Ministry of Justice

The Ministry of Justice does not collect or hold data which would link the use of DNA testing, or any other type of evidence produced by the prosecution, with the overall efficiency of criminal trials. Therefore, it is not possible to make an estimate of any cost savings.

There are no offences specifically defined in legislation as “cyber crime,” however the Computer Misuse Act 1990 has a number of offences that could be considered as such.

The Ministry of Justice routinely publishes data concerning prosecutions and convictions available here: Criminal Justice Statistics.

The Government is carefully considering the recommendations made by Jonathan Hall KC and will publish his report in due course.

There are no ongoing judicial review challenges made with regards to separation centres and no ongoing challenges that have reached the courts with regards to close supervision centres.

As of 1 December, there were no transgender women, including individuals with Gender Recognition Certificates, in the general women's prison estate with any convictions for sexual offences and five or fewer transgender women with convictions for violent offences. (Where statistics include a total of five or fewer, the exact figure is not given, for data protection reasons.)

The individuals with convictions for violent offences received Ministerial exemptions to be held in the general women's estate under the previous Government. No exemptions have been provided by this Government since it came into power.

The Government announced on 2 October that we intend to reform weddings law when parliamentary time allows. The reforms reflect a commitment to making marriage law fairer, simpler and more modern, whilst also protecting the solemnity and dignity of marriage. We want to create a level playing field for all groups, including allowing humanist weddings to be legally recognised for the first time. We will be consulting on the details early next year.

The Government announced on 2 October that we intend to reform weddings law when parliamentary time allows. The reforms reflect a commitment to making marriage law fairer, simpler and more modern, whilst also protecting the solemnity and dignity of marriage. We want to create a level playing field for all groups, including allowing humanist weddings to be legally recognised for the first time. We will be consulting on the details early next year.

Ministers will introduce detailed proposals to Parliament as soon as Parliamentary time allows.

The Judicial Office collects demographic information on magistrates, including professional background; however, providing this information is voluntary. Low declaration rates mean that there is insufficient data to allow for any meaningful analysis or interpretation at this time. We, and the judiciary, are committed to working to improve the completeness and quality of socio-economic data across the judiciary, including magistrates.

My Department is committed to the Government’s pledge to halve Violence Against Women and Girls (VAWG) in a decade.

The Ministry of Justice will be investing £550 million in victim support services over the next three years – the biggest investment in victim support services to date.

I have committed two years of grant funding to the 42 Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) in England and Wales. They commission local practical, emotional, and therapeutic support services for victims of all crime types, including victims of technology-facilitated abuse and online violence against women and girls. The funding from the Ministry of Justice includes ‘core’ funding, which is for PCCs to allocate at their discretion, based on their assessment of local need, as well as funding that is ring-fenced for sexual violence and domestic abuse services.

The Government inherited a justice system in crisis, with a record and rising open caseload of nearly 80,000 criminal cases waiting to be heard and too many victims waiting years for justice. One of the first priorities of this Government has been to tackle this crisis, which is why we asked Sir Brian Leveson to undertake his independent review. On 2 December, the Deputy Prime Minister responded to the first part of that review and set out why reform is necessary, alongside investment and modernisation.

Jury trials are the cornerstone of our justice system and will remain in place for the most serious crimes. It is the obligation of Government to guarantee everybody a fair trial and timely justice is fundamental to fairness.

The vast majority of criminal cases are already heard in magistrates’ courts without juries, with 90% of all criminal cases being dealt with by magistrates. But the status quo is not working for victims, defendants or anyone involved in the justice system. We need to do things differently and prevent defendants from gaming the system. Currently, triable-either-way offences make up around 40% of all cases. Triable-either-way offences allow a defendant to insist on their choice of having a jury trial at the taxpayer’s expense and greater length, irrespective of the seriousness of the offence. What this means it that, currently, according to Crown Prosecution Service figures, over 4,000 defendants, whose cases could have been heard in the magistrates’ court with magistrates’ court sentencing powers, were heard in the Crown Court because the defendant was able to insist on a full jury trial. This means that in each of those cases, money and significant time and resource was spent on a jury trial, not only at taxpayer’s expense but all those in the system.

Under the Government’s proposals, the mode of trial will be triaged by the Court, which will determine whether a case needs to be heard in the Crown Court, or could be heard more swiftly in the Magistrates’ Court. The latest figures show offences heard by magistrates already complete more than four times faster than similar cases in the Crown Court. Only reform will free up the space and time needed to prioritise the most serious cases – including those that can and should have a jury trial. We think that will benefit victims, witnesses, and defendants alike.

The Government inherited a justice system in crisis, with a record and rising open caseload of nearly 80,000 criminal cases waiting to be heard and too many victims waiting years for justice. One of the first priorities of this Government has been to tackle this crisis, which is why we asked Sir Brian Leveson to undertake his independent review. On 2 December, the Deputy Prime Minister responded to the first part of that review and set out why reform is necessary, alongside investment and modernisation.

Jury trials are the cornerstone of our justice system and will remain in place for the most serious crimes. It is the obligation of Government to guarantee everybody a fair trial and timely justice is fundamental to fairness.

The vast majority of criminal cases are already heard in magistrates’ courts without juries, with 90% of all criminal cases being dealt with by magistrates. But the status quo is not working for victims, defendants or anyone involved in the justice system. We need to do things differently and prevent defendants from gaming the system. Currently, triable-either-way offences make up around 40% of all cases. Triable-either-way offences allow a defendant to insