Ministry of Justice

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.

The information requested could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

The information requested could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

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.

Locating and re-apprehending a suspect relate to policing and are a matter for the Home Office.

Eligibility for employment in the Civil Service, including with regard to nationality, is set out in the Civil Service Nationality Rules (CSNRs). All applicants applying to work in the Ministry of Justice or its agencies must meet the CSNRs and must have a valid right to work in the United Kingdom and have successfully completed pre-employment checks.

All candidates, regardless of nationality, are subject to a series of background checks, which assess them against a range of legislative requirements and security-related factors that are pertinent to anyone working within H M Prison Service. These include confirmation of identity, right to work in the UK, a criminal records check, declaration of any offender connections, employment reference enquiries and a financial vulnerability assessment.

All directly employed prison staff, including prison officers, must have a minimum security clearance of Enhanced Level 2. A range of additional digital vetting and social media checks are also conducted in relation to prison officer recruits.

For all prison officers working in prisons in the Long-Term and High Security Estate, an additional National Security Vetting Check at Counter Terrorist Check level is required, as a minimum.

The new HMPPS Welsh Language Scheme (24-27), approved by the Welsh Language Commissioner, and published this month, sets out how the English and Welsh languages will be treated equally when delivering services to the public in line with requirements under the Welsh Language Act 1993. The Scheme commits to publishing an Annual Monitoring Report on progress, the first of which will be published in October 2026.

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.

Annual totals for releases in error are published each July in the HMPPS Annual Digest, available via Prison and Probation Performance Statistics - GOV.UK and provide data up to March 2025.

Detailed statistics on offenders in custody (including offence groups and sentence lengths) are published quarterly at Offender management statistics quarterly - GOV.UK.

Answers to the specific questions asked here can be found on Table 1.A.17 of the “Annual Prison Population: 2025” table on the most recent release.

The maximum sentences available for criminal offences are set by Parliament. Theft of a motor vehicle may be prosecuted under different provisions of the Theft Act 1968 (“the Act”). For example, theft of a motor vehicle under section 1 of the Act is a triable either way offence, with a maximum sentence of seven years’ imprisonment.

The independent judiciary will 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 for England and Wales.

The Sentencing Council has issued guidelines on theft of a motor vehicle, which provide the Court with guidance on factors that should be considered, which may affect the sentence given. They set out 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. Previous convictions can be taken into account by the Court as aggravating factor, increasing the seriousness of an offence; the guidelines are clear that sentencers must consider their nature and relevance, as well as the time elapsed since the previous conviction(s). The guidelines can be found online at the Council’s website: https://sentencingcouncil.org.uk/.

Whilst the Government has no current plans to ask the Council to consider reviewing the guidelines on motor theft, it is open to individuals to approach the Council to ask that it does so.

The United Kingdom Government is committed to the effective implementation of all of its international obligations including those under the Aarhus Convention.

The Minister of State for Courts and Legal Services wrote to the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee on 29 May 2025, setting out the approach we plan to take over the coming years to bring England and Wales into compliance with the access to justice provisions in article 9 of the Aarhus Convention. The Minister of Justice for Northern Ireland also shared a letter with the Committee on 30 May 2025, setting out her plans for Northern Ireland to reach compliance with these provisions. Both letters can be found on the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe’s website.

Our approach to England and Wales was informed by the Call for Evidence we conducted between 30 September 2024 and 9 December 2024. Our full response to that Call for Evidence will be published in due course.

The United Kingdom Government is committed to the effective implementation of all of its international obligations including those under the Aarhus Convention.

The Minister of State for Courts and Legal Services wrote to the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee on 29 May 2025, setting out the approach we plan to take over the coming years to bring England and Wales into compliance with the access to justice provisions in article 9 of the Aarhus Convention. The Minister of Justice for Northern Ireland also shared a letter with the Committee on 30 May 2025, setting out her plans for Northern Ireland to reach compliance with these provisions. Both letters can be found on the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe’s website.

Our approach to England and Wales was informed by the Call for Evidence we conducted between 30 September 2024 and 9 December 2024. Our full response to that Call for Evidence will be published in due course.

There are no plans to review the law on time limits for executors to apply for probate. The existing legal framework offers flexibility, accepting the probate process is a complex one undertaken at an emotional time for many personal representatives.

There is currently no maximum time limit within which a personal representative must obtain a grant of probate, but there are penalties laid down for administering an estate without a grant of representation, and there are time limits for paying tax for which an estate is liable prior to applying for a grant.

There are also mechanisms for beneficiaries and other interested parties to hold personal representatives to account for failure to act in applying for probate, and if necessary to seek their removal.

The Government recognises the impact family court proceedings can have on children and adult survivors of domestic abuse, which is why we are prioritising the protection of abuse survivors going through the family court. This includes the expansion of the Pathfinder programme, which promotes safeguarding and supports victims of domestic abuse through early multi-agency collaboration and expert domestic abuse support.

The family court also has a range of powers to protect victims. These include prohibiting the cross-examination of domestic abuse survivors by their abusers and automatically deeming survivors eligible for special measures, such as giving evidence via video link or from behind a screen. Additionally, Independent Domestic Violence Advisers (IDVAs) and Independent Sexual Violence Advisers (ISVAs) can attend court to provide support throughout proceedings.

The Government welcomes the Domestic Abuse Commissioner’s report. We are carefully considering the recommendations and will publish a full response in due course.

On 22 October we announced that, as part of the wider package of family court reforms, we will repeal the presumption of parental involvement. Alongside this announcement, we have published the Review of the Presumption of Parental Involvement and the accompanying reports from the three commissioned research projects.

The Government recognises the impact family court proceedings can have on children and adult survivors of domestic abuse, which is why we are prioritising the protection of abuse survivors going through the family court. This includes the expansion of the Pathfinder programme, which promotes safeguarding and supports victims of domestic abuse through early multi-agency collaboration and expert domestic abuse support.

The family court also has a range of powers to protect victims. These include prohibiting the cross-examination of domestic abuse survivors by their abusers and automatically deeming survivors eligible for special measures, such as giving evidence via video link or from behind a screen. Additionally, Independent Domestic Violence Advisers (IDVAs) and Independent Sexual Violence Advisers (ISVAs) can attend court to provide support throughout proceedings.

The Government welcomes the Domestic Abuse Commissioner’s report. We are carefully considering the recommendations and will publish a full response in due course.

On 22 October we announced that, as part of the wider package of family court reforms, we will repeal the presumption of parental involvement. Alongside this announcement, we have published the Review of the Presumption of Parental Involvement and the accompanying reports from the three commissioned research projects.

The Government accepted recommendation 1 of the National Audit on Group-Based Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse. We are committed to changing the law and we are aware of the need for urgency. This is a complex area of law and we are carefully considering how we change it to best meet the commitment. We will update Parliament soon about our proposed approach, including when we intend to legislate.

This Government is committed to improving victims’ experience of the justice system. We have funded a record-high allocation of 111,250 Crown Court sitting days to tackle the outstanding caseload, but we need to go further.

This is why we commissioned Sir Brian Leveson to propose bold and ambitious measures to deliver swifter justice for all victims, including for victims of domestic abuse, in his Independent Review of the Criminal Courts. The Government will respond to Part 1 of the report in due course. Work on Part 2 of the report, which is looking at how the criminal courts can operate as efficiently as possible, is also underway.

We know how important support services are in keeping victims engaged through the criminal justice process. The Ministry of Justice provides funding for victim and witness support services, including community-based domestic abuse services. To ensure these services can continue to be delivered, we have protected dedicated violence against women and girls' victims spending in the Department by maintaining 2024-25 funding levels for ringfenced domestic abuse support this year.

There have been two whistleblowing reports over the last five years (reported 2024-25) that relate to HM Courts & Tribunals Service’s digital systems.

Private prosecutions are brought before the same courts in England and Wales as prosecutions commenced by criminal justice agencies. The prioritisation of cases in the criminal court caseload is a matter for the independent judiciary. The Ministry of Justice published a consultation “on the oversight and regulation of private prosecutors in the criminal justice system”, between 6 March and 8 May 2025 and will set out next steps shortly.

The Ministry of Justice holds management information on private prosecutions brought before the magistrates’ courts and this is shown in the table below. The definition of private prosecutions is detailed in the Department’s consultation referenced above.

Table One: Defendants dealt with in private prosecutions at the magistrates’ courts in England and Wales, annually 2014 – 2024

Information on private prosecutions at the Crown Court cannot be produced robustly within costs.

Private prosecutions are brought before the same courts in England and Wales as prosecutions commenced by criminal justice agencies. The prioritisation of cases in the criminal court caseload is a matter for the independent judiciary. The Ministry of Justice published a consultation “on the oversight and regulation of private prosecutors in the criminal justice system”, between 6 March and 8 May 2025 and will set out next steps shortly.

The Ministry of Justice holds management information on private prosecutions brought before the magistrates’ courts and this is shown in the table below. The definition of private prosecutions is detailed in the Department’s consultation referenced above.

Table One: Defendants dealt with in private prosecutions at the magistrates’ courts in England and Wales, annually 2014 – 2024

Information on private prosecutions at the Crown Court cannot be produced robustly within costs.

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

Annual totals for releases in error are published each July in the HMPPS Annual Digest, available via Prison and Probation Performance Statistics - GOV.UK(opens in a new tab), and provide data up to March 2025.

The number of people who have been released in error since April 2025 cannot be provided because it would form a subset of releases in error data which underpins future versions of these Official Statistics.

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

Annual totals for releases in error are published each July in the HMPPS Annual Digest, available via Prison and Probation Performance Statistics - GOV.UK(opens in a new tab), and provide data up to March 2025.

The number of people who have been released in error since April 2025 cannot be provided because it would form a subset of releases in error data which underpins future versions of these Official Statistics.

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

Annual totals for releases in error are published each July in the HMPPS Annual Digest, available via Prison and Probation Performance Statistics - GOV.UK(opens in a new tab), and provide data up to March 2025.

The number of people who have been released in error since April 2025 cannot be provided because it would form a subset of releases in error data which underpins future versions of these Official Statistics.