Ministry of Justice

Any individual or organisation in England and Wales has the right to bring a private prosecution where a criminal offence has been committed.

The Government expects all organisations that bring private prosecutions to do so where there is sufficient evidence that the defendant has committed an offence, and where the prosecution is in the public interest.

The Ministry of Justice held a consultation on the regulation of private prosecutors – to ensure consistency, accountability, and transparency in private prosecutions – last year and the Government will set out its next steps shortly.

The information requested is not held centrally.

Waiting times are calculated from receipt of the appeal to the final disposal decision. The final outcome of any appeal is not necessarily achieved at its first listed hearing so we are unable to extract data about waiting times for tribunal hearing dates.

The information requested is not held centrally.

Waiting times are calculated from receipt of the appeal to the final disposal decision. The final outcome of any appeal is not necessarily achieved at its first listed hearing so we are unable to extract data about waiting times for tribunal hearing dates.

The Ministry of Justice published data on those electing for jury trials in either-way cases covering periods from 2014 up to the first quarter of 2023. This information is published in the Criminal Courts Statistics release in Table_AC10: Criminal court statistics quarterly: January to March 2023 - GOV.UK

At present, around 15% of either-way receipts into the Crown Court have an unknown reason for sending recorded in HMCTS reporting systems. Work is underway to reduce this rate of unknowns so that robust data can be published in future releases.

We have set out our expectation that all duty bearers, including Departments and arm’s-length bodies, follow the law as clarified by the Supreme Court ruling and seek specialist legal advice where necessary. The Prime Minister has underlined this recently.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission has submitted a draft Code of Practice on services, public functions and associations to Ministers, and we are reviewing it with the care it deserves. This will provide further guidance to duty bearers.

Ministers have regular discussions with officials, external experts and ministerial colleagues on a range of issues, including national security, defence and resilience, and associated public communications.

As set out in the Strategic Defence Review, the national conversation will be a multi-year engagement designed to embed a whole-of-society approach, where Government, businesses, and the public all play a part in strengthening our resilience. This addresses the risks we face, including threats below and above the threshold of an armed attack.

The Ministry of Justice is actively supporting this work.

The Ministry of Justice publishes information on the number of open criminal cases at the Crown Court for Essex in the ‘Crown Court receipts, disposals and open cases tool’ and for the magistrates’ courts in the ‘Magistrates’ courts receipts, disposals and open cases tool’. Essex can be selected under Local Criminal Justice Board (LCJB).

Data is published for Basildon Crown Court in the Crown Court tool under the Crown Court filter - Criminal court statistics - GOV.UK

Data is not published at court level for the magistrates’ courts. The open caseload for the Basildon magistrates’ court was 1,700 as of the end of September 2025.

The open caseload reflects the workload in the courts at a given time. It will never be zero, as it reflects the volume of cases that are active in the courts at a particular point, including those recently received, those close to being disposed, those which are complex and take time to complete, and those that may be awaiting further hearings.

The Ministry of Justice publishes data on the time taken ‘at court’ in the magistrates’ courts and Crown Court for Essex in the ‘Magistrates’ courts timeliness tool’ and the ‘End-to-end timeliness tool’ (Crown Court).

Magistrates ‘at court’ time refers to the number of days from first listing to completion at the magistrates’ court and for the Crown Court it refers to the time from first listing at the magistrates’ court to completion at the Crown Court.

Data for the Essex Local Criminal Justice Board (LCJB) can be found using the ‘geographic area’ filter - Criminal court statistics - GOV.UK

LCJB is the lowest geographic level of our published Accredited Official Statistics for timeliness. Our published timeliness metrics are produced at a sufficiently 'high' level to reduce the volatility and fluctuations associated with low volumes of cases i.e. using court level data. As a result, we are unable to provide timeliness data for individual courts in Basildon.

The publication provides data for ‘England and Wales’ but does not contain a breakdown for England alone. When looking at data for England, the median time spent ‘at court’ across magistrates’ courts was 0 days for the year ending September 2025. This is due to the high proportion of Single Justice Procedure cases which commence and conclude on the same day. For the Crown Court, the median time spent ‘at court’ was 172 days for the same period.

Data on the number of judicial review applications relating to NHS service reconfiguration decisions in England — and the number in which permission to proceed was granted— is included within the official Judicial Review statistics published on the Civil Justice Statistics webpage: Civil justice statistics quarterly - GOV.UK.

These statistics are presented in broad categories and do not separately identify cases concerning NHS service reconfiguration.

A formal investigation has been commissioned into the circumstances surrounding the escape from custody. Additional management checks are also being undertaken in relation to all operational staff who may be called upon to undertake escort duty.

Public safety is the Government’s priority. Following a joint operation by the Metropolitan Police, the National Crime Agency and the French authorities, we have received confirmation that Daniel Boakye has now been detained in France. Arrangements are being made to secure his return to the UK.

A formal investigation has been commissioned into the circumstances surrounding the escape from custody. Additional management checks are also being undertaken in relation to all operational staff who may be called upon to undertake escort duty.

Public safety is the Government’s priority. Following a joint operation by the Metropolitan Police, the National Crime Agency and the French authorities, we have received confirmation that Daniel Boakye has now been detained in France. Arrangements are being made to secure his return to the UK.

Foundation Prison Officer training is designed to ensure that all new prison officers are supported and feel competent in their roles. All new entrants undertake a minimum of ten weeks of training, beginning with a ten-day induction process to familiarise them with the prison environment, including meeting line managers and colleagues and learning key security procedures. This is followed by either seven weeks in the male estate, eight weeks in the female estate, or nine weeks in the Youth Custody Service, delivered through face-to-face training at a central or local learning venue. Officers then return to their establishment for a final week of consolidation and shadowing.

The foundation training package develops verbal communication and interpersonal skills, ensuring new officers are able to identify vulnerable prisoners, support them appropriately, and defuse potential conflict. This includes training in de-escalation techniques and, where the use of force is necessary, instruction on how to do so in line with organisational procedures and the law.

Foundation training also equips officers with the skills required to maintain and update documentation, records and supporting systems, alongside the knowledge of security procedures, including searching techniques and the management and use of keys.

Additionally, the Enable Programme is redeveloping the current foundation training for new entry prison officers into a 12-month modular package, reinforcing the principle of continuous professional development. It positions training as an evolving journey rather than a discrete, front-loaded phase at the start of a career, building on knowledge and application of that through their probationary period.

The revised training aims to support the development of compassionate, competent and confident prison officers, able to deliver a wide range of operational and interpersonal skills underpinned by relational practice and rehabilitative working. The work is strongly aligned with that of Lord Timpson’s Review of Foundation Training Delivery for Prison Officers which focused on improving the learner experience with enhanced support, pride and greater rigour being applied; establishing an operating model with the right people, venues, curriculum, and standards in place; and encouraging a continuous learning environment with clear channels of accountability.

Court of Protection proceedings involve personal, sensitive matters and enable decisions to be made in the best interests of the person, who lacks the mental capacity to make those decisions themselves. The Government has no plans to review the use of transparency orders in the Court of Protection.

A transparency order in the Court of Protection restricts the publication and communication of information from proceedings. They support the principle of open justice by allowing Court of Protection hearings to be heard in public whilst protecting the privacy of vulnerable individuals.

The use of transparency orders is a matter for the judiciary. If the recipient believes an order is unfair, too restrictive, or no longer needed, they can apply to the court to vary it.

The Government is aware of the increased use of generative AI. Some stakeholders have reported that some potential Employment Tribunal claimants are using generative AI to provide a view on the strengths of their potential claim or to help with drafting elements of their claim. While no formal assessment has been made of the impact of generative AI on the caseload, to acknowledge changing behaviour, HMCTS has developed its own ‘Responsible AI Principles’ guidance to ensure use of AI in the courts and tribunals is appropriate, safe and controlled.

The Government is taking steps to increase the efficiency and resilience of the Employment Tribunal through the recruitment of additional judges, deploying Legal Officers actively to manage cases, the development of modern case management systems and the use of remote hearing technology. We continue to monitor demand in the Employment Tribunal and will consider any further actions needed to manage this.

Prisoner Escort and Custody Services (PECS) are performing strongly, despite continuing pressures across the criminal justice system. In 2025, overall criminal justice system delivery to court was timely in 98.19% of cases; PECS suppliers met contractual expectations by delivering prisoners to court on time in 99.91% of cases.

HM Prison & Probation Service’s Contract Management Team (CMT) provides rigorous oversight through a clear contractual and governance framework, applying commercial levers where delays are attributable to provider actions. The CMT works closely with stakeholders through quarterly Strategic Partnership Boards and monthly Contract Management Boards to drive improvement, address system-wide challenges, and ensure suppliers are held fully to account. If a contractor’s performance falls below the required standard, financial service credits will be applied, in accordance with the contract mechanism. Any persistent or systemic issues can trigger formal improvement notices, rectification plans or other contractual remedies.

We are assessing the potential impact of current reform policies on delivery timeliness, to ensure that the system remains resilient and effective.

We do not collate information on how many cases are referred to the Chief Executive of HMPPS under the Early Removal Scheme or the outcome of such referrals.

Guidance to Prison Governors, and all those involved in administering the scheme including the Chief Executive, is contained in the Prison Service Instruction: The Early Removal Scheme and Release of Foreign National Prisoners (PSI 04/2013) which was last updated on 23 September 2025 and is available at the following link: Early removal scheme and release of foreign national prisoners.

This gives information on the circumstances where removal might undermine the Scheme or public confidence in the criminal justice system.

We do not collate information on how many cases are referred to the Chief Executive of HMPPS under the Early Removal Scheme or the outcome of such referrals.

Guidance to Prison Governors, and all those involved in administering the scheme including the Chief Executive, is contained in the Prison Service Instruction: The Early Removal Scheme and Release of Foreign National Prisoners (PSI 04/2013) which was last updated on 23 September 2025 and is available at the following link: Early removal scheme and release of foreign national prisoners.

This gives information on the circumstances where removal might undermine the Scheme or public confidence in the criminal justice system.

We do not collate information on how many cases are referred to the Chief Executive of HMPPS under the Early Removal Scheme or the outcome of such referrals.

Guidance to Prison Governors, and all those involved in administering the scheme including the Chief Executive, is contained in the Prison Service Instruction: The Early Removal Scheme and Release of Foreign National Prisoners (PSI 04/2013) which was last updated on 23 September 2025 and is available at the following link: Early removal scheme and release of foreign national prisoners.

This gives information on the circumstances where removal might undermine the Scheme or public confidence in the criminal justice system.

As of 30 June 2025, there were 989 Foreign National Offenders (FNOs) in prison in England and Wales serving a sentence for a principal offence involving ‘causing death’.

All FNOs who receive a prison sentence in the UK are referred for deportation at the earliest opportunity including via the Early Removal Scheme for eligible determinate sentenced prisoners, Tariff Expired Removal Scheme for those serving indeterminate sentences, or via Prisoner Transfer Agreement where one is in place and the offender meets the relevant requirements. In all cases they will be barred from ever returning to the UK.

Deportations of FNOs, including murderers and rapists, are up 32%, with more than 8,700 deported since this Government came into power.

Returns of FNOs in the year-ending December 2025 are higher than any levels of returns observed since 2018.

We have recently launched a new innovation challenge with His Majesty’s Government Communications Centre (HMGCC) Co-Creation aimed at combatting the growing threat of drones around prisons.

The Counter-Drone Challenge competition closed on 4 December 2025. Selected industry partners will receive up to £60,000 funding to develop proof-of-concept systems over a 12-week period.

The number of full-time equivalent band 3-5 prison officers in each public sector prison is published quarterly as part of the “HM Prison and Probation Service workforce statistics” publication. The latest data, for staff in post on 31st December 2025, is available in Table 15 of this spreadsheet: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/699d794d07d7bff3604d6be2/hmpps-workforce-statistics-tables-dec-2025_final_file.ods.

The number of prisoners in each prison is published as part of the “Offender management statistics quarterly” publication. The latest data, also for 31st December 2025, is available in Table 1_Q_13: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6978d8c475d4437096552064/prison-population-31-Dec-2025.ods.

The list of each prison, their function and whether they are male only is available at this link: Prisons in England and Wales - GOV.UK.

These publicly available resources can be used to calculate the average prison officer to prisoner ratio for male prisons.

The Government is considering the full range of options to strengthen and improve standards to safeguard the security and dignity of the deceased, particularly in the context of a full response to the Fuller Inquiry Phase 2 report which will be provided by summer 2026.

Our consideration has included discussions about a potential role for a relevant partner organisation such as the Human Tissue Authority.

The Ministry of Justice provides all Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) in England and Wales with core grant funding for victims of all crime types, which can be used to commission restorative justice and domestic abuse services. In addition, they receive ring-fenced funding for domestic and sexual abuse services. PCCs are best placed to assess local need and commission services based on the needs of the population in the local area. Restorative justice services should be targeted to the most appropriate cases, where we have clear evidence for the benefits of that approach and should only take place when both the victim and the offender agree, and it is considered safe.

The Ministry of Justice is investing £550 million in victim support services over the next three years – the biggest investment in victim support services to date. We will be increasing funding for victim support services year on year, from 2026 to 2029, recognising the need to meet the rising cost pressures of delivery. I have protected dedicated VAWG victims spending in the department by maintaining 2024-25 funding levels for ringfenced sexual violence and domestic abuse support this year.

Last November, the Government announced the abolition of PCCs, the first in a series of reforms that were set out in the recent Police Reform White Paper. In light of this announcement, we are exploring changes to the delivery of victims funding to ensure this is delivered in the best way in the future. We recognise the important work PCCs and Mayors do to commission vital support services for victims and witnesses, including restorative justice and domestic abuse services. Ensuring ongoing support to victims is a key priority for this Government.

The Ministry of Justice provides all Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) in England and Wales with core grant funding for victims of all crime types, which can be used to commission restorative justice and domestic abuse services. In addition, they receive ring-fenced funding for domestic and sexual abuse services. PCCs are best placed to assess local need and commission services based on the needs of the population in the local area. Restorative justice services should be targeted to the most appropriate cases, where we have clear evidence for the benefits of that approach and should only take place when both the victim and the offender agree, and it is considered safe.

The Ministry of Justice is investing £550 million in victim support services over the next three years – the biggest investment in victim support services to date. We will be increasing funding for victim support services year on year, from 2026 to 2029, recognising the need to meet the rising cost pressures of delivery. I have protected dedicated VAWG victims spending in the department by maintaining 2024-25 funding levels for ringfenced sexual violence and domestic abuse support this year.

Last November, the Government announced the abolition of PCCs, the first in a series of reforms that were set out in the recent Police Reform White Paper. In light of this announcement, we are exploring changes to the delivery of victims funding to ensure this is delivered in the best way in the future. We recognise the important work PCCs and Mayors do to commission vital support services for victims and witnesses, including restorative justice and domestic abuse services. Ensuring ongoing support to victims is a key priority for this Government.

The data requested is provided in the attached excel table. The table includes data covering the period 2020 – 2024 on the number of offenders who were convicted of common assault and battery offences who did not receive an immediate custodial sentence; separated by the number of previous occasions the offender had been convicted for a violence against the person offence where that offence was common assault and battery.

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.

Between 5 July 2024 and 29 April 2025, the Ministry of Justice recorded lost or stolen:

179 laptops

475 mobile phones

11 other electronic devices

All Ministry of Justice laptops and mobile phones are encrypted and protected to National Cyber Security Centre standards. The Department has mandatory reporting procedures for lost or stolen items, and incidents are investigated in line with security policy.

Treatment and clinical prescribing decisions are the responsibility of services commissioned by NHS in prisons and local authority service providers in the community.

Responsibility for continuity of care for prison leavers, including access to medications and clinical care rests with prison drug and alcohol treatment providers liaising with community treatment providers.

The promotion of one medicine over another is strictly regulated in England and Wales.

The data requested are provided in the attached excel tables. The tables include data covering the period 2020 – 2024 on:

- The number of offenders who were convicted of a child sex offence who did not receive an immediate custodial sentence by number of previous occasions where the offender was convicted of a child sex offence.

- The number of offenders who were convicted of an indictable offence but did not receive an immediate custodial sentence, by the number of previous convictions (between 7-10 previous convictions).

- The number of offenders who were convicted of a theft offence who did not receive immediate custody, by number of previous convictions (between 3-10 previous convictions).

- The number of offenders convicted of theft from a shop who did not receive an immediate custodial sentence by number of previous convictions for the same offence.

As set out in previous responses, 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.

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.

The data requested are provided in the attached excel tables. The tables include data covering the period 2020 – 2024 on:

- The number of offenders who were convicted of a child sex offence who did not receive an immediate custodial sentence by number of previous occasions where the offender was convicted of a child sex offence.

- The number of offenders who were convicted of an indictable offence but did not receive an immediate custodial sentence, by the number of previous convictions (between 7-10 previous convictions).

- The number of offenders who were convicted of a theft offence who did not receive immediate custody, by number of previous convictions (between 3-10 previous convictions).

- The number of offenders convicted of theft from a shop who did not receive an immediate custodial sentence by number of previous convictions for the same offence.

As set out in previous responses, 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.

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.

The data requested are provided in the attached excel tables. The tables include data covering the period 2020 – 2024 on:

- The number of offenders who were convicted of a child sex offence who did not receive an immediate custodial sentence by number of previous occasions where the offender was convicted of a child sex offence.

- The number of offenders who were convicted of an indictable offence but did not receive an immediate custodial sentence, by the number of previous convictions (between 7-10 previous convictions).

- The number of offenders who were convicted of a theft offence who did not receive immediate custody, by number of previous convictions (between 3-10 previous convictions).

- The number of offenders convicted of theft from a shop who did not receive an immediate custodial sentence by number of previous convictions for the same offence.

As set out in previous responses, 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.

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.

The data requested are provided in the attached excel tables. The tables include data covering the period 2020 – 2024 on:

- The number of offenders who were convicted of a child sex offence who did not receive an immediate custodial sentence by number of previous occasions where the offender was convicted of a child sex offence.

- The number of offenders who were convicted of an indictable offence but did not receive an immediate custodial sentence, by the number of previous convictions (between 7-10 previous convictions).

- The number of offenders who were convicted of a theft offence who did not receive immediate custody, by number of previous convictions (between 3-10 previous convictions).

- The number of offenders convicted of theft from a shop who did not receive an immediate custodial sentence by number of previous convictions for the same offence.

As set out in previous responses, 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.

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.

The Government is in the process of establishing a Preventative Analytics for Youth Justice Advisory Panel. As the Panel has not yet been established, no recommendations have been made on specific data sources or the sharing of data with youth justice partners for the purposes of support and safeguarding.

At this early stage, we are not able to state the specific datasets which will be accessed. Exploratory work is required to identify what data would be useful for the purposes of prevention, where it is held, and how to use it responsibly, ethically, and legally. However, it is anticipated that the programme will draw on data already held by government departments, local youth justice services, and local authorities. This may include information about a child’s contact with the youth justice system, education, health services, social care, or other relevant services.

Where data is shared between public authorities, we expect this will take place under established legal gateways for example the Digital Economy Act or the UK General Data Protection Regulation. Where additional permissions are required (e.g. due to the terms of a privacy notice), then such permissions will be sought. The Department will ensure appropriate governance arrangements are made and documented (e.g. through Data Protection Impact Assessments and Data Sharing Agreements).

At this stage, we are not able to describe how the data will be used in the sense of defining specific processing techniques. The purpose of the advisory panel is to guide the development of these techniques in an effective, ethical, and legal manner. That said, the programme will not make automated decisions about individual children or replace professional judgement; rather it will provide evidence-based insights to help practitioners identify where interventions may be most effective. Strong safeguards will be sought to ensure fairness, transparency and protection against bias.

The Government intends to establish the Advisory Panel on preventative analytics for youth justice by spring. Work is already underway and further details will be set out in due course.

The Government is in the process of establishing a Preventative Analytics for Youth Justice Advisory Panel. As the Panel has not yet been established, no recommendations have been made on specific data sources or the sharing of data with youth justice partners for the purposes of support and safeguarding.

At this early stage, we are not able to state the specific datasets which will be accessed. Exploratory work is required to identify what data would be useful for the purposes of prevention, where it is held, and how to use it responsibly, ethically, and legally. However, it is anticipated that the programme will draw on data already held by government departments, local youth justice services, and local authorities. This may include information about a child’s contact with the youth justice system, education, health services, social care, or other relevant services.

Where data is shared between public authorities, we expect this will take place under established legal gateways for example the Digital Economy Act or the UK General Data Protection Regulation. Where additional permissions are required (e.g. due to the terms of a privacy notice), then such permissions will be sought. The Department will ensure appropriate governance arrangements are made and documented (e.g. through Data Protection Impact Assessments and Data Sharing Agreements).

At this stage, we are not able to describe how the data will be used in the sense of defining specific processing techniques. The purpose of the advisory panel is to guide the development of these techniques in an effective, ethical, and legal manner. That said, the programme will not make automated decisions about individual children or replace professional judgement; rather it will provide evidence-based insights to help practitioners identify where interventions may be most effective. Strong safeguards will be sought to ensure fairness, transparency and protection against bias.

The Government intends to establish the Advisory Panel on preventative analytics for youth justice by spring. Work is already underway and further details will be set out in due course.

The Government is in the process of establishing a Preventative Analytics for Youth Justice Advisory Panel. As the Panel has not yet been established, no recommendations have been made on specific data sources or the sharing of data with youth justice partners for the purposes of support and safeguarding.

At this early stage, we are not able to state the specific datasets which will be accessed. Exploratory work is required to identify what data would be useful for the purposes of prevention, where it is held, and how to use it responsibly, ethically, and legally. However, it is anticipated that the programme will draw on data already held by government departments, local youth justice services, and local authorities. This may include information about a child’s contact with the youth justice system, education, health services, social care, or other relevant services.

Where data is shared between public authorities, we expect this will take place under established legal gateways for example the Digital Economy Act or the UK General Data Protection Regulation. Where additional permissions are required (e.g. due to the terms of a privacy notice), then such permissions will be sought. The Department will ensure appropriate governance arrangements are made and documented (e.g. through Data Protection Impact Assessments and Data Sharing Agreements).

At this stage, we are not able to describe how the data will be used in the sense of defining specific processing techniques. The purpose of the advisory panel is to guide the development of these techniques in an effective, ethical, and legal manner. That said, the programme will not make automated decisions about individual children or replace professional judgement; rather it will provide evidence-based insights to help practitioners identify where interventions may be most effective. Strong safeguards will be sought to ensure fairness, transparency and protection against bias.

The Government intends to establish the Advisory Panel on preventative analytics for youth justice by spring. Work is already underway and further details will be set out in due course.

The Government is in the process of establishing a Preventative Analytics for Youth Justice Advisory Panel. As the Panel has not yet been established, no recommendations have been made on specific data sources or the sharing of data with youth justice partners for the purposes of support and safeguarding.

At this early stage, we are not able to state the specific datasets which will be accessed. Exploratory work is required to identify what data would be useful for the purposes of prevention, where it is held, and how to use it responsibly, ethically, and legally. However, it is anticipated that the programme will draw on data already held by government departments, local youth justice services, and local authorities. This may include information about a child’s contact with the youth justice system, education, health services, social care, or other relevant services.

Where data is shared between public authorities, we expect this will take place under established legal gateways for example the Digital Economy Act or the UK General Data Protection Regulation. Where additional permissions are required (e.g. due to the terms of a privacy notice), then such permissions will be sought. The Department will ensure appropriate governance arrangements are made and documented (e.g. through Data Protection Impact Assessments and Data Sharing Agreements).

At this stage, we are not able to describe how the data will be used in the sense of defining specific processing techniques. The purpose of the advisory panel is to guide the development of these techniques in an effective, ethical, and legal manner. That said, the programme will not make automated decisions about individual children or replace professional judgement; rather it will provide evidence-based insights to help practitioners identify where interventions may be most effective. Strong safeguards will be sought to ensure fairness, transparency and protection against bias.

The Government intends to establish the Advisory Panel on preventative analytics for youth justice by spring. Work is already underway and further details will be set out in due course.

The Government is in the process of establishing a Preventative Analytics for Youth Justice Advisory Panel. As the Panel has not yet been established, no recommendations have been made on specific data sources or the sharing of data with youth justice partners for the purposes of support and safeguarding.

At this early stage, we are not able to state the specific datasets which will be accessed. Exploratory work is required to identify what data would be useful for the purposes of prevention, where it is held, and how to use it responsibly, ethically, and legally. However, it is anticipated that the programme will draw on data already held by government departments, local youth justice services, and local authorities. This may include information about a child’s contact with the youth justice system, education, health services, social care, or other relevant services.

Where data is shared between public authorities, we expect this will take place under established legal gateways for example the Digital Economy Act or the UK General Data Protection Regulation. Where additional permissions are required (e.g. due to the terms of a privacy notice), then such permissions will be sought. The Department will ensure appropriate governance arrangements are made and documented (e.g. through Data Protection Impact Assessments and Data Sharing Agreements).

At this stage, we are not able to describe how the data will be used in the sense of defining specific processing techniques. The purpose of the advisory panel is to guide the development of these techniques in an effective, ethical, and legal manner. That said, the programme will not make automated decisions about individual children or replace professional judgement; rather it will provide evidence-based insights to help practitioners identify where interventions may be most effective. Strong safeguards will be sought to ensure fairness, transparency and protection against bias.

The Government intends to establish the Advisory Panel on preventative analytics for youth justice by spring. Work is already underway and further details will be set out in due course.

We have reviewed the recommendations of the Sullivan Review and examined how sex and gender data are currently collected across the main Ministry of Justice data systems. Currently, there is variation in terminology and approaches across these different systems.

We are therefore taking forward work to improve consistency in data collection. In doing so, we will align our approach to the Office for National Statistics’ ongoing harmonisation work on sex and gender data to ensure that our data collection is robust, comparable and consistent.

The Ministry of Justice does not offer remote or hybrid working contracts at the point of recruitment, with all employees having one of the Department’s offices or properties as a contractual base location.

Hybrid working is an informal, non-contractual arrangement that does not involve changes to pay, terms and conditions, or one’s contractual workplace.

Remote working may be agreed through a flexible working request, or as a reasonable adjustment. In some exceptional circumstances, employees have transferred into the Ministry of Justice on protected terms that include homeworking. Records of this, as well as flexible working and workplace adjustments records, are held locally and are not centrally accessible. This information could only be obtained at a disproportionate cost.

Over the next three financial years, the Ministry of Justice will allocate £281 million for youth justice grants and a further £46 million of funding for the extension of the Turnaround grant programme.

This is a continuation of funding levels from previous years but the Department has provided multi-year funding to youth justice services. This will give youth justice services the stability to retain staff, plan effectively with partners, and commission services more efficiently - ultimately strengthening their ability to tackle knife possession and other offences committed by children.

Funding will be allocated to Youth Justice Services across England and Wales using same distribution method that has been applied for the past 13 years. We recognise that the current method for allocating youth justice funding needs updating and later this year we will undertake a consultation about long-term funding and oversight arrangements for youth justice services.

The Ministry of Justice does not hold or collate the information requested centrally.

The Probation Service closely supervises serious offenders released from custody to protect the public and manage risk. The Government is investing in expanded monitoring and introducing new restrictive licence conditions to further strengthen probation’s ability to monitor and manage serious offenders in the community.

Electronic Monitoring (EM) is available for the Parole Board and probation to apply to individuals serving Extended Determinate Sentences or life sentences on release. In addition, we are significantly expanding the post‑custody use of EM. Recent policy changes, including the presumption to apply EM to Short Determinate Sentence leavers, mean thousands more offenders will be tagged in the community over the coming years as part of the Government’s plan to strengthen supervision, manage risk, and keep the public safe.

Whilst tagging is an important tool for probation, it is only one element of a wider range of measures used to monitor and manage individuals in the community. These include risk assessments, curfews, mandatory appointments, behavioural requirements, and where necessary, enforcement action.

Probation supervision is tailored to an offender’s risk and offence type, with licence conditions used to manage their risk in the community. Under our reforms, the highest risk offenders will continue to be supervised by Probation until the end of their sentence, to manage risk of harm and protect the public. They will face the toughest supervision – including GPS tracking, curfews, and exclusion zones.

