Ministry of Justice

The Public Appointments Diversity and Outreach Strategy 2026 outlines how the Ministry of Justice will improve diversity, fairness and transparency in public appointments through strengthened outreach, recruitment processes and data-driven decision making. The Department will assess progress biannually, with a full evaluation in 2028.

Data regarding the age of the victim is not held by the Ministry of Justice, except where it is specifically defined in statute (for example, where the offence is a sexual offence against a child). In addition, the Ministry of Justice does not hold information on the asylum status of offenders.

The removal of Foreign National Offenders is a priority for this Government and within its first two years (July 2024 to June 2026), this Government has increased returns of FNOs by 41% compared to the last two years of the previous Government.

The Government recognises the significant impact that theft of agricultural machinery and equipment can have on farming businesses and rural communities. These offences can result in substantial financial loss, disruption to business operations and wider economic harm in rural areas.

We are committed to tackling rural crime and supporting the policing response to these offences. This year, the Home Office is providing over £800,000 to the National Rural Crime Unit and National Wildlife Crime Unit, supporting intelligence development, operational coordination, and specialist capabilities to tackle rural and wildlife crime across England and Wales.

At the point of sentencing, Sentencing Council guidelines for theft offences make clear that significant financial loss or serious disruption caused to a victim's business may be treated as an aggravating factor, which can result in a more severe sentence being imposed. Courts must follow sentencing guidelines unless it would be contrary to the interest of justice to do so.

Courts must, by law, also consider whether to make a compensation order requiring offenders to make financial reparation to victims for any personal injury, loss or damage resulting from the offence, and must give reasons where they decide not to make such an order.

We do not comment on the management of prisoners transferred into secure hospitals from custody, including on allegations about their actions. Such matters fall to the detaining hospital to address either through their own security procedures or where appropriate with their local police force.

Section 47 of the Mental Health Act 1983 (the 1983 Act) provides for the transfer of prisoners from custody to secure psychiatric hospitals to receive treatment under the 1983 Act. Such transfers require clear clinical evidence provided by at least two registered medical practitioners, ordinarily consultant-level psychiatrists, who are recognised by the Secretary of State as having special experience in the diagnosis or treatment of mental disorders.

When deciding to transfer a prisoner to hospital, the Secretary of State will closely scrutinise the medical evidence to assess whether the criteria for a transfer under section 47 of the 1983 Act are met.

At the point a prisoner, who has been transferred to hospital, no longer meets the criteria for detention under the 1983 Act, they will return to prison to continue serving their custodial sentence.

A transfer under section 47 of the 1983 Act has no effect on the sentence a prisoner will serve. In Axel Rudakubana’s case, only the Parole Board can direct his release, and the Board will not consider that until the expiry of his 52-year tariff in 2076.

Public authorities will be required to adopt and publish a Code of Ethical Conduct that includes information on how people who do not work for the public authority may make complaints. Public authorities may wish to publish additional relevant information alongside their Code of Ethical Conduct

The Government recognises the importance of ensuring that Codes of Ethical Conduct operate effectively alongside existing ethical codes made and published by regulators, ombudsmen, inspectorates and law-enforcement bodies. Statutory guidance will be published to support public authorities to comply with the duties in clause 10 of the Public Office (Accountability) Bill.

I have recently met members of the Devine family with the noble Lord to discuss these proposals and am grateful to them for their time.

The Public Office (Accountability) Bill requires public authorities to have and publish Codes of Ethical Conduct. Each code should explain how those working for the authority can demonstrate candour in the context of their particular organisation, its functions, and the individual’s specific role.

The Bill sets out the minimum requirements that public authorities must meet for their Code to be compliant.

In October 2025, the Ethics and Integrity Commission (EIC) was commissioned to report on how public bodies can develop, distribute and enforce Codes of Conduct so that they effect meaningful cultural change, ensuring that public officials act with honesty, integrity and candour at all times.

When published, the EIC will act as a ‘Centre of Excellence’ for public sector Codes of Conduct and provide guidance and best practice to public bodies. As an independent body, the EIC is responsible for setting the scope and direction of its work.

Statutory guidance will be published to support public authorities to comply with the duties in clause 10 of the Public Office (Accountability) Bill.

Public authorities will be required to adopt and publish Codes of Ethical Conduct. These can be tailored to meet the requirements of their workforces and sectors.

The Bill sets out the minimum requirements that public authorities must meet for their Code to be compliant. Statutory guidance will be published to support them.

Public authorities will be required to adopt and publish Codes of Ethical Conduct. These can be tailored to meet the requirements of their workforces and sectors.

The Bill sets out the minimum requirements that public authorities must meet for their Code to be compliant. Statutory guidance will be published to support them.

The Bill sets out the minimum requirements that public authorities must meet for their Code of Ethical Conduct to be compliant. Public authorities are responsible for the disciplinary consequences for people who work for the authority failing to act in accordance with the standards of conduct expected of them.

The Public Office (Accountability) Bill requires public authorities to publish a Code of Ethical Conduct that includes information on how people who do not work for the public authority may make a complaint.

The method of investigation and possible outcomes will depend on the circumstances and the public authority concerned.

The Sentencing Act 2026 contains provisions which change the proportion of a standard determinate sentence that must be served in custody before an offender is automatically released on licence. In June 2026, letters were issued to victims engaged with the Probation Service Victim Contact Scheme to notify them of changes to prisoner release arrangements introduced by the Act.

Eligibility to receive these letters was not determined by the offence group relating to the victim's case. Rather, victims were eligible to receive the letters where they were engaged with the Victim Contact Scheme and the offender in their case was serving a standard determinate sentence and was not subject to recall.

Victims were not eligible to receive the initial notification letter where they had not chosen to receive the services provided under the Victim Contact Scheme, or where the offender in their case was not serving a standard determinate sentence, including where the offender was serving another sentence type or was subject to recall.

Following the Prime Minister's announcement on 30 August 2026, sentence recalculations are being reviewed and, where necessary, recalculated. Victims will be contacted once this process has concluded to confirm whether the changes affect the offender in their case and, where applicable, to provide a revised release date.

Victim Liaison Officers are not issued with specific guidance regarding interactions between victims’ families and journalists, broadcasters, social media platforms or public relations advisers.

Victim Liaison Officers provide information and support in relation to the Probation Service Victim Contact Scheme and may signpost victims' families to other organisations where appropriate. Decisions about whether and how to engage with media organisations, social media platforms or public relations advisers are a matter for victims and their families.

However, victims are advised not to share personal information about the offender obtained through the Victim Contact Scheme online or through social media channels.

Coroners do not make recommendations as part of their inquest findings. However, where a coroner investigation gives rise to a concern that circumstances creating a risk of other deaths will occur, or will continue to exist, in the future, and the coroner considers that action should be taken to prevent future deaths, they have a statutory duty to issue a Prevention of Future Deaths (PFD) report to a person (including an organisation, public body, Government department or private company) that may have the power to take such action.

Recipients are required to provide a written response to the coroner within 56 days, or within any extended period agreed by the coroner, setting out action taken or proposed, or explaining why no action is proposed. Reports and responses must be sent to the Chief Coroner and are generally published and available at: https://www.judiciary.uk/?s=&pfd_report_type=&post_type=pfd&order=relevance.

These reports have been intentionally placed into the public domain since July 2013 as part of the Government and the judiciary’s commitment to open justice, so that coroner concerns can be understood, analysed and utilised to improve learning by recipient and other interested organisations, as well as by academics and others with a relevant interest.

The Government recognises the important role that PFD reports play in highlighting circumstances where action may be required to reduce the risk of future deaths and promoting organisational learning. However, whilst the Lord Chancellor has responsibility for the legislative framework governing the coronial system, the Ministry of Justice does not centrally assess, monitor or record the implementation of actions arising from individual PFD reports across Government and does not hold centrally the number of PFD reports received by government departments since 2013, nor the number of reports with outstanding responses. Responsibility for considering concerns raised by coroners, determining any appropriate action and responding to the coroner rests with the organisations and departments to which reports are addressed.

PFD reports are sent directly to the relevant recipients, and as above, are published by the Chief Coroner along with responses. Information on reports received and responses provided can also be obtained from individual recipients. Since 2025, the Chief Coroner has also published periodic lists of reports for which no response has been received by the relevant coroner's office.

The Ministry of Justice keeps all aspects of the coronial system under review and continues to consider evidence and proposals to improve learning from deaths. However, the Department currently has no plans to introduce a national learning from deaths strategy. This reflects the fact that responsibility for preventing avoidable deaths and reducing harm sits across a wide range of government departments, agencies and bodies, each with their own specialist expertise, statutory responsibilities, policy levers, governance arrangements and learning mechanisms.

Many individual government departments and agencies have strategies and frameworks for reducing harm and preventable deaths in their areas of responsibility. One example is the Patient Safety Strategy updated by NHS England in July 2026. The purpose of this strategy is to continuously improve patient safety and evidence shows that is saving around 1,000 extra lives each year. The updated strategy can be found here: https://www.england.nhs.uk/patient-safety/the-nhs-patient-safety-strategy/.

In addition, the National Quality Board produced guidance in 2017 to help standardise and improve the way the NHS identifies, reports, reviews and investigates deaths to inform learning and improvement. Earlier this year, the newly revitalised National Quality Board commissioned a review of the national Learning from Deaths guidance to align with the introduction of the Medical Examiner system and new safety policy introduced via the NHS Patient Safety Strategy in 2019. The revision of the Learning from Deaths guidance will also incorporate a data strategy to support learning from deaths across the NHS in England. NHS England has met with Dr Georgia Richards and others working in the space of PFD analysis and the revised guidance will take this work into account. The Department for Health and Social Care tracks relevant PFD reports and ensures that relevant regulators and other bodies, are made aware of concerns, so that the relevant organisations can consider and act upon learning identified, including recurrent themes and risks.

More broadly, death certification, investigation, and registration system (including the coronial system and, through the reforms introduced by this Government in September 2024, the statutory Medical Examiner system) plays a vital role in establishing and recording universal and robust information about the circumstances of all deaths which take place in England and Wales. This information in turn contributes to work by ONS and other organisations to provide comprehensive and detailed mortality data for public benefit.

The Government recognises calls by the Infected Blood Inquiry and the Grenfell Inquiry that Parliament is the right body to undertake independent oversight of public inquiry recommendations and ensure that public authorities are held accountable for the actions they have committed to undertake. The Public Administration and Constitution Affairs Committee is currently looking at how Parliament can do this.

Ministers and officials regularly engage with a range of stakeholders on matters relating to the coronial system, including academic and research organisations. The Government recognises the contribution of the Preventable Deaths Tracker, led by Dr Georgia Richards of King’s College London, as well as work being undertaken by the Independent Advisory Panel on Deaths in Custody and by other academics, in supporting access to and analysis of published PFD reports, and ministerial meetings are considered and arranged in the usual way.

Coroners do not make recommendations as part of their inquest findings. However, where a coroner investigation gives rise to a concern that circumstances creating a risk of other deaths will occur, or will continue to exist, in the future, and the coroner considers that action should be taken to prevent future deaths, they have a statutory duty to issue a Prevention of Future Deaths (PFD) report to a person (including an organisation, public body, Government department or private company) that may have the power to take such action.

Recipients are required to provide a written response to the coroner within 56 days, or within any extended period agreed by the coroner, setting out action taken or proposed, or explaining why no action is proposed. Reports and responses must be sent to the Chief Coroner and are generally published and available at: https://www.judiciary.uk/?s=&pfd_report_type=&post_type=pfd&order=relevance.

These reports have been intentionally placed into the public domain since July 2013 as part of the Government and the judiciary’s commitment to open justice, so that coroner concerns can be understood, analysed and utilised to improve learning by recipient and other interested organisations, as well as by academics and others with a relevant interest.

The Government recognises the important role that PFD reports play in highlighting circumstances where action may be required to reduce the risk of future deaths and promoting organisational learning. However, whilst the Lord Chancellor has responsibility for the legislative framework governing the coronial system, the Ministry of Justice does not centrally assess, monitor or record the implementation of actions arising from individual PFD reports across Government and does not hold centrally the number of PFD reports received by government departments since 2013, nor the number of reports with outstanding responses. Responsibility for considering concerns raised by coroners, determining any appropriate action and responding to the coroner rests with the organisations and departments to which reports are addressed.

PFD reports are sent directly to the relevant recipients, and as above, are published by the Chief Coroner along with responses. Information on reports received and responses provided can also be obtained from individual recipients. Since 2025, the Chief Coroner has also published periodic lists of reports for which no response has been received by the relevant coroner's office.

The Ministry of Justice keeps all aspects of the coronial system under review and continues to consider evidence and proposals to improve learning from deaths. However, the Department currently has no plans to introduce a national learning from deaths strategy. This reflects the fact that responsibility for preventing avoidable deaths and reducing harm sits across a wide range of government departments, agencies and bodies, each with their own specialist expertise, statutory responsibilities, policy levers, governance arrangements and learning mechanisms.

Many individual government departments and agencies have strategies and frameworks for reducing harm and preventable deaths in their areas of responsibility. One example is the Patient Safety Strategy updated by NHS England in July 2026. The purpose of this strategy is to continuously improve patient safety and evidence shows that is saving around 1,000 extra lives each year. The updated strategy can be found here: https://www.england.nhs.uk/patient-safety/the-nhs-patient-safety-strategy/.

In addition, the National Quality Board produced guidance in 2017 to help standardise and improve the way the NHS identifies, reports, reviews and investigates deaths to inform learning and improvement. Earlier this year, the newly revitalised National Quality Board commissioned a review of the national Learning from Deaths guidance to align with the introduction of the Medical Examiner system and new safety policy introduced via the NHS Patient Safety Strategy in 2019. The revision of the Learning from Deaths guidance will also incorporate a data strategy to support learning from deaths across the NHS in England. NHS England has met with Dr Georgia Richards and others working in the space of PFD analysis and the revised guidance will take this work into account. The Department for Health and Social Care tracks relevant PFD reports and ensures that relevant regulators and other bodies, are made aware of concerns, so that the relevant organisations can consider and act upon learning identified, including recurrent themes and risks.

More broadly, death certification, investigation, and registration system (including the coronial system and, through the reforms introduced by this Government in September 2024, the statutory Medical Examiner system) plays a vital role in establishing and recording universal and robust information about the circumstances of all deaths which take place in England and Wales. This information in turn contributes to work by ONS and other organisations to provide comprehensive and detailed mortality data for public benefit.

The Government recognises calls by the Infected Blood Inquiry and the Grenfell Inquiry that Parliament is the right body to undertake independent oversight of public inquiry recommendations and ensure that public authorities are held accountable for the actions they have committed to undertake. The Public Administration and Constitution Affairs Committee is currently looking at how Parliament can do this.

Ministers and officials regularly engage with a range of stakeholders on matters relating to the coronial system, including academic and research organisations. The Government recognises the contribution of the Preventable Deaths Tracker, led by Dr Georgia Richards of King’s College London, as well as work being undertaken by the Independent Advisory Panel on Deaths in Custody and by other academics, in supporting access to and analysis of published PFD reports, and ministerial meetings are considered and arranged in the usual way.

Coroners do not make recommendations as part of their inquest findings. However, where a coroner investigation gives rise to a concern that circumstances creating a risk of other deaths will occur, or will continue to exist, in the future, and the coroner considers that action should be taken to prevent future deaths, they have a statutory duty to issue a Prevention of Future Deaths (PFD) report to a person (including an organisation, public body, Government department or private company) that may have the power to take such action.

Recipients are required to provide a written response to the coroner within 56 days, or within any extended period agreed by the coroner, setting out action taken or proposed, or explaining why no action is proposed. Reports and responses must be sent to the Chief Coroner and are generally published and available at: https://www.judiciary.uk/?s=&pfd_report_type=&post_type=pfd&order=relevance.

These reports have been intentionally placed into the public domain since July 2013 as part of the Government and the judiciary’s commitment to open justice, so that coroner concerns can be understood, analysed and utilised to improve learning by recipient and other interested organisations, as well as by academics and others with a relevant interest.

The Government recognises the important role that PFD reports play in highlighting circumstances where action may be required to reduce the risk of future deaths and promoting organisational learning. However, whilst the Lord Chancellor has responsibility for the legislative framework governing the coronial system, the Ministry of Justice does not centrally assess, monitor or record the implementation of actions arising from individual PFD reports across Government and does not hold centrally the number of PFD reports received by government departments since 2013, nor the number of reports with outstanding responses. Responsibility for considering concerns raised by coroners, determining any appropriate action and responding to the coroner rests with the organisations and departments to which reports are addressed.

PFD reports are sent directly to the relevant recipients, and as above, are published by the Chief Coroner along with responses. Information on reports received and responses provided can also be obtained from individual recipients. Since 2025, the Chief Coroner has also published periodic lists of reports for which no response has been received by the relevant coroner's office.

The Ministry of Justice keeps all aspects of the coronial system under review and continues to consider evidence and proposals to improve learning from deaths. However, the Department currently has no plans to introduce a national learning from deaths strategy. This reflects the fact that responsibility for preventing avoidable deaths and reducing harm sits across a wide range of government departments, agencies and bodies, each with their own specialist expertise, statutory responsibilities, policy levers, governance arrangements and learning mechanisms.

Many individual government departments and agencies have strategies and frameworks for reducing harm and preventable deaths in their areas of responsibility. One example is the Patient Safety Strategy updated by NHS England in July 2026. The purpose of this strategy is to continuously improve patient safety and evidence shows that is saving around 1,000 extra lives each year. The updated strategy can be found here: https://www.england.nhs.uk/patient-safety/the-nhs-patient-safety-strategy/.

In addition, the National Quality Board produced guidance in 2017 to help standardise and improve the way the NHS identifies, reports, reviews and investigates deaths to inform learning and improvement. Earlier this year, the newly revitalised National Quality Board commissioned a review of the national Learning from Deaths guidance to align with the introduction of the Medical Examiner system and new safety policy introduced via the NHS Patient Safety Strategy in 2019. The revision of the Learning from Deaths guidance will also incorporate a data strategy to support learning from deaths across the NHS in England. NHS England has met with Dr Georgia Richards and others working in the space of PFD analysis and the revised guidance will take this work into account. The Department for Health and Social Care tracks relevant PFD reports and ensures that relevant regulators and other bodies, are made aware of concerns, so that the relevant organisations can consider and act upon learning identified, including recurrent themes and risks.

More broadly, death certification, investigation, and registration system (including the coronial system and, through the reforms introduced by this Government in September 2024, the statutory Medical Examiner system) plays a vital role in establishing and recording universal and robust information about the circumstances of all deaths which take place in England and Wales. This information in turn contributes to work by ONS and other organisations to provide comprehensive and detailed mortality data for public benefit.

The Government recognises calls by the Infected Blood Inquiry and the Grenfell Inquiry that Parliament is the right body to undertake independent oversight of public inquiry recommendations and ensure that public authorities are held accountable for the actions they have committed to undertake. The Public Administration and Constitution Affairs Committee is currently looking at how Parliament can do this.

Ministers and officials regularly engage with a range of stakeholders on matters relating to the coronial system, including academic and research organisations. The Government recognises the contribution of the Preventable Deaths Tracker, led by Dr Georgia Richards of King’s College London, as well as work being undertaken by the Independent Advisory Panel on Deaths in Custody and by other academics, in supporting access to and analysis of published PFD reports, and ministerial meetings are considered and arranged in the usual way.

Coroners do not make recommendations as part of their inquest findings. However, where a coroner investigation gives rise to a concern that circumstances creating a risk of other deaths will occur, or will continue to exist, in the future, and the coroner considers that action should be taken to prevent future deaths, they have a statutory duty to issue a Prevention of Future Deaths (PFD) report to a person (including an organisation, public body, Government department or private company) that may have the power to take such action.

Recipients are required to provide a written response to the coroner within 56 days, or within any extended period agreed by the coroner, setting out action taken or proposed, or explaining why no action is proposed. Reports and responses must be sent to the Chief Coroner and are generally published and available at: https://www.judiciary.uk/?s=&pfd_report_type=&post_type=pfd&order=relevance.

These reports have been intentionally placed into the public domain since July 2013 as part of the Government and the judiciary’s commitment to open justice, so that coroner concerns can be understood, analysed and utilised to improve learning by recipient and other interested organisations, as well as by academics and others with a relevant interest.

The Government recognises the important role that PFD reports play in highlighting circumstances where action may be required to reduce the risk of future deaths and promoting organisational learning. However, whilst the Lord Chancellor has responsibility for the legislative framework governing the coronial system, the Ministry of Justice does not centrally assess, monitor or record the implementation of actions arising from individual PFD reports across Government and does not hold centrally the number of PFD reports received by government departments since 2013, nor the number of reports with outstanding responses. Responsibility for considering concerns raised by coroners, determining any appropriate action and responding to the coroner rests with the organisations and departments to which reports are addressed.

