Asked by: Luke Evans (Conservative - Hinckley and Bosworth)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, which external bodies has he recently spoken to about the potential impacts of proposals to reduce jury trials.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
In developing his recommendations, Sir Brian Leveson and his expert advisers, including Professor David Ormerod, engaged with several external bodies with invaluable expertise of our Criminal Justice System including criminal legal organisations, charities, academics, and members of the judiciary. A full list is at Annex C of his report.
When considering Sir Brian’s recommendations and developing our proposals, I have engaged regularly with stakeholders and relevant sectors over the last 12 months including representatives from the legal sector (Law Society, Bar Council, Criminal Bar Association), victims and victims representatives (the Victims Commissioner, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, Rape Crisis), judiciary (Circuit leaders, Judicial leadership), magistracy (Magistrates’ Association, Magistrates’ Leadership Executive), non-governmental organisations (Appeal, JUSTICE, Transform Justice), court staff in criminal courts around the country (Wood Green, Snaresbrook) and similar international jurisdictions. For example, I met judges and visited courts in Canada, which uses types of judge-only trial.
Asked by: Lord Bradley (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government how many people in prison or a Young Offender Institution self-describe their ethnicity as (1) black, (2) mixed-race, (3) Asian, and (4) white; and for each of these groups how many are aged (a) 15-17, (b) 18-20, (c) 21-24, (d) 25-29, (e) 30-39, (f) 40-49, (g) 50-59, (h) 60-69, and (i) 70 and over.
Answered by Lord Timpson - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The answer to this question has been provided as an Excel document alongside this response.
The table provided was published as part of the Offender Management chapter of the 2024 ‘Ethnicity and the Criminal Justice System’ publication. (This series is published every other year.)
The figures presented are based on the total prison population and therefore include those held on remand, those sentenced and non-criminals.
Asked by: Mohammad Yasin (Labour - Bedford)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether his Department has received representations concerning allegations of misleading or inaccurate citation of case law in a recent Employment Tribunal judgment; and what processes exist for referring such allegations to the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
In the event that the Ministry of Justice receives a complaint about the handling or outcome of a particular case the correspondent would be advised to seek advice regarding any right of appeal and, if the complaint is about the conduct of a member of the judiciary, provided with information about the relevant complaints process. This is because the judiciary are entirely independent and must be free to decide the outcome of cases without fear of interference from Government or its administration.
Decisions of the Employment Tribunal can be appealed on a point of law to the Employment Appeal Tribunal.
Complaints about the conduct of an Employment Judge sitting in England must be made to the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office: https://www.complaints.judicialconduct.gov.uk/
For an Employment Judge sitting wholly or mainly in Scotland, complaints must be made to the President of the Employment Tribunal (Scotland): https://www.complaints.judicialconduct.gov.uk/rulesandregulations/Employment%20Tribunal%20(Scotland)%20%E2%80%93%20Making%20a%20complaint%20of%20Judicial%20Misconduct%20about%20an%20Employment%20Judge
Asked by: Liz Jarvis (Liberal Democrat - Eastleigh)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps he is taking to ascertain the position of Chartered Institute of Legal Executives practitioners who qualified through work-based routes, following the judgement in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys [2025] EWHC 2341.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The Ministry of Justice recognises that the Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys [2025] EWHC 2341 judgement and its potential implications have created concern and uncertainty within parts of the legal profession, particularly among Chartered Institute of Legal Executive (CILEX) professionals.
Whilst the legal profession and its regulators operate independently of government, I have been proactively engaging with frontline regulators and representative bodies on the judgement’s implications and the action being taken in response. I convened a meeting with the Legal Services Board (LSB) and relevant frontline regulators to discuss the judgement, its implications, and the steps taken and underway. I have also met members of CILEX’s senior leadership team to discuss the judgement and attended the recent CILEX conference.
CILEx Regulation (CRL) has issued updated guidance, arranged webinars for practitioners, and secured approval from the LSB to allow standalone litigation practice rights. It has also been ensuring readiness for practice rights applications and working with partners to support practitioners. CILEX has been providing regular updates to its members on these actions, and the Solicitors Regulation Authority and the Law Society have also published guidance to support professionals. The LSB is also reviewing how regulators ensured information and guidance provided to the profession on conducting litigation was accurate and reliable. It has published the scope and timings for this review on its website. Separately from these steps, CILEX has also been granted permission to appeal the judgment to the Court of Appeal.
While I am satisfied that appropriate practical steps are being taken to address the issues raised by the judgement and provide clarity and support for affected CILEX professionals, we will continue to work closely with the LSB, frontline regulators, and representative bodies to monitor whether further action is required.
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 assessment he has made of the effectiveness of current mechanisms for enforcing Employment Tribunal awards where employers refuse to pay compensation.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The Government is committed to tackling the issue of unpaid employment tribunal awards. The civil courts in England and Wales offer several different enforcement methods that a judgment creditor may apply for to recover money or property owed on a court order or judgment. These processes are individually designed to address different financial circumstances; and collectively they aim to make it as difficult as possible for judgment debtors to avoid their responsibilities. This also includes the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (Acas) and Employment Tribunal Fast Track enforcement scheme whereby a claimant can instruct a High Court Enforcement Officer (HCEO) to act on their behalf.
We recognise the challenges associated with enforcing employment awards. We are therefore strengthening enforcement options through the Employment Tribunal Penalty scheme which will move to the Fair Work Agency (FWA) once established. The proposed powers of the FWA are set out in the Employment Rights Bill and we are committed to ensuring that it has the appropriate resources to discharge its responsibilities. The FWA will work closely with HMRC, the Insolvency Service and other relevant enforcement bodies to do this as effectively as possible. This will include considering how to use existing powers to tackle misuse of phoenix companies.
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 plans he has to monitor data on (a) conviction rates, (b) sentencing patterns and (c) appeals arising from cases affected by the removal of the right to elect a jury trial; and whether that data will be published.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
We will continue to monitor conviction rates, sentencing outcomes and appeals volumes as part of our ongoing assessments of the criminal justice system.
The Ministry of Justice publishes data on convictions and sentencing outcomes for a wide range of offences and by defendant characteristics, in the Outcomes by Offences data tool, that can be downloaded from the Criminal Justice Statistics landing page here: Criminal Justice Statistics. The Department will continue to publish this data quarterly.
The Ministry of Justice also publishes data on appeals but does not have access to the reasons for appeal, beyond whether a sentence or verdict has been appealed. Data on appeals volumes can be found as part of the Criminal Courts Statistics release: Criminal court statistics - GOV.UK.
Asked by: Marie Rimmer (Labour - St Helens South and Whiston)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, for what reason the Legal Aid Agency's Sign in to Legal Aid Services implementation has been delayed; what specific security issues have arisen; and when updates on its postponed launch will be made available.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The Department has worked around the clock to ensure that digital services were restored as swiftly and safely as possible. There has been no delay to implementation of the new secure single sign-in tool for LAA online services (SiLAS), which went live on 11 August following a period of testing with providers
Since then, we have worked closely with providers to test functionality before bringing providers back onto our systems in a careful, phased approach. We are now in a position where all providers have online access to our civil legal aid services via SiLAS, alongside our criminal legal aid services, which were restored in September.
Asked by: Ben Obese-Jecty (Conservative - Huntingdon)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what information he holds on the number of British-qualified judges sit on the Court of Final Appeal in Hong Kong.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal publishes the names of its non-permanent judges on its website.
The list is available at https://www.hkcfa.hk/en/about/who/judges/npjs/index.html.
Asked by: Marie Rimmer (Labour - St Helens South and Whiston)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if he will take steps to compensate legal aid providers for disruption caused by the cyberattack on the Legal Aid Agency in April 2025.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
I refer the honourable Member to the answer I gave on 10 November to Question 87407.
Asked by: Julian Smith (Conservative - Skipton and Ripon)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the potential implications for his policies of the Civil Justice Council report entitled Review of Litigation Funding - Final Report.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The Government recognises the critical role third-party litigation funding plays in access to justice and is committed to ensuring it works fairly for all. That is why we intend to introduce legislation to enact the two primary recommendations of the Civil Justice Council’s review when parliamentary time allows. Once this work has been completed, my officials will consider the remaining recommendations in more detail.
New legislation will mitigate the effects of the PACCAR judgment by clarifying that Litigation Funding Agreements are not Damages Based Agreements, with prospective effect. Furthermore, the Government intends to introduce proportionate regulation of Litigation Funding Agreements.
Further details can be read in the Written Ministerial Statement issued on 17 December 2025: https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2025-12-17/hcws1192.