Those convicted of sexual offending and subject to the notification requirements, serious violent offenders where the custodial term is 12 months or more, and those convicted of terrorism offences, fall to be managed under the statutory Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA). Under MAPPA, the Police, Probation and Prison Services must work together, with input from other agencies as necessary, to assess and manage the risks posed by such offenders. The Probation Service will supervise such offenders until they have completed their sentence, including for any period of licensed supervision in the community, in order to protect the public.

A package of measures has been announced to continue rebuilding the Probation Service, reflecting the Government’s commitment to strengthening probation services and improving public protection. By the final year of the spending review period, funding for probation and community services will increase by up to £700 million, an increase of around 45%.

Recruitment and training of staff remain high priorities, to ensure we have a sufficient workforce to safely supervise and manage people in the community. And we are recruiting more probation officers. The Probation Service exceeded our 2024-25 trainee target of 1,000, successfully onboarding 1,057 trainees and we have committed to onboarding a further 1,300 trainees in 2025/26.

Through the Our Future Probation Service (OFPS) Programme we will address the imbalance between capacity and workload, by reducing probation workloads by 25% by April 2027. We will achieve this by streamlining processes, reducing administrative tasks, and ensuring staff time is focused where it can have the greatest impact.

We are developing better digital tools to reduce the administrative burden at multiple stages of the probation journey, allowing probation practitioners to focus on public protection and rehabilitation. For example, we have developed Justice Transcribe, an AI-powered tool that takes meeting audio and turns into an accurate summary. This is done in minutes, and it cuts the time spent on writing up notes by more than 70%. Practitioners have reported reduced stress, increased confidence and more time to focus on people on probation, public safety and decision-making rather than administration.

Probation will prioritise supervision in the critical period after release – when offenders are most likely to reoffend – and focus resources on those who pose the highest risk. The Sentencing Act 2026 introduces several measures to streamline processes and enable probation to focus their efforts where they matter most to protect the public. The Government is also investing in expanded monitoring and introducing new restrictive licence conditions to further strengthen probation’s ability to monitor and manage serious offenders in the community.

Commissioned Rehabilitative Services (CRS) are specialist interventions delivered in partnership with private, voluntary and community organisations to support individuals under probation supervision, or on license following release from custody. They address key rehabilitative needs that, if unmet, increase the risk of reoffending and are designed to complement and improve access to mainstream services such as housing, healthcare, and local authority support. New contracts will go live in summer 2027 (Men) and Autumn 2028 (Women) which will further enhance the service offering including person-centred, strengths-based services with enhanced community links to connect offenders to new opportunities and social networks; enhanced custodial delivery; and greater focus on outcomes including distance-travelled.

Reducing violent reoffending is a central priority for this Government. We are strengthening the Probation Service, enhancing supervision of high-risk offenders, and delivering evidence-based interventions to address the drivers of violent crime.

We are investing in probation to ensure robust supervision and effective risk management of offenders in the community, including expanding electronic monitoring, and strengthening frontline capability. Supervision is tailored to risk and offence type, with licence conditions used to manage behaviour and protect the public. Under our reforms, high-risk offenders will continue to be supervised until the end of their sentence. They will face the toughest measures, including GPS tagging, curfews, exclusion zones, and new restriction zones where appropriate. We also make full use of recall powers where risk escalates, or licence conditions are breached.

Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) are central to managing serious violent and sexual offenders. Under MAPPA, probation, police and prisons work together to assess and manage risk through coordinated plans which can include enhanced supervision, regular multi-agency reviews, information sharing, and targeted risk management measures. High-risk offenders are subject to closer monitoring and oversight to ensure swift action where risk escalates.

Alongside enforcement, HMPPS delivers accredited offending behaviour programmes and wider rehabilitative support, including access to education, employment, accommodation, and substance misuse treatment. Building Choices, based on the latest international evidence on “What Works” to reduce reoffending, is an accredited cognitive-behavioural intervention designed to address attitudes, thinking patterns and behaviours linked to violent and other serious offending. It completed national rollout at the end of 2025 and is now available across England and Wales.