PFD reports are sent directly to the relevant recipients, and as above, are published by the Chief Coroner along with responses. Information on reports received and responses provided can also be obtained from individual recipients. Since 2025, the Chief Coroner has also published periodic lists of reports for which no response has been received by the relevant coroner's office.

The Ministry of Justice keeps all aspects of the coronial system under review and continues to consider evidence and proposals to improve learning from deaths. However, the Department currently has no plans to introduce a national learning from deaths strategy. This reflects the fact that responsibility for preventing avoidable deaths and reducing harm sits across a wide range of government departments, agencies and bodies, each with their own specialist expertise, statutory responsibilities, policy levers, governance arrangements and learning mechanisms.

Many individual government departments and agencies have strategies and frameworks for reducing harm and preventable deaths in their areas of responsibility. One example is the Patient Safety Strategy updated by NHS England in July 2026. The purpose of this strategy is to continuously improve patient safety and evidence shows that is saving around 1,000 extra lives each year. The updated strategy can be found here: https://www.england.nhs.uk/patient-safety/the-nhs-patient-safety-strategy/.

In addition, the National Quality Board produced guidance in 2017 to help standardise and improve the way the NHS identifies, reports, reviews and investigates deaths to inform learning and improvement. Earlier this year, the newly revitalised National Quality Board commissioned a review of the national Learning from Deaths guidance to align with the introduction of the Medical Examiner system and new safety policy introduced via the NHS Patient Safety Strategy in 2019. The revision of the Learning from Deaths guidance will also incorporate a data strategy to support learning from deaths across the NHS in England. NHS England has met with Dr Georgia Richards and others working in the space of PFD analysis and the revised guidance will take this work into account. The Department for Health and Social Care tracks relevant PFD reports and ensures that relevant regulators and other bodies, are made aware of concerns, so that the relevant organisations can consider and act upon learning identified, including recurrent themes and risks.

More broadly, death certification, investigation, and registration system (including the coronial system and, through the reforms introduced by this Government in September 2024, the statutory Medical Examiner system) plays a vital role in establishing and recording universal and robust information about the circumstances of all deaths which take place in England and Wales. This information in turn contributes to work by ONS and other organisations to provide comprehensive and detailed mortality data for public benefit.

The Government recognises calls by the Infected Blood Inquiry and the Grenfell Inquiry that Parliament is the right body to undertake independent oversight of public inquiry recommendations and ensure that public authorities are held accountable for the actions they have committed to undertake. The Public Administration and Constitution Affairs Committee is currently looking at how Parliament can do this.

Ministers and officials regularly engage with a range of stakeholders on matters relating to the coronial system, including academic and research organisations. The Government recognises the contribution of the Preventable Deaths Tracker, led by Dr Georgia Richards of King’s College London, as well as work being undertaken by the Independent Advisory Panel on Deaths in Custody and by other academics, in supporting access to and analysis of published PFD reports, and ministerial meetings are considered and arranged in the usual way.

Coroners do not make recommendations as part of their inquest findings. However, where a coroner investigation gives rise to a concern that circumstances creating a risk of other deaths will occur, or will continue to exist, in the future, and the coroner considers that action should be taken to prevent future deaths, they have a statutory duty to issue a Prevention of Future Deaths (PFD) report to a person (including an organisation, public body, Government department or private company) that may have the power to take such action.

Recipients are required to provide a written response to the coroner within 56 days, or within any extended period agreed by the coroner, setting out action taken or proposed, or explaining why no action is proposed. Reports and responses must be sent to the Chief Coroner and are generally published and available at: https://www.judiciary.uk/?s=&pfd_report_type=&post_type=pfd&order=relevance.

These reports have been intentionally placed into the public domain since July 2013 as part of the Government and the judiciary’s commitment to open justice, so that coroner concerns can be understood, analysed and utilised to improve learning by recipient and other interested organisations, as well as by academics and others with a relevant interest.

The Government recognises the important role that PFD reports play in highlighting circumstances where action may be required to reduce the risk of future deaths and promoting organisational learning. However, whilst the Lord Chancellor has responsibility for the legislative framework governing the coronial system, the Ministry of Justice does not centrally assess, monitor or record the implementation of actions arising from individual PFD reports across Government and does not hold centrally the number of PFD reports received by government departments since 2013, nor the number of reports with outstanding responses. Responsibility for considering concerns raised by coroners, determining any appropriate action and responding to the coroner rests with the organisations and departments to which reports are addressed.

PFD reports are sent directly to the relevant recipients, and as above, are published by the Chief Coroner along with responses. Information on reports received and responses provided can also be obtained from individual recipients. Since 2025, the Chief Coroner has also published periodic lists of reports for which no response has been received by the relevant coroner's office.

The Ministry of Justice keeps all aspects of the coronial system under review and continues to consider evidence and proposals to improve learning from deaths. However, the Department currently has no plans to introduce a national learning from deaths strategy. This reflects the fact that responsibility for preventing avoidable deaths and reducing harm sits across a wide range of government departments, agencies and bodies, each with their own specialist expertise, statutory responsibilities, policy levers, governance arrangements and learning mechanisms.

Many individual government departments and agencies have strategies and frameworks for reducing harm and preventable deaths in their areas of responsibility. One example is the Patient Safety Strategy updated by NHS England in July 2026. The purpose of this strategy is to continuously improve patient safety and evidence shows that is saving around 1,000 extra lives each year. The updated strategy can be found here: https://www.england.nhs.uk/patient-safety/the-nhs-patient-safety-strategy/.

In addition, the National Quality Board produced guidance in 2017 to help standardise and improve the way the NHS identifies, reports, reviews and investigates deaths to inform learning and improvement. Earlier this year, the newly revitalised National Quality Board commissioned a review of the national Learning from Deaths guidance to align with the introduction of the Medical Examiner system and new safety policy introduced via the NHS Patient Safety Strategy in 2019. The revision of the Learning from Deaths guidance will also incorporate a data strategy to support learning from deaths across the NHS in England. NHS England has met with Dr Georgia Richards and others working in the space of PFD analysis and the revised guidance will take this work into account. The Department for Health and Social Care tracks relevant PFD reports and ensures that relevant regulators and other bodies, are made aware of concerns, so that the relevant organisations can consider and act upon learning identified, including recurrent themes and risks.

More broadly, death certification, investigation, and registration system (including the coronial system and, through the reforms introduced by this Government in September 2024, the statutory Medical Examiner system) plays a vital role in establishing and recording universal and robust information about the circumstances of all deaths which take place in England and Wales. This information in turn contributes to work by ONS and other organisations to provide comprehensive and detailed mortality data for public benefit.

The Government recognises calls by the Infected Blood Inquiry and the Grenfell Inquiry that Parliament is the right body to undertake independent oversight of public inquiry recommendations and ensure that public authorities are held accountable for the actions they have committed to undertake. The Public Administration and Constitution Affairs Committee is currently looking at how Parliament can do this.

Ministers and officials regularly engage with a range of stakeholders on matters relating to the coronial system, including academic and research organisations. The Government recognises the contribution of the Preventable Deaths Tracker, led by Dr Georgia Richards of King’s College London, as well as work being undertaken by the Independent Advisory Panel on Deaths in Custody and by other academics, in supporting access to and analysis of published PFD reports, and ministerial meetings are considered and arranged in the usual way.

At present, around 80% of HMP Millsike’s capacity is in use. Occupancy will increase when operationally appropriate to do so. The pace of prisoner intake is kept under review by His Majesty’s Prison & Probation Service (HMPPS) and can be adjusted as necessary.

The occupation of new prisons is phased and managed carefully to ensure the prison remains safe, secure and stable as occupancy increases. This is explained in HMP Millsike’s published Mobilisation Strategy. It is recognised that opening a new prison is an inherently challenging period, as staff adapt to a new site and establish its culture, regime and processes. Staffing is one of a range of operational factors that need to be considered, together with safety and security, the stability of the prison, and the establishment of its regime and processes.

As with all privately operated prisons, HMPPS strictly monitors the performance of the prison throughout the life of the contract, including through its on-site contract management team.

The Government keeps the effectiveness of the criminal law under review, including the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007. The 2007 Act created a specific offence to ensure that organisations can be held criminally accountable where serious management failures leading to a gross breach of a duty of care result in death. The offence has been used to secure convictions and substantial fines where the evidential test has been met.

The Ministry of Justice has not undertaken a recent formal review of the 2007 Act but continues to monitor its operation through relevant criminal justice agencies and enforcement authorities.

The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) does not offer permanent home-working contracts at the point of recruitment, with employees having a contractual base location at an MoJ office or property.

In limited circumstances, contractual homeworking arrangements may be agreed, including as a reasonable adjustment, and some employees may have transferred into the Department on protected terms which include homeworking. This is distinct from the MoJ’s hybrid working arrangements, under which employees may work both from home and in the workplace without their home being their contractual work location.

The MoJ remains committed to flexible working and the business benefits that it offers, including supporting the Civil Service priority of ensuring continued, effective and productive delivery of the work carried out by civil servants across the full range of services.

Whether an individual is employed on a permanent home-working contract is not reliably recorded on the Department's central HR system. The number and proportion of employees on such contracts in 2025 is therefore not held centrally.

This Government is committed to enhancing support for victims of domestic abuse and improving the criminal court’s response to domestic abuse cases.

In our Violence Against Women and Girls Strategy, the Government committed to rolling out Domestic Abuse Protection Orders – our strongest order yet for domestic abuse - across England and Wales. We are also introducing a domestic abuse identifier at sentencing in criminal cases to enable police, prisons and probation to more consistently identify domestic abuse offenders. This Government has also made trauma-informed training available to all HMCTS court staff, helping them to better understand domestic abuse and apply trauma-informed practice in their interactions with victims.

We are actively considering how to expand the use of Specialist Domestic Abuse Courts in the criminal division as part of our wider work to improve outcomes for victims of domestic abuse, in response to recommendations made by the Independent Sentencing Review.

We have not made a specific assessment of the effectiveness of the youth justice system in reducing reoffending in relation to the requested offences. However, please refer to the tables attached which show the proven reoffending rates for children and young adults (18-24) convicted of these offences. To note that volumes are too low to reproduce reoffending rates for children convicted of dangerous driving offences.

The principal aim of the youth justice system is to protect the public by preventing offending by children. In the Youth Justice White Paper published earlier this year, the Government laid out a range of robust interventions to deliver on that aim, with a particular focus on early intervention and strengthening youth justice services. Youth justice services are empowered to design specific provision that works best for their local area. For example, Leicestershire Youth Justice Services’ deliver the Brake! programme, which is used for children involved in driving offences.

The number of children and 18-24 year olds convicted of the requested offences, and the number of people in each category with one or more convictions, can be found attached.

We have not made a specific assessment of the effectiveness of the youth justice system in reducing reoffending in relation to the requested offences. However, please refer to the tables attached which show the proven reoffending rates for children and young adults (18-24) convicted of these offences. To note that volumes are too low to reproduce reoffending rates for children convicted of dangerous driving offences.

The principal aim of the youth justice system is to protect the public by preventing offending by children. In the Youth Justice White Paper published earlier this year, the Government laid out a range of robust interventions to deliver on that aim, with a particular focus on early intervention and strengthening youth justice services. Youth justice services are empowered to design specific provision that works best for their local area. For example, Leicestershire Youth Justice Services’ deliver the Brake! programme, which is used for children involved in driving offences.

The number of children and 18-24 year olds convicted of the requested offences, and the number of people in each category with one or more convictions, can be found attached.

On 1 September, my Rt Hon Friend the Lord Chancellor announced in a statement on criminal justice reform that, to help relieve some of the adult prison capacity challenges, a decision had been taken to hold some 18-year-olds for longer in the youth estate, on a careful case-by-case basis. This is an interim arrangement, subject to regular review, which we will look to end as soon as possible. We have not taken this decision lightly: we judge it to be a necessary part of the response to the prison capacity crisis which this Government inherited.

Retaining some 18-year-olds in the youth estate, on a case-by-case basis, is a longstanding practice.

The interim policy decision announced will be subject to several key safeguards. The proportion of 18-year-olds in the youth custody population must never exceed 25 per cent. In addition to the assessment of individual young people and of site safety, existing safeguarding, behaviour-management and risk-assessment arrangements will continue to apply. These will monitor any concerns about risks posed by or to an individual young person. Where an unmanageable risk to other young people, or to the stability of the establishment, is identified, an earlier transition to the adult estate will be arranged.

As regards the longer term, the Youth Custody Transformation Plan, which is planned for publication in the coming months, will include consideration of how we best support young people transitioning from the youth estate to adult prison.

The Ministry of Justice uses rooftop solar panels across a number of its premises and is taking steps to deploy additional panels where technically and financially feasible.

The Ministry of Justice publishes a range of FNO statistical breakdowns as part of its Offender Management Statistics Quarterly (OMSQ) which covers prisons and probation data Offender management statistics quarterly - GOV.UK.

Last year, we expanded the range of available data on FNOs to include FNO data by offence type and sentence status. At present we do not publish conviction data as part of our Official Statistics.

The Ministry of Justice keeps the contents of its Official Statistics under continuous review.

Centrally collated prison releases data only allows for "average proportion of sentence" to be readily estimated for those released from determinate sentences and this calculation may also include time spent in the community on bail. Therefore, to provide an accurate response would incur disproportionate cost to the department.

With regards to the number of prison leavers, the requested information has been provided as an Excel file alongside this response.

Centrally collated prison releases data only allows for "average proportion of sentence" to be readily estimated for those released from determinate sentences and this calculation may also include time spent in the community on bail. Therefore, to provide an accurate response would incur disproportionate cost to the department.

With regards to the number of prison leavers, the requested information has been provided as an Excel file alongside this response.

On 1 September, we announced a package of criminal justice reforms intended to maintain sustainable prison capacity while protecting the public and victims. As part of that package, the Government set out its ambition to reduce the number of women in prison where it is safe and appropriate to do so. Repurposing a women’s prison requires reducing demand for places.

Women make up just a small proportion of those in custody – in June 2026, women comprised 4% of the prison population – yet they often have more complex needs than men. Many have experienced mental ill-health, substance misuse, trauma and abuse. Many women in prison are mothers and their imprisonment can have significant consequences for their children.

We are exploring options to reduce the number of pregnant women and mothers of young children in custody alongside taking forward a cross-government agenda of reform to address the drivers of women’s offending.

On 1 September, the Lord Chancellor announced that the Government will bring an end to the IPP sentence for those who continue to serve it and will bring forward legislation to do this by the end of this Parliament.

The Government also remains determined to support the rehabilitation of IPP prisoners, through the IPP Action Plan, which we published on 9 July 2026.

The information requested could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

The Secretary of State has visited a range of justice sites across the country since taking office in July, of which one was an operational prison.

The information requested is provided in the attached tables. These tables include data covering the period 2024 on:

- The number of offenders who were convicted of a specified offence type (theft or violence against the person) and did receive an immediate custodial sentence, by the number of previous convictions for that specified offence.

- The number of offenders convicted of specific offences who did not receive an immediate custodial sentence, who were also convicted of another of the listed offence types without receiving an immediate custodial sentence.

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 Ministry of Justice extract of the Police National Computer.

Sentencing in individual cases is a matter for the independent judiciary. When deciding what sentence to impose, courts must consider the circumstances of the case, including the culpability of the offender, the harm they caused or intended to cause, and any aggravating and mitigating factors, in line with any relevant sentencing guidelines, developed by the Sentencing Council for England and Wales.

Previous convictions are 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 information requested is provided in the attached tables. These tables include data covering the period 2024 on:

- The number of offenders who were convicted of a specified offence type (theft or violence against the person) and did receive an immediate custodial sentence, by the number of previous convictions for that specified offence.

- The number of offenders convicted of specific offences who did not receive an immediate custodial sentence, who were also convicted of another of the listed offence types without receiving an immediate custodial sentence.

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 Ministry of Justice extract of the Police National Computer.

Sentencing in individual cases is a matter for the independent judiciary. When deciding what sentence to impose, courts must consider the circumstances of the case, including the culpability of the offender, the harm they caused or intended to cause, and any aggravating and mitigating factors, in line with any relevant sentencing guidelines, developed by the Sentencing Council for England and Wales.

Previous convictions are 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 information requested is provided in the attached tables. These tables include data covering the period 2024 on:

- The number of offenders who were convicted of a specified offence type (theft or violence against the person) and did receive an immediate custodial sentence, by the number of previous convictions for that specified offence.

- The number of offenders convicted of specific offences who did not receive an immediate custodial sentence, who were also convicted of another of the listed offence types without receiving an immediate custodial sentence.

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 Ministry of Justice extract of the Police National Computer.

Sentencing in individual cases is a matter for the independent judiciary. When deciding what sentence to impose, courts must consider the circumstances of the case, including the culpability of the offender, the harm they caused or intended to cause, and any aggravating and mitigating factors, in line with any relevant sentencing guidelines, developed by the Sentencing Council for England and Wales.

Previous convictions are 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 Ministry of Justice and HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) assess the effectiveness of the SEND Tribunal case process through published statistics and operational monitoring. The latest published statistics are available here: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/tribunals-statistics-quarterly-april-to-june-2026/tribunal-statistics-quarterly-april-to-june-2026.

HMCTS is taking action to improve case progression and make best use of judicial and administrative capacity, including measures to resolve or narrow disputes earlier and streamline case management. Furthermore, we are currently running a recruitment campaign for more judges and administrative staff to increase capacity.

The below table shows the headcount of Band 3-5 officers who have reported that they are Welsh speakers on the Department’s HR database:

~ denotes suppressed values of 2 or fewer. Low numbers are suppressed to prevent disclosure in accordance with the Data Protection Act 2018.

Whether staff can speak Welsh is a self-reported variable, with the vast majority of staff not reporting this information, so the true numbers of Welsh speakers are likely to be higher.

The following tables provide a breakdown of the numbers of prisoners in Wales who had Welsh language recorded as their preferred spoken language or Welsh language recorded as a second spoken language during the time periods specified.

~ denotes suppressed values of 2 or fewer. Low numbers are suppressed to prevent disclosure in accordance with the Data Protection Act 2018.

Preferred language:

Second language:

This data is reflective of improved Welsh language prisoner breakdowns, with annual summaries planned for publishing in HMPPS’ next Welsh Language Scheme Annual Monitoring Report in October 2026.

The following tables provide a breakdown of the numbers of prisoners in England who had Welsh language recorded as their preferred spoken language or Welsh language recorded as a second spoken language during the time periods specified.

~ denotes suppressed values of 2 or fewer. Low numbers are suppressed to prevent disclosure in accordance with the Data Protection Act 2018.

Welsh preferred language

Second language

This data is reflective of improved Welsh language prisoner breakdowns, with annual summaries planned for publishing in HMPPS’ next Welsh Language Scheme Annual Monitoring Report in October 2026.

This Government is committed to enhancing support for victims of domestic abuse and improving the criminal court’s response to domestic abuse cases.

In our Violence Against Women and Girls Strategy, the Government committed to rolling out Domestic Abuse Protection Orders – our strongest order yet for domestic abuse - across England and Wales. We are also introducing a domestic abuse identifier at sentencing in criminal cases to enable police, prisons and probation to more consistently identify domestic abuse offenders. This Government has also made trauma-informed training available to all HMCTS court staff, helping them to better understand domestic abuse and apply trauma-informed practice in their interactions with victims.

We are actively considering how to expand the use of Specialist Domestic Abuse Courts in the criminal division as part of our wider work to improve outcomes for victims of domestic abuse, in response to recommendations made by the Independent Sentencing Review.

This Government is committed to enhancing support for victims of domestic abuse and improving the criminal court’s response to domestic abuse cases.

In our Violence Against Women and Girls Strategy, the Government committed to rolling out Domestic Abuse Protection Orders – our strongest order yet for domestic abuse - across England and Wales. We are also introducing a domestic abuse identifier at sentencing in criminal cases to enable police, prisons and probation to more consistently identify domestic abuse offenders. This Government has also made trauma-informed training available to all HMCTS court staff, helping them to better understand domestic abuse and apply trauma-informed practice in their interactions with victims.

We are actively considering how to expand the use of Specialist Domestic Abuse Courts in the criminal division as part of our wider work to improve outcomes for victims of domestic abuse, in response to recommendations made by the Independent Sentencing Review.

This Government is committed to enhancing support for victims of domestic abuse and improving the criminal court’s response to domestic abuse cases.

In our Violence Against Women and Girls Strategy, the Government committed to rolling out Domestic Abuse Protection Orders – our strongest order yet for domestic abuse - across England and Wales. We are also introducing a domestic abuse identifier at sentencing in criminal cases to enable police, prisons and probation to more consistently identify domestic abuse offenders. This Government has also made trauma-informed training available to all HMCTS court staff, helping them to better understand domestic abuse and apply trauma-informed practice in their interactions with victims.

We are actively considering how to expand the use of Specialist Domestic Abuse Courts in the criminal division as part of our wider work to improve outcomes for victims of domestic abuse, in response to recommendations made by the Independent Sentencing Review.