the extended powers: the Government places immense value on the continuing and outstanding contribution of Magistrates to the justice system.
Asked by: Alberto Costa (Conservative - South Leicestershire)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the adequacy of processing times for the determination of applications requesting public parole hearings.
Answered by Damian Hinds - Minister of State (Education)
The Parole Board (Amendment) Rules 2022 Statutory Instrument contains the provisions that enable public parole hearings. Specifically, the rules provide that hearings must be held in private unless it is in the interests of justice that they be held in public. Applications can be made by anyone no later than 12 weeks before a hearing and the decision whether to grant an application rests with the Chair of the Parole Board.
I cannot confirm the exact number of applications for public parole hearings because applications are submitted directly to the Parole Board. The department is only made aware of an application when the Parole Board asks for the Secretary of State’s representations in his role as a party to the parole process. The representations enable the Secretary of State to provide his views on the prospect of a public hearing, including the views of any victims.
As the decision on whether to hold a public hearing properly sits with the Chair of the Board, the department has not produced any guidelines on the determination of applications, nor have we prescribed any timescales in which decisions should be made. The Parole Board has published extensive guidance on its approach to public hearings on its website: Applying for a Parole review to be public - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk).
Asked by: Alberto Costa (Conservative - South Leicestershire)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what guidelines his Department has in place for the Parole Board for the determination of public parole hearings.
Answered by Damian Hinds - Minister of State (Education)
The Parole Board (Amendment) Rules 2022 Statutory Instrument contains the provisions that enable public parole hearings. Specifically, the rules provide that hearings must be held in private unless it is in the interests of justice that they be held in public. Applications can be made by anyone no later than 12 weeks before a hearing and the decision whether to grant an application rests with the Chair of the Parole Board.
I cannot confirm the exact number of applications for public parole hearings because applications are submitted directly to the Parole Board. The department is only made aware of an application when the Parole Board asks for the Secretary of State’s representations in his role as a party to the parole process. The representations enable the Secretary of State to provide his views on the prospect of a public hearing, including the views of any victims.
As the decision on whether to hold a public hearing properly sits with the Chair of the Board, the department has not produced any guidelines on the determination of applications, nor have we prescribed any timescales in which decisions should be made. The Parole Board has published extensive guidance on its approach to public hearings on its website: Applying for a Parole review to be public - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk).
Asked by: Alberto Costa (Conservative - South Leicestershire)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many applications have been made to the Parole Board to request public parole hearings as of 27 February 2023.
Answered by Damian Hinds - Minister of State (Education)
The Parole Board (Amendment) Rules 2022 Statutory Instrument contains the provisions that enable public parole hearings. Specifically, the rules provide that hearings must be held in private unless it is in the interests of justice that they be held in public. Applications can be made by anyone no later than 12 weeks before a hearing and the decision whether to grant an application rests with the Chair of the Parole Board.
I cannot confirm the exact number of applications for public parole hearings because applications are submitted directly to the Parole Board. The department is only made aware of an application when the Parole Board asks for the Secretary of State’s representations in his role as a party to the parole process. The representations enable the Secretary of State to provide his views on the prospect of a public hearing, including the views of any victims.
As the decision on whether to hold a public hearing properly sits with the Chair of the Board, the department has not produced any guidelines on the determination of applications, nor have we prescribed any timescales in which decisions should be made. The Parole Board has published extensive guidance on its approach to public hearings on its website: Applying for a Parole review to be public - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk).
Asked by: Alberto Costa (Conservative - South Leicestershire)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if his Department will make an assessment of the potential merits of including (a) affray, (b) wounding, (c) actual bodily harm and (d) possession of an offensive weapon under the Unduly Lenient Sentence Scheme.
Answered by Edward Argar - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The Government keeps the scope of the Unduly Lenient Sentence Scheme under consideration and understands that a case may be made for additional offences to be included within the scheme. We will listen to any representations made to this effect.
As a general rule, it is right that there is finality to sentencing. That is why Parliament intended for this to be an exceptional power reserved for the most serious cases, including all indictable-only offences, and certain triable either-way offences such as some terrorism offences and child sex offences.
Asked by: Alberto Costa (Conservative - South Leicestershire)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment his Department has made of the affordability of court transcription services.
Answered by Mike Freer - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
The MoJ is required, under the public procurement regulations 2015, to publicly compete all opportunities for contract. This process helps the MoJ drive value for money through competition for these contracts from a healthy and established transcription industry. Our internal governance process help ensure that value for money is a key factor in how we procure and select our suppliers. We are confident that the rates being currently charged are in line with wider market rates.
The services are currently being reprocured due to existing contracts coming to expiry.
Asked by: Alberto Costa (Conservative - South Leicestershire)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment his Department has made of the potential merits of using automatic speech recognition technology for courtroom transcriptions.
Answered by Mike Freer - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
Transcription services for MoJ are currently being re-procured and as part of the re-procurement strategy, MoJ did consider whether full automation would be an option.
The MoJ recognises that there are potential merits to using automated technology for courtroom transcriptions, including a potential reduction in the time it takes to produce a transcription and comparative value for money.
However, the first consideration is that transcriptions must achieve very high levels of accuracy (99.5%) to ensure the justice system can operate fairly and effectively.
The assessment by MoJ has concluded that even software with learning capability, cannot yet reliably meet the accuracy requirements for the service without human intervention.
Asked by: Alberto Costa (Conservative - South Leicestershire)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether his Department has plans to increase the retirement age for magistrates.
Answered by Chris Philp - Minister of State (Home Office)
On 8 March, we published the government response to the Judicial Mandatory Retirement Age Consultation, which sets out our intention to legislate, when parliamentary time allows, to increase the mandatory retirement age of judicial office holders, including magistrates, to 75. The legislation will include a transitional provision to enable retired magistrates who are younger than the new MRA to apply to return to the bench subject to business need. The process by which such applications are to be made and considered will be set out in due course.