Asked by: Neil O'Brien (Conservative - Harborough, Oadby and Wigston)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many people who were (a) convicted and (b) cautioned for an indictable offence did not receive an immediate custodial sentence and had (i) one, (ii) two, (iii) three, (iv) four and (iv) five or more prior convictions for a violent offence in each of the last five years.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
The information requested is provided in the attached excel table. This table includes data covering the period 2020 – 2024 on:
The number of offenders who were a) convicted and b) cautioned for an indictable offence who did not receive an immediate custodial sentence by number of previous indictable convictions for specified offences, and
The number of offenders who were convicted or cautioned for an indictable offence who did not receive an immediate custodial sentence by number of previous indictable convictions for specified offences.
This data is not regularly published or held in an easily accessible format. The information supplied has been sourced from a bespoke retrieval from the Police National Computer database.
Sentencing in individual cases is a matter for the independent judiciary. When deciding what sentence to impose, courts must consider the circumstances of the case, including the culpability of the offender, the harm they caused or intended to cause, and any aggravating and mitigating factors, in line with any relevant sentencing guidelines, developed by the Sentencing Council for England and Wales.
Previous convictions are already a statutory aggravating factor, with Sentencing Guidelines being clear that sentencers must consider the nature and relevance of previous convictions, and the time elapsed since the previous convictions.
Asked by: Neil O'Brien (Conservative - Harborough, Oadby and Wigston)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many people were convicted or cautioned for an indictable offence did not receive an immediate custodial sentence and had a) one, b) two, c) three, d) four and e) five or more prior convictions for theft or robbery in each of the past 5 years.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
The information requested is provided in the attached excel table. This table includes data covering the period 2020 – 2024 on:
The number of offenders who were a) convicted and b) cautioned for an indictable offence who did not receive an immediate custodial sentence by number of previous indictable convictions for specified offences, and
The number of offenders who were convicted or cautioned for an indictable offence who did not receive an immediate custodial sentence by number of previous indictable convictions for specified offences.
This data is not regularly published or held in an easily accessible format. The information supplied has been sourced from a bespoke retrieval from the Police National Computer database.
Sentencing in individual cases is a matter for the independent judiciary. When deciding what sentence to impose, courts must consider the circumstances of the case, including the culpability of the offender, the harm they caused or intended to cause, and any aggravating and mitigating factors, in line with any relevant sentencing guidelines, developed by the Sentencing Council for England and Wales.
Previous convictions are already a statutory aggravating factor, with Sentencing Guidelines being clear that sentencers must consider the nature and relevance of previous convictions, and the time elapsed since the previous convictions.
Asked by: Neil O'Brien (Conservative - Harborough, Oadby and Wigston)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many people were convicted or cautioned for an indictable offence did not receive an immediate custodial sentence and had a) one, b) two, c) three, d) four and e) five or more prior convictions for burglary in each of the past 5 years.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
The information requested is provided in the attached excel table. This table includes data covering the period 2020 – 2024 on:
The number of offenders who were a) convicted and b) cautioned for an indictable offence who did not receive an immediate custodial sentence by number of previous indictable convictions for specified offences, and
The number of offenders who were convicted or cautioned for an indictable offence who did not receive an immediate custodial sentence by number of previous indictable convictions for specified offences.
This data is not regularly published or held in an easily accessible format. The information supplied has been sourced from a bespoke retrieval from the Police National Computer database.
Sentencing in individual cases is a matter for the independent judiciary. When deciding what sentence to impose, courts must consider the circumstances of the case, including the culpability of the offender, the harm they caused or intended to cause, and any aggravating and mitigating factors, in line with any relevant sentencing guidelines, developed by the Sentencing Council for England and Wales.
Previous convictions are already a statutory aggravating factor, with Sentencing Guidelines being clear that sentencers must consider the nature and relevance of previous convictions, and the time elapsed since the previous convictions.
Asked by: Lord Wills (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government what is the maximum amount of non-means-tested legal aid that they envisage being made available for each individual bereaved person and family at inquests in England and Wales for (1) legal assistance, and (2) advocacy, under the Public Office (Accountability) Bill.
Answered by Baroness Levitt - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
The Bill will provide non-means tested legal help and advocacy for bereaved families at inquests where a public authority is named as an interested person. As under the current system, the amount paid will depend on the work carried out by the provider on the inquest, which will be different for each case depending on its duration and complexity.
Asked by: Liz Saville Roberts (Plaid Cymru - Dwyfor Meirionnydd)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether the Welsh Government has made a formal request for the devolution of (a) justice, (b) youth justice, (c) probation and (d) policing.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
Welsh Government and Ministry of Justice ministers have met to discuss progressing the manifesto commitments on youth justice and probation. Welsh Government and Ministry of Justice officials continue to work together to progress this.
The Ministry of Justice is not responsible for policing and therefore has not received a request in respect of the devolution of policing.
Asked by: James McMurdock (Independent - South Basildon and East Thurrock)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to his Department’s press release entitled Free access to sentencing remarks for all victims, published on 19 January 2026, whether his Department has considered the potential merits of including free access for victims to judges' remarks on cases that result in acquittal.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The Ministry of Justice does not hold data on (a) the amounts victims of crime have paid to obtain sentencing remarks, (b) the number of victims who have withdrawn their request, or (c) the reasons for any withdrawal.
Currently, bereaved families of homicide victims and victims of rape and other sexual offences are eligible to apply for a free transcript of the relevant sentencing remarks. This provision is being expanded to all victims where the case in question was sentenced in the Crown Court, through the Sentencing Act. Sentencing remarks were selected for this provision as they provide a clear summary of the case and explain how the trial outcome was reached. Extending free provision to cases resulting in an acquittal is not possible as there would be no equivalent to sentencing remarks to transcribe and provide.
We continue to work closely with the judiciary and criminal justice partners to ensure victims are provided with clear, accessible information at every stage of the process, including where a defendant is acquitted. This includes through existing channels such as Witness Care Units, who hold a responsibility under Right 9 of the Victims Code to update victims on the outcome of the case or trial including, where available, a brief summary of reasons for the decision.
Expansion of free provision to summary remarks in the magistrates’ courts is not currently under consideration. As trial and sentencing proceedings in the magistrates’ courts are not currently recorded, transcripts cannot be provided either through payment or free of charge. This is being kept under review as the system moves towards the recording of magistrates’ proceedings.
Asked by: James McMurdock (Independent - South Basildon and East Thurrock)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, pursuant to his Department’s press release entitled ‘Free access to sentencing remarks for all victims’ published on 19 January 2026, whether his Department has any plans to extend free access for victims to judge's remarks to cases heard in magistrates courts.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The Ministry of Justice does not hold data on (a) the amounts victims of crime have paid to obtain sentencing remarks, (b) the number of victims who have withdrawn their request, or (c) the reasons for any withdrawal.
Currently, bereaved families of homicide victims and victims of rape and other sexual offences are eligible to apply for a free transcript of the relevant sentencing remarks. This provision is being expanded to all victims where the case in question was sentenced in the Crown Court, through the Sentencing Act. Sentencing remarks were selected for this provision as they provide a clear summary of the case and explain how the trial outcome was reached. Extending free provision to cases resulting in an acquittal is not possible as there would be no equivalent to sentencing remarks to transcribe and provide.
We continue to work closely with the judiciary and criminal justice partners to ensure victims are provided with clear, accessible information at every stage of the process, including where a defendant is acquitted. This includes through existing channels such as Witness Care Units, who hold a responsibility under Right 9 of the Victims Code to update victims on the outcome of the case or trial including, where available, a brief summary of reasons for the decision.
Expansion of free provision to summary remarks in the magistrates’ courts is not currently under consideration. As trial and sentencing proceedings in the magistrates’ courts are not currently recorded, transcripts cannot be provided either through payment or free of charge. This is being kept under review as the system moves towards the recording of magistrates’ proceedings.
Asked by: James McMurdock (Independent - South Basildon and East Thurrock)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what information his Department holds on the number of victims of crime who withdrew their request for a copy of a judge's sentencing remarks due to the cost since 2020.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The Ministry of Justice does not hold data on (a) the amounts victims of crime have paid to obtain sentencing remarks, (b) the number of victims who have withdrawn their request, or (c) the reasons for any withdrawal.
Currently, bereaved families of homicide victims and victims of rape and other sexual offences are eligible to apply for a free transcript of the relevant sentencing remarks. This provision is being expanded to all victims where the case in question was sentenced in the Crown Court, through the Sentencing Act. Sentencing remarks were selected for this provision as they provide a clear summary of the case and explain how the trial outcome was reached. Extending free provision to cases resulting in an acquittal is not possible as there would be no equivalent to sentencing remarks to transcribe and provide.
We continue to work closely with the judiciary and criminal justice partners to ensure victims are provided with clear, accessible information at every stage of the process, including where a defendant is acquitted. This includes through existing channels such as Witness Care Units, who hold a responsibility under Right 9 of the Victims Code to update victims on the outcome of the case or trial including, where available, a brief summary of reasons for the decision.
Expansion of free provision to summary remarks in the magistrates’ courts is not currently under consideration. As trial and sentencing proceedings in the magistrates’ courts are not currently recorded, transcripts cannot be provided either through payment or free of charge. This is being kept under review as the system moves towards the recording of magistrates’ proceedings.
Asked by: James McMurdock (Independent - South Basildon and East Thurrock)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many victims of crime paid (a) £40 and (b) more than £40 to access sentencing remarks since 2020.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The Ministry of Justice does not hold data on (a) the amounts victims of crime have paid to obtain sentencing remarks, (b) the number of victims who have withdrawn their request, or (c) the reasons for any withdrawal.
Currently, bereaved families of homicide victims and victims of rape and other sexual offences are eligible to apply for a free transcript of the relevant sentencing remarks. This provision is being expanded to all victims where the case in question was sentenced in the Crown Court, through the Sentencing Act. Sentencing remarks were selected for this provision as they provide a clear summary of the case and explain how the trial outcome was reached. Extending free provision to cases resulting in an acquittal is not possible as there would be no equivalent to sentencing remarks to transcribe and provide.
We continue to work closely with the judiciary and criminal justice partners to ensure victims are provided with clear, accessible information at every stage of the process, including where a defendant is acquitted. This includes through existing channels such as Witness Care Units, who hold a responsibility under Right 9 of the Victims Code to update victims on the outcome of the case or trial including, where available, a brief summary of reasons for the decision.
Expansion of free provision to summary remarks in the magistrates’ courts is not currently under consideration. As trial and sentencing proceedings in the magistrates’ courts are not currently recorded, transcripts cannot be provided either through payment or free of charge. This is being kept under review as the system moves towards the recording of magistrates’ proceedings.
Asked by: Lord Patten (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the protections available to consumers who seek compensation via class action lawsuits offered by lawyers and litigation funders.
Answered by Baroness Levitt - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
The Government, in conjunction with other bodies such as the Civil Justice Council (a statutory advisory body), professional bodies and regulators, keeps the civil justice system and regulatory framework under review to ensure it is operating effectively, fairly and transparently.
Protections for consumers who seek compensation through collective action litigation are provided through the legal and regulatory framework governing legal services. The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) independently regulates solicitors and most law firms in England and Wales, including those advising consumers in collective action claims, and requires them to comply with professional standards to protect consumers. This includes duties to act in clients’ best interests, to provide clear and transparent information about costs and risks, and for firms to maintain effective complaints-handling procedures to allow consumers to seek redress. Where appropriate, consumers can also refer their complaints to the Legal Ombudsman, which considers complaints about the standard of legal services provided.
We are aware of concerns around fairness and transparency in cases funded by third-party litigation funders, many of which are collective action cases. In light of these concerns, the Civil Justice Council carried out a thorough and wide-ranging review of litigation funding which has been critical in informing our policy development in this area. As recommended by the Council, we will introduce a new regulatory framework aimed at enhancing claimant protection, transparency, and the effectiveness of the litigation funding market. We recognise the critical role third-party litigation funding plays in access to justice. That is why we are committed to ensuring it works fairly for all. We will outline next steps in due course.