Asked by: Baroness Berridge (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government why they did not support Juror Appreciation Week in 2026.
Answered by Lord Lemos - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
The Government values the contribution of jurors throughout the year.
Since the ‘Juror Appreciation Week’ initiative was launched in 2024, the Government has supported awareness-raising across a range of channels, including social media, blogs and other digital content, which has seen strong public engagement with the materials we have shared.
In 2026, we supported Juror Appreciation Week through communications recognising the contribution of jurors and promoting information about jury service and the support available to jurors. This included a student myth-busting video, a social media poll, a podcast on jury service, juror information content and publication of the evaluation of the Enhanced Support for Jurors pilot.
More widely, the Government remains committed to recognising the important contribution made by jurors and continues to promote awareness of jury service and juror support through its wider communications and operational activity.
Asked by: Baroness Berridge (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made the effectiveness of the Juror Appreciation Week initiative in boosting recognition of jurors.
Answered by Lord Lemos - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
The Government values the contribution of jurors throughout the year.
Since the ‘Juror Appreciation Week’ initiative was launched in 2024, the Government has supported awareness-raising across a range of channels, including social media, blogs and other digital content, which has seen strong public engagement with the materials we have shared.
In 2026, we supported Juror Appreciation Week through communications recognising the contribution of jurors and promoting information about jury service and the support available to jurors. This included a student myth-busting video, a social media poll, a podcast on jury service, juror information content and publication of the evaluation of the Enhanced Support for Jurors pilot.
More widely, the Government remains committed to recognising the important contribution made by jurors and continues to promote awareness of jury service and juror support through its wider communications and operational activity.
Asked by: Baroness Berridge (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the support to jurors provided by Samaritans between 2022 and 2025.
Answered by Lord Lemos - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
Jury service is an important civic duty, and the Government is committed to ensuring jurors feel supported throughout their service. The Government did not undertake a specific assessment of the support provided to jurors by Samaritans between 2022 and 2025. During this period, jurors experiencing distress were signpost by HMCTS to Samaritans’, alongside support available through their GP.
Asked by: Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government what the proven reoffending rate for prisoners released on licence from indeterminate sentences for public protection was across all periods for which data is held.
Answered by Lord Lemos - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
On 1 September, the Lord Chancellor announced that the Government will bring an end to the sentence of imprisonment for public protection for those who continue to serve it and will bring forward legislation to do this by the end of this Parliament. These are complex cases, involving important public protection and victim considerations. Reform will take time to get right.
The Ministry of Justice publishes data on adult proven reoffending as part of its regular Proven Reoffending Statistics. These statistics are broken down by custodial sentence length and include offenders serving Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) sentences.
The proven reoffending rate for offenders released from custody between July to September 2024 from IPP sentences was 3.3%.
Annual average figures for the proven reoffending rate for IPP offenders released from custody, from April 2012 onwards, have been provided in the table below.
Time period | Proportion of offenders who reoffend (%) |
April 2012 – March 2013 | 15.1 |
April 2013 – March 2014 | 12.7 |
April 2014 – March 2015 | 11.9 |
April 2015 – March 2016 | 14.6 |
April 2016 – March 2017 | 15.0 |
April 2017 – March 2018 | 15.8 |
April 2018 – March 2019 | 12.5 |
April 2019 – March 2020 | 9.2 |
April 2020 – March 2021 | 5.4 |
April 2021 – March 2022 | 8.4 |
April 2022 – March 2023 | 6.3 |
April 2023 – March 2024 | 9.1 |
(1) These figures have been derived from administrative IT systems which, as with any large-scale recording system, are subject to possible errors with data entry and processing.
(2) Proven reoffences are measured across a one year follow-up period, and a further 6 month waiting period to allow for offences to progress through court.
(3) Annual figures are calculated by adding up the number of offenders in the cohort, and the number of reoffenders in the four preceding 3-month offender cohorts.
(4) A certain proportion of offenders who could not be matched to the Police National Computer (PNC) are excluded from the offender cohort. Therefore, these numbers do not represent all proven offenders
(5) Data regarding offenders released from indeterminate sentences up to September 2015 are extracted from the Public Protection Unit Database (PPUD). Data regarding offenders released from indeterminate sentences from October 2015 onwards are extracted from nDelius.
(6) Caution should be used when comparing rates between different years or quarters. The size of the underlying cohort of IPP releases has been falling in recent years and quarters, making the figures more volatile. For example, the number of IPP releases in the cohort in 2023/24 was 176, in comparison to 595 in 2017/18.
(7) Cohorts from 2018/19 onwards are affected by either the Covid-19 pandemic and related lockdowns or operational restrictions, or the continued recovery of the courts system post the pandemic. Additionally, more recent cohorts may have been impacted by policy changes such as Probation Reset. It is not possible to separate out any individual policy changes on the overall rates.
The next publication is scheduled for 29 October 2026.
Asked by: Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government when they expect to publish the proven reoffending rate for prisoners released on licence from indeterminate sentences for public protection.
Answered by Lord Lemos - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
On 1 September, the Lord Chancellor announced that the Government will bring an end to the sentence of imprisonment for public protection for those who continue to serve it and will bring forward legislation to do this by the end of this Parliament. These are complex cases, involving important public protection and victim considerations. Reform will take time to get right.
The Ministry of Justice publishes data on adult proven reoffending as part of its regular Proven Reoffending Statistics. These statistics are broken down by custodial sentence length and include offenders serving Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) sentences.
The proven reoffending rate for offenders released from custody between July to September 2024 from IPP sentences was 3.3%.
Annual average figures for the proven reoffending rate for IPP offenders released from custody, from April 2012 onwards, have been provided in the table below.
Time period | Proportion of offenders who reoffend (%) |
April 2012 – March 2013 | 15.1 |
April 2013 – March 2014 | 12.7 |
April 2014 – March 2015 | 11.9 |
April 2015 – March 2016 | 14.6 |
April 2016 – March 2017 | 15.0 |
April 2017 – March 2018 | 15.8 |
April 2018 – March 2019 | 12.5 |
April 2019 – March 2020 | 9.2 |
April 2020 – March 2021 | 5.4 |
April 2021 – March 2022 | 8.4 |
April 2022 – March 2023 | 6.3 |
April 2023 – March 2024 | 9.1 |
(1) These figures have been derived from administrative IT systems which, as with any large-scale recording system, are subject to possible errors with data entry and processing.
(2) Proven reoffences are measured across a one year follow-up period, and a further 6 month waiting period to allow for offences to progress through court.
(3) Annual figures are calculated by adding up the number of offenders in the cohort, and the number of reoffenders in the four preceding 3-month offender cohorts.
(4) A certain proportion of offenders who could not be matched to the Police National Computer (PNC) are excluded from the offender cohort. Therefore, these numbers do not represent all proven offenders
(5) Data regarding offenders released from indeterminate sentences up to September 2015 are extracted from the Public Protection Unit Database (PPUD). Data regarding offenders released from indeterminate sentences from October 2015 onwards are extracted from nDelius.
(6) Caution should be used when comparing rates between different years or quarters. The size of the underlying cohort of IPP releases has been falling in recent years and quarters, making the figures more volatile. For example, the number of IPP releases in the cohort in 2023/24 was 176, in comparison to 595 in 2017/18.
(7) Cohorts from 2018/19 onwards are affected by either the Covid-19 pandemic and related lockdowns or operational restrictions, or the continued recovery of the courts system post the pandemic. Additionally, more recent cohorts may have been impacted by policy changes such as Probation Reset. It is not possible to separate out any individual policy changes on the overall rates.
The next publication is scheduled for 29 October 2026.
Asked by: Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government what the reoffending rate for prisoners released on licence from indeterminate sentences for public protection was from July to September 2024.
Answered by Lord Lemos - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
On 1 September, the Lord Chancellor announced that the Government will bring an end to the sentence of imprisonment for public protection for those who continue to serve it and will bring forward legislation to do this by the end of this Parliament. These are complex cases, involving important public protection and victim considerations. Reform will take time to get right.
The Ministry of Justice publishes data on adult proven reoffending as part of its regular Proven Reoffending Statistics. These statistics are broken down by custodial sentence length and include offenders serving Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) sentences.
The proven reoffending rate for offenders released from custody between July to September 2024 from IPP sentences was 3.3%.
Annual average figures for the proven reoffending rate for IPP offenders released from custody, from April 2012 onwards, have been provided in the table below.
Time period | Proportion of offenders who reoffend (%) |
April 2012 – March 2013 | 15.1 |
April 2013 – March 2014 | 12.7 |
April 2014 – March 2015 | 11.9 |
April 2015 – March 2016 | 14.6 |
April 2016 – March 2017 | 15.0 |
April 2017 – March 2018 | 15.8 |
April 2018 – March 2019 | 12.5 |
April 2019 – March 2020 | 9.2 |
April 2020 – March 2021 | 5.4 |
April 2021 – March 2022 | 8.4 |
April 2022 – March 2023 | 6.3 |
April 2023 – March 2024 | 9.1 |
(1) These figures have been derived from administrative IT systems which, as with any large-scale recording system, are subject to possible errors with data entry and processing.
(2) Proven reoffences are measured across a one year follow-up period, and a further 6 month waiting period to allow for offences to progress through court.
(3) Annual figures are calculated by adding up the number of offenders in the cohort, and the number of reoffenders in the four preceding 3-month offender cohorts.
(4) A certain proportion of offenders who could not be matched to the Police National Computer (PNC) are excluded from the offender cohort. Therefore, these numbers do not represent all proven offenders
(5) Data regarding offenders released from indeterminate sentences up to September 2015 are extracted from the Public Protection Unit Database (PPUD). Data regarding offenders released from indeterminate sentences from October 2015 onwards are extracted from nDelius.
(6) Caution should be used when comparing rates between different years or quarters. The size of the underlying cohort of IPP releases has been falling in recent years and quarters, making the figures more volatile. For example, the number of IPP releases in the cohort in 2023/24 was 176, in comparison to 595 in 2017/18.
(7) Cohorts from 2018/19 onwards are affected by either the Covid-19 pandemic and related lockdowns or operational restrictions, or the continued recovery of the courts system post the pandemic. Additionally, more recent cohorts may have been impacted by policy changes such as Probation Reset. It is not possible to separate out any individual policy changes on the overall rates.
The next publication is scheduled for 29 October 2026.
Asked by: Baroness Bertin (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government how many offences relating to online fantasy discussions depicting serious violence and child sexual abuse have been successfully prosecuted under the Obscene Publications Act 1959 and the Communications Act 2003 in the last ten years.
Answered by Lord Lemos - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
Online discussions about violence and child sexual abuse (including fantasies) can be prosecuted under different criminal offences, including the Obscene Publications Act 1959. Offences under the Communications Act 2003 are also available. Decisions on whether to prosecute are for the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), which is independent of government and makes such decisions on a case-by-case basis. However, the Government recognises concerns about this issue, and continues to keep the criminal law, including the law on child sexual abuse, under review.
The Ministry of Justice publishes information on prosecutions for a wide range of offences including prosecutions under the Obscene Publications Act 1959 and the Communications Act 2003 in the Outcomes by Offence data tool, that can be downloaded from the Criminal Justice Statistics landing page here: Criminal justice statistics quarterly - GOV.UK
Data held centrally does not record information relating to the circumstances of the offending including whether offences originated from "online fantasy discussions depicting serious violence and child sexual abuse”.
Asked by: Baroness Bertin (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the effectiveness of the current criminal law in prosecutions relating to online fantasy discussions depicting serious violence and child sexual abuse.
Answered by Lord Lemos - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
Online discussions about violence and child sexual abuse (including fantasies) can be prosecuted under different criminal offences, including the Obscene Publications Act 1959. Offences under the Communications Act 2003 are also available. Decisions on whether to prosecute are for the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), which is independent of government and makes such decisions on a case-by-case basis. However, the Government recognises concerns about this issue, and continues to keep the criminal law, including the law on child sexual abuse, under review.
The Ministry of Justice publishes information on prosecutions for a wide range of offences including prosecutions under the Obscene Publications Act 1959 and the Communications Act 2003 in the Outcomes by Offence data tool, that can be downloaded from the Criminal Justice Statistics landing page here: Criminal justice statistics quarterly - GOV.UK
Data held centrally does not record information relating to the circumstances of the offending including whether offences originated from "online fantasy discussions depicting serious violence and child sexual abuse”.
Asked by: Lord Bishop of Chester (Bishops - Bishops)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of recent aggression faced by RNLI volunteers; and what plans they have to support those who serve on lifeboats, particularly in light of their inclusion in the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018 as search and rescue personnel.
Answered by Lord Lemos - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
This Government values the vital work of emergency service workers and has taken action to strengthen protections and underline the seriousness of offences committed against them. That is why the law on assaults against emergency workers, including RNLI personnel, and the associated penalties are kept under regular review.
Volunteers for organisations like the RNLI and HM Coastguard provide a vital service, often in the most challenging circumstances, and there is no place for abuse, intimidation or threats – whether in person or online. The RNLI and HM Coastguard are currently reviewing their security procedures and have put in place enhanced welfare arrangements.
Asked by: Lord Smith of Finsbury (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government how they reconcile their support for the withdrawal of UK judges from Hong Kong's Court of Final Appeal on human rights grounds with the continued participation of UK judges in appeals concerning colonial-era laws that ham the rights and dignity of LGBTQ+ people in Caribbean countries.
Answered by Lord Lemos - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC) is an independent court which serves as the final court of appeal for jurisdictions that have chosen to retain it in this role.
The circumstances of the JCPC are different from those which led serving UK judges to cease sitting on Hong Kong’s Court of Final Appeal.
The Government does not regard the participation of UK judges in JCPC cases as an endorsement of the laws which form the subject of proceedings. The role of the court is to determine the legal disputes brought before it independently and in accordance with the law of the relevant jurisdiction.