Ministry of Justice

The Ministry of Justice’s probation policy and guidance advises managers on the steps to take to assess a new employee’s suitability for the post and to provide support to enable them to succeed. It also advises on the steps to take where performance, attendance or conduct are not satisfactory. This can include exiting the employee or extending their probation to provide further evidence for a final decision on their suitability.

The table below shows data for the number of staff who left the Department for the leaving reason "Discharged Probation", in the 12 months to 31 March 2021 - 31 March 2025.

Notes to table 1:

1. Information on the number of staff who have left the department is published in the Civil Service Statistics but not broken down by the leaving reason "Discharged Probation". Therefore, we have used leavers data from the MOJ’s central HR system, SOP, to answer this PQ.

2. Data for MoJ staff (excluding HMPPS) includes only on-strength payroll leavers, whereas data for HMPPS includes all leavers.

Information for the second part of this question, relating to the number of staff that had their probationary period extended in each of the last 5 years, is not published and is not held in the central HR system. Therefore, this information cannot be provided.

The proportion of Employment Tribunals claims which include Unfair Dismissal as a reason for the claim is 25.1%, and 62.5% of Employment Tribunals lodged against the Department are brought under the Equality Act 2010. 3.9% of cases lodged against the Department cite both Unfair Dismissal and claims under the Equality Act 2010.

Employment Tribunals lodged against the Department for Unfair Dismissal

Employment Tribunals lodged against the Department under the Equality Act 2010

*A breakdown of protected characteristics where Employment Tribunals have been brought has been included. Please note, Employment Tribunal claims often include multiple reasons when lodging a claim e.g. race discrimination and disability discrimination etc. This means that, total Employment Tribunals lodged against the department under the Equality Act 2010 will not reflect the total claims under the different protected characteristics.

Employment Tribunals lodged under both Unfair Dismissal and a claim under the Equality Act 2010 against the Department

*Figures below are included in the previous tables.

The Ministry of Justice headcount is circa 82,000 in total.

This Government recognises that legal aid – a vital part of the justice system – supports the ability of individuals, who need it most, to have access to publicly funded legal assistance in order to uphold their legal rights.

Legal aid is available for some private family matters such as child arrangement orders, if an individual is a victim of domestic abuse or at risk of being abused, or if the child who is the subject of the order is a victim of child abuse or at risk of abuse. Funding is subject to providing the required evidence of domestic abuse or child abuse and passing the means and merits tests.

The Government keeps legal aid policy under continuous review.

For cases which do not qualify for legal aid, individuals may seek free, independent advice from legal support and advice organisations.

The Ministry of Justice is providing funding to support litigants in person, to help them navigate the civil justice system effectively, including preparation for court and support at court. In 2025/26, we are providing over £6 million of funding to 60 organisations to support the delivery of free legal support and information, both in-person and online. This includes some Citizens Advice and Law Centres, Rights of Women and Advice Now.

Information on the number of civil servants leaving each government Department and organisation by responsibility level for the years 2021 to 2025 is published annually through the ‘Civil Service data browser’ as part of Civil Service Statistics 2025, an accredited official statistics publication. Information can be accessed through the Civil Service data browser for 2021 through 2025 at the following web address: Civil Service Statistics data browser.

In the Ministry of Justice (including its executive agencies: HMCTS, CICA, LAA, OPG, and HMPPS), along with the wider Civil Service, information about a disability or long-term condition, including mental health conditions, is completed by staff on a voluntary basis, on HR systems. Data on mental health conditions is only available as a subset of those who have voluntarily indicated they considered themselves to have disability or long-term condition. As there is no single category for physical disability, we have provided data on all those who have indicated a disability or long-term condition.

The data provided covers the Ministry of Justice, including its executive agencies: MoJ HQ, HMCTS, CICA, LAA, OPG, and HMPPS.

The table below shows data for the number of staff in post in the department who have self-reported a disability or long-term condition, broken down by grade, as of 31 March 2025.

The total will not exactly match that used in Civil Service Statistics as we have used a different methodology applicable to internal data in order to answer this question.

The table below shows data for the number of staff in post in the department who have self-reported the HR data management systems category mental health conditions, broken down by grade, as of 31 March 2025.

*Data includes those who have selected a single category mental health conditions. We do not capture those who may have multiple conditions or include information provided as free text.

Through the Unduly Lenient Sentence Scheme, a victims’ family (and members of the public) can request that the Attorney General refers a sentence to the Court of Appeal for review. Parliament intended the Unduly Lenient Sentence Scheme to be an exceptional power, and any expansion of the scheme must be carefully considered. While we understand calls for expansion, it is important for both victims and offenders that there is finality in sentencing.

The Law Commission is undertaking a review of the law governing criminal appeals. They launched a public consultation which invited views on a range of reforms to criminal appeals, including the Unduly Lenient Sentence Scheme. They are now reviewing those responses and expect to publish their findings and recommendations in 2026.

The Government will carefully and holistically consider the Law Commission review’s final recommendations.

Data centrally held by the Ministry of Justice covers convictions in England and Wales and does not contain any information regarding Northern Ireland. Offences committed against places of worship in Northern Ireland is a devolved issue for the Executive in Northern Ireland.

The Government is committed to ensuring that defendants charged with serious offences, including sexual assault, attend court so that justice is delivered effectively, and victims can see accountability upheld.

We recognise the distress caused when offenders refuse to attend court, and in particular, for sentencing hearings. That is why we are legislating through the Victims and Courts Bill to give judges express statutory powers to order attendance and impose additional penalties for refusal, ensuring victims and their families see justice delivered in person.

Any decision to order attendance is a matter for the judiciary, who act independently and apply the law in each case.

The Ministry of Justice continues to work across Government to strengthen court processes and sentencing, ensuring they are effective and responsive in all cases, including those involving child sexual abuse.

HM Courts and Tribunal Service (HMCTS) staff support fair hearings led by independent judges. Special measures are available to enable vulnerable witnesses to give their best evidence, including the option to attend remotely and/or give evidence from witness suites located in court buildings or designated remote sites, designed to provide a supportive environment. Judges also take steps to help child victims feel more at ease, such as meeting them before trial or removing traditional court attire like wigs and gowns. Familiarisation visits can be arranged to help vulnerable witnesses become more comfortable with the court setting and process. Recent reforms include powers to compel offenders to attend sentencing and enhanced training to ensure victims are treated with dignity.

We continue to work across Government to ensure victims receive the support they require and need. Victims are supported by Independent Sexual Violence Advisers (ISVAs) during proceedings. The Ministry of Justice funds the CSA Centre to provide training and resources, and invests in specialist services via the Rape and Sexual Abuse Support Fund. Additionally, The Home Office has invested £1.6 million in the Support for Victims and Survivors of Child Sexual Abuse Fund and an extra £1.6 million for national services for adult victims.

Charging decisions are a matter for the Crown Prosecution Service. Where an offender pleads guilty to or is convicted of an offence, the independent judiciary determine the appropriate sentence in individual cases within the maximums set by Parliament, and in line with any relevant sentencing guidelines issued by the Sentencing Council.

The Sentencing Council has issued a package of guidelines on sexual offences, including child sexual offences. These provide the Court with guidance on factors that should be considered, which may affect the sentence given. They set out the different levels of sentence based on the harm caused and how culpable the offender is. The guidelines also include non-exhaustive lists of aggravating and mitigating factors which can result in an upward or downward adjustment in the sentence.

Parliament is responsible for setting the overall sentencing framework and the Government has legislated for strong custodial sentences; through the Crime and Policing Bill, we are introducing measures to make grooming an aggravating factor in sentencing for child sexual offences.

Sexual offences such as rape, assault by penetration, and causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent already attract some of the most serious penalties under the law, with a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. These maximums reflect the gravity of such offences and are among the highest available. In light of this, the Government has no current plans to increase statutory maximum sentences for sexual offences.

Sentencing in individual cases is a matter for our independent judiciary. The sentence imposed on an offender should reflect the crime they have committed and be proportionate to the seriousness of the offence. That is why, 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. The courts also have a statutory duty to follow any relevant sentencing guidelines, issued by the Sentencing Council for England and Wales.

The Ministry of Justice does not routinely publish operational data on how many enforcement agents certificated under the Certification of Enforcement Agent Regulations 2014 have had their certificates cancelled or suspended by a judge under Regulation 11 of the Regulations. The public register of certificated enforcement agents is updated to reflect the cancellation of a certificate, but it does not record the reason for the cancellation.

In 2024, the average processing time for certification of potential enforcement agents at the County Court was 27.62 days. This figure reflects the time taken from submission of an application to the granting of a certificate.

The Ministry of Justice does not routinely publish operational data on how many enforcement agents certificated under the Certification of Enforcement Agent Regulations 2014 have had their certificates cancelled or suspended by a judge under Regulation 11 of the Regulations. The public register of certificated enforcement agents is updated to reflect the cancellation of a certificate, but it does not record the reason for the cancellation.

In 2024, the average processing time for certification of potential enforcement agents at the County Court was 27.62 days. This figure reflects the time taken from submission of an application to the granting of a certificate.

The listing of appeals is a matter for the Tribunal’s independent judiciary. Appeals are usually listed in chronological order based on the date of receipt.

If an expedited hearing is sought, or where the Tribunal identifies a case which might benefit from an expedited hearing, a judge or tribunal caseworker will make a decision on the issue, taking all the circumstances of the case into account.

The First-tier Tribunal Immigration and Asylum Chamber (FtTIAC) has 83 tribunal hearing rooms across the United Kingdom and has access to shared court rooms in other jurisdictions. Utilisation of this space is dependent on a number of factors including the volume of ‘in person’ versus ‘remote’ hearings scheduled, budgetary allocations, the requirement for judges to sit at satellite venues and available staffing and judicial resource.

The FtTIAC is currently funded to sit to maximum levels based on available judicial capacity.

The Ministry of Justice does not hold data on the number of cases which did not progress or were delayed due to non-attendance of professional witnesses split by witness profession.

Public protection is the Government’s foremost priority when considering any progression within the custodial estate.

There are no current plans to restrict those convicted of murder from being held in open prison conditions, as long as it safe to do so.

A prisoner serving a mandatory life sentence for murder is eligible to be considered for a move to an open prison only if within three years of completing the minimum term (tariff) set by the Court at the point of sentence. Further, other than in exceptional circumstances, a life sentence prisoner will be approved for transfer to open conditions only in response to a recommendation made by the Parole Board, following a rigorous risk assessment. Even where the Parole Board makes such a recommendation, the Secretary of State is not bound by it and conducts his own risk assessment before approving the recommendation and so authorising transfer. If, following transfer, the prisoner shows signs of increased risk, s/he will be returned to closed conditions.

Following a long period of incarceration in closed conditions, a period in open conditions may provide important evidence for the purposes of the Parole Board’s determination of whether the prisoner may be safely released into the community on life licence. It also helps to acquaint the prisoner with life outside of prison, which might have changed substantially during the period of imprisonment. This Government remains committed to supporting the progression of prisoners serving life or other indeterminate sentences by supporting them to reduce their risk to a level where the Parole Board determines they may be safely released, subject to a robust risk management plan.

Detailed statistics on the number of offenders in custody are published quarterly, including for the last eight years, and are available here: Offender management statistics quarterly - GOV.UK. The average annual population can be found in Table 1_A_3 of the Annual Prison Population tables, published each July, and the June 30 snapshot population (typically used to represent the population in a particular calendar year) can be found in table 1_A_1.

The quarterly HM Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) workforce statistics includes headcount and Full Time Equivalent figures, as well as annual average staff in post figures for HMPPS staff. The latest data in the quarterly HMPPS workforce statistics covers the period up to the end of June 2025, and figures back to 2010 are available here: HM Prison and Probation Service workforce statistics - GOV.UK.

HM Prison and Probation Service holds required staffing levels which are subject to regular amendment and managed at a local and regional level. As a result of this discretion HMPPS does not present vacancy data due to variability in required staffing levels.

HM Prison and Probation does, however, publish indicative vacancies in the HMPPS Workforce stats: HM Prison and Probation Service workforce quarterly: June 2025 - GOV.UK.

The median length of service for all band 3-5 prison officers in post on 30 June 2025 was 5.2 years.

The length of service in HMPPS is calculated from most recent hire date. Where staff have transferred in from another Government Department or have transferred in through HMPPS taking over a function, length of service is calculated from entry to HMPPS, and therefore the median presented excludes experience in other roles, including in private prisons. Band 3-5 officers includes Band 3-4 / Prison Officers (incl specialists), Band 4 / Supervising Officers, and Band 5 / Custodial Managers.

It is horrific that any person was convicted as a child for loitering and soliciting for prostitution. The Government has announced immediate steps to disregard such convictions.

Also, my officials are working with the Criminal Cases Review Commission to ensure they are properly resourced to review the applications of the wider cohort of victims of child sexual exploitation who believe they were unjustly convicted when their position as a victim was not properly understood.

The Government recognises the distinct needs of women in custody and the critical role education plays in rehabilitation and reducing reoffending. The national education budget has not been reduced.

However, many prisons in the female estate (as well as the male estate) are having to reduce some elements of delivery due to the rising costs of provision.

Education is only one element of rehabilitation, and we continue to invest in skills and employability training for women, for example HMPPS' Future Skills Programme is supporting women in HMP/YOI Low Newton and HMP/YOI New Hall with the skills required to work in customer service roles. We also support women to desist from crime through housing support on release with a minimum of 10% of temporary accommodation beds reserved for women and nine dedicated Strategic Housing Specialists working across the female estate.

The new Prisoner Education Service includes a secure, standardised IT system across all public sector prisons in England, with Wi-Fi now available in education areas enabling improved internet access and data collection. In two women’s prisons, the Launchpad programme is now providing Wi-Fi across the whole site and in-cell laptops. These digital improvements are intended to support learning, wellbeing, and rehabilitation, better preparing women for employment on release.

The Government recognises the distinct needs of women in custody and the critical role education plays in rehabilitation and reducing reoffending. The national education budget has not been reduced.

However, many prisons in the female estate (as well as the male estate) are having to reduce some elements of delivery due to the rising costs of provision.

Education is only one element of rehabilitation, and we continue to invest in skills and employability training for women, for example HMPPS' Future Skills Programme is supporting women in HMP/YOI Low Newton and HMP/YOI New Hall with the skills required to work in customer service roles. We also support women to desist from crime through housing support on release with a minimum of 10% of temporary accommodation beds reserved for women and nine dedicated Strategic Housing Specialists working across the female estate.

The new Prisoner Education Service includes a secure, standardised IT system across all public sector prisons in England, with Wi-Fi now available in education areas enabling improved internet access and data collection. In two women’s prisons, the Launchpad programme is now providing Wi-Fi across the whole site and in-cell laptops. These digital improvements are intended to support learning, wellbeing, and rehabilitation, better preparing women for employment on release.

The Ministry of Justice publishes data on convictions for a wide range of offences, including violence against the person by defendant’s age, sex and ethnicity, in the Outcomes by Offences data tool, that can be downloaded from the Criminal Justice Statistics landing page here: Criminal justice statistics - GOV.UK.

It is not possible to disaggregate the data to identify individuals who were convicted of offences committed against a person from specific religious backgrounds including Christian, Muslim, Jewish, and Christian churches/other places of worship nor the nationality of the offender. This information may be held in court records but to examine individual court records would incur disproportionate costs.

We are committed to creating a more stable and sustainable criminal justice system, in which victims and the public can have confidence. In December 2024, Government commissioned the Independent Review of the Criminal Courts, led by Sir Brian Leveson, to propose reform to improve timeliness in the courts and deliver swift justice for victims.

The Ministry of Justice publishes data on convictions for a wide range of offences, including violence against the person by defendant’s age, sex and ethnicity, in the Outcomes by Offences data tool, that can be downloaded from the Criminal Justice Statistics landing page here: Criminal justice statistics - GOV.UK.

It is not possible to disaggregate the data to identify individuals who were convicted of offences committed against a person from specific religious backgrounds including Christian, Muslim, Jewish, and Christian churches/other places of worship nor the nationality of the offender. This information may be held in court records but to examine individual court records would incur disproportionate costs.

We are committed to creating a more stable and sustainable criminal justice system, in which victims and the public can have confidence. In December 2024, Government commissioned the Independent Review of the Criminal Courts, led by Sir Brian Leveson, to propose reform to improve timeliness in the courts and deliver swift justice for victims.

The Ministry of Justice publishes data on convictions for a wide range of offences, including violence against the person by defendant’s age, sex and ethnicity, in the Outcomes by Offences data tool, that can be downloaded from the Criminal Justice Statistics landing page here: Criminal justice statistics - GOV.UK.

It is not possible to disaggregate the data to identify individuals who were convicted of offences committed against a person from specific religious backgrounds including Christian, Muslim, Jewish, and Christian churches/other places of worship nor the nationality of the offender. This information may be held in court records but to examine individual court records would incur disproportionate costs.

We are committed to creating a more stable and sustainable criminal justice system, in which victims and the public can have confidence. In December 2024, Government commissioned the Independent Review of the Criminal Courts, led by Sir Brian Leveson, to propose reform to improve timeliness in the courts and deliver swift justice for victims.

The Ministry of Justice publishes data on convictions for a wide range of offences, including violence against the person by defendant’s age, sex and ethnicity, in the Outcomes by Offences data tool, that can be downloaded from the Criminal Justice Statistics landing page here: Criminal justice statistics - GOV.UK.

It is not possible to disaggregate the data to identify individuals who were convicted of offences committed against a person from specific religious backgrounds including Christian, Muslim, Jewish, and Christian churches/other places of worship nor the nationality of the offender. This information may be held in court records but to examine individual court records would incur disproportionate costs.

We are committed to creating a more stable and sustainable criminal justice system, in which victims and the public can have confidence. In December 2024, Government commissioned the Independent Review of the Criminal Courts, led by Sir Brian Leveson, to propose reform to improve timeliness in the courts and deliver swift justice for victims.

We have interpreted “eligible for parole” to mean that a prisoner must lawfully be referred to the Parole Board of England & Wales to assess whether they can be safely released into the community on licence.

The statutory framework on parole for both indeterminate and relevant determinate sentence cases is set out in the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 and the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

Prisoners are not eligible to be considered for parole until the end of the minimum custodial term which is their earliest possible release date. That date is known as the parole eligibility date (PED) or tariff expiry date (TED) depending on the type of sentence. The minimum custodial term is set by the courts when the sentence is imposed and cannot be changed by the Secretary of State.

There is no data on the number of prisoners who have successfully applied for parole before their minimum sentence has been served, because such releases are not permitted under legislation.

We have interpreted “eligible for parole” to mean that a prisoner must lawfully be referred to the Parole Board of England & Wales to assess whether they can be safely released into the community on licence.

The statutory framework on parole for both indeterminate and relevant determinate sentence cases is set out in the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 and the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

Prisoners are not eligible to be considered for parole until the end of the minimum custodial term which is their earliest possible release date. That date is known as the parole eligibility date (PED) or tariff expiry date (TED) depending on the type of sentence. The minimum custodial term is set by the courts when the sentence is imposed and cannot be changed by the Secretary of State.

There is no data on the number of prisoners who have successfully applied for parole before their minimum sentence has been served, because such releases are not permitted under legislation.

Prisoners may only be considered for release by the Parole Board once their minimum term has been served; this is known as the parole eligibility date (or tariff expiry date for indeterminate sentences). This statutory safeguard guarantees that no prisoner will be released prior to serving the minimum period of custody established by the court. Release before this point is not permitted under legislation other than the Secretary of State’s overriding power to release any prisoner early on compassionate grounds, which is rarely used.

The recent Independent Sentencing Review proposed a progression model that would allow certain offenders, namely those serving extended determinate sentences, to earn earlier consideration for release based on behaviour and rehabilitation. However, this recommendation was rejected because we do not think it would be right to allow prisoners who have been deemed dangerous by the courts to have their parole eligibility date brought forward.

Prisoners may not be considered for release by the Parole Board until they have served the minimum custodial term imposed by the court. Victims have important rights when it comes to prisoners who are eligible for release via direction from the Parole Board and there are established mechanisms to enable them to exercise those rights. Victims who are eligible under the Victim Contact Scheme are contacted in advance of the prisoner’s first parole review – and any subsequent reviews. This allows them to submit a Victim Personal Statement explaining the effect that the crime has had on them and their family, which may inform the Parole Board’s consideration of licence conditions, should release be directed. However, this engagement does not influence the timing of parole eligibility.

I must clarify that prisoners serving parole eligible sentences do not apply for parole. By law, the Secretary of State for Justice must refer such prisoners to the independent Parole Board at the point of earliest eligibility in line with the sentence being served.

The table below sets out the number of release directions issued by the Parole Board for the period requested, broken down by offence group:

1. The figures in these tables have been drawn from administrative IT systems which, as with any large-scale recording system, are subject to possible errors with data entry and processing.

In considering prisoners’ suitability for release, the independent Parole Board conducts a stringent assessment of risk based on a dossier of evidence. Public protection remains the number one priority and the Parole Board will only release prisoners where it is satisfied that any risks posed are able to be safely managed in the community under the supervision of the Probation Service.

Of the 225 transgender prisoners who reported their legal gender as male, 126 had been convicted of a sexual offence: this includes both contact and non-contact sexual offences. Offence data were not available for ten individuals.

HMPPS’s allocation policy is under review following the Supreme Court judgment in For Women Scotland Ltd vs. The Scottish Ministers. The policy will be updated to take account of this in due course.

Prisoners on E Wing are held separately from other prisoners at HMP & YOI Downview. They may only access the regime of the wider prison if risk assessed as being safe to do so, and under the supervision of prison staff.

Transgender prisoners at all prisons are subject to local risk management arrangements. These are determined by the establishment and take into account risks that may be posed by the prisoner and risks they may face from other prisoners. Since policy was strengthened in 2019, there have been no sexual assaults committed by transgender women in women’s prisons.

With regard to the changes to supervision noted in the Independent Monitoring Board’s Annual Report: E wing prisoners continue to be subject to supervision at all times. Following individual risk assessments carried out by the prison, it was determined that additional prison officer supervision was not necessary to manage risk in each case.

In contrast with the adult estate, the Children and Young People Estate includes mixed gender settings. Placement decisions are based on the young person’s identified needs and the risks they may present to themselves and others at the time of placement. Young people who have been identified as transgender will normally be placed in a mixed gender setting, where staff are skilled at safeguarding and supervising boys and girls in the same establishment. If a transgender young person identifying as a girl were assessed as being too high risk for management in a mixed gender setting, that young person would be placed in a male-only part of the estate, where their transgender needs would be supported. A transgender young person identifying as a boy would only be placed in a mixed gender site, not in a male-only establishment.

A review of transgender prisoner policy in the light of the Supreme Court ruling in For Women Scotland Ltd vs. The Scottish Ministers is in progress.

Prisoners on E Wing are held separately from other prisoners at HMP & YOI Downview. They may only access the regime of the wider prison if risk assessed as being safe to do so, and under the supervision of prison staff.

Transgender prisoners at all prisons are subject to local risk management arrangements. These are determined by the establishment and take into account risks that may be posed by the prisoner and risks they may face from other prisoners. Since policy was strengthened in 2019, there have been no sexual assaults committed by transgender women in women’s prisons.

With regard to the changes to supervision noted in the Independent Monitoring Board’s Annual Report: E wing prisoners continue to be subject to supervision at all times. Following individual risk assessments carried out by the prison, it was determined that additional prison officer supervision was not necessary to manage risk in each case.

In contrast with the adult estate, the Children and Young People Estate includes mixed gender settings. Placement decisions are based on the young person’s identified needs and the risks they may present to themselves and others at the time of placement. Young people who have been identified as transgender will normally be placed in a mixed gender setting, where staff are skilled at safeguarding and supervising boys and girls in the same establishment. If a transgender young person identifying as a girl were assessed as being too high risk for management in a mixed gender setting, that young person would be placed in a male-only part of the estate, where their transgender needs would be supported. A transgender young person identifying as a boy would only be placed in a mixed gender site, not in a male-only establishment.

A review of transgender prisoner policy in the light of the Supreme Court ruling in For Women Scotland Ltd vs. The Scottish Ministers is in progress.

Prisoners on E Wing are held separately from other prisoners at HMP & YOI Downview. They may only access the regime of the wider prison if risk assessed as being safe to do so, and under the supervision of prison staff.

Transgender prisoners at all prisons are subject to local risk management arrangements. These are determined by the establishment and take into account risks that may be posed by the prisoner and risks they may face from other prisoners. Since policy was strengthened in 2019, there have been no sexual assaults committed by transgender women in women’s prisons.

With regard to the changes to supervision noted in the Independent Monitoring Board’s Annual Report: E wing prisoners continue to be subject to supervision at all times. Following individual risk assessments carried out by the prison, it was determined that additional prison officer supervision was not necessary to manage risk in each case.

In contrast with the adult estate, the Children and Young People Estate includes mixed gender settings. Placement decisions are based on the young person’s identified needs and the risks they may present to themselves and others at the time of placement. Young people who have been identified as transgender will normally be placed in a mixed gender setting, where staff are skilled at safeguarding and supervising boys and girls in the same establishment. If a transgender young person identifying as a girl were assessed as being too high risk for management in a mixed gender setting, that young person would be placed in a male-only part of the estate, where their transgender needs would be supported. A transgender young person identifying as a boy would only be placed in a mixed gender site, not in a male-only establishment.

A review of transgender prisoner policy in the light of the Supreme Court ruling in For Women Scotland Ltd vs. The Scottish Ministers is in progress.

Women’s clothing in a range of sizes is available across the women’s estate. This provision has been developed with input from women in custody. Relevant staff in each women’s prison have recently completed training on the ordering process, and a cycle of clothing orders and delivery is in operation. Each establishment has a designated staff member responsible for managing this process.

In line with Prison Service Instruction (PSI) 06/2015 National Policy, Organisation and Summary Arrangements for the Management of Health & Safety, Directors, Deputy Directors and Governors must ensure that work equipment, including personal protective equipment (PPE), provided for use in the workplace is suitable for its intended purpose. Where work undertaken by prisoners has been risk assessed as requiring PPE, appropriate and suitable equipment is provided.

The proposed new section 66AA(5) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 states that: “It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1) to prove that the person had a reasonable excuse for taking the photograph or recording the film”.

This would be a fact-sensitive decision to be made by the court on a case-by-case basis.

That said, the position of a journalist working undercover is one of the situations in which the Government has envisaged that the defence might apply.

The public-facing CPS Legal Guidance Assessing the Public Interest in Cases Affecting the Media [Media: Assessing the Public Interest in Cases Affecting the Media | The Crown Prosecution Service] provides further guidance to prosecutors in dealing with scenarios such as this, including the application of the Public Interest Test.

Therefore, any journalist being investigated for an offence would also be entitled to make representations to the Director of Public Prosecutions, relying on the Legal Guidance, that a prosecution should not take place because it did not meet the Full Code Test for prosecution.

The Bill expands the scope of legal aid, allowing bereaved families to access legal help and advocacy for inquests whenever a public authority is an Interested Person without means testing. By bringing advocacy into scope, the Bill removes the requirement for families to navigate the Exceptional Case Funding (ECF) process to access representation at these inquests.

The legal aid provisions will be enshrined in law and administered by the Legal Aid Agency. Therefore, a cross-government oversight body to monitor compliance has not been considered during the Bill’s development.

The Victims’ Code is statutory guidance that sets out the minimum level of service that victims of crime should receive from the criminal justice system. Under the Code, victims have the right to information when reporting the crime, during investigation and prosecution, during the trial, and at the outcome of the trial. We will be consulting on a new Code in due course to make sure we get the foundations for victims right.

Through the Victim and Courts Bill, we will be updating the legislative framework that establishes the Victim Contact Scheme to bring victims currently served by different post-conviction communication schemes into the Victim Contact Scheme and provide a new route for other victims to request information via a dedicated helpline. This will give victims confidence about the routes available to receive information about their offender’s release.

Releases in error have been increasing for several years and are another symptom of the prison system crisis inherited by this Government.

While the overwhelming majority of offenders are released correctly, we are clamping down on those releases in error that do occur – including through improved staff training and establishing a new specialist unit. A joint protocol between HMPPS and NPCC is in place, to ensure effective and timely communication between partner agencies when an individual is released in error to rearrest them as quickly as possible.

We have gripped this chaos – by building more prison places, ending the last Government’s early release scheme, being transparent with the public, immediately making changes to sentences to ease pressure on the system and now, taking landmark reforms through our Sentencing Bill to make sure that prisons never run out of places again.

The Ministry of Justice cannot provide the information requested. National conduct and discipline data for prison staff is published as part of the HMPPS Staff Equalities Report Official Statistics release available on gov.uk. The latest available data covers the period up to March 2024. Data for the period up to March 2025 is scheduled for publication in November 2025.

As an issue of tribunal procedure, giving evidence under oath would be a matter for judicial consideration. Rule 14(3) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) already provides that the tribunal may require evidence to be given under oath.

Additionally, a witness statement, the equivalent of the oral evidence which the witness would, if called, give in evidence must always include a statement by the intended witness in their own language that they believe the facts in it are true.

The First-tier Tribunal Immigration and Asylum Chamber (FtTIAC) is currently sitting to maximum levels possible based on available judicial capacity.

The FtTIAC has 27 hearing rooms available to list into at the Taylor House Tribunal Hearing Centre. Utilisation of this space is dependent on a number of factors including the volume of ‘in person’ versus ‘remote’ hearings scheduled, budgetary allocations, the requirement for judges to sit at satellite venues and available staffing and judicial resource.

Work is ongoing to increase capacity through recruitment of Judges and support staff. Judicial recruitment exercises which commenced in 2024 for the First-tier Tribunal, including the IAC, are ongoing with appointments due later this year and we are working to grow capacity further across future years. As additional Judges begin to sit we expect to see higher levels of listing across the FtTIAC estate.

The number of open cases in the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) is published in table FIA4 of the Tribunals Statistics quarterly tables and more recently monthly data in table 3 of the HMCTS management information.

Figures covering up to September 2025 are scheduled for publication on 11 December 2025.

Data relating to investigations and conduct and discipline cases within HM Prison & Probation Service cannot be provided for the last 12 months because it forms a subset of the data planned for future release as part of the next annual HM Prison & Probation Service Staff Equalities Report. The data for the period ending 31 March 2025 will be published on 27 November 2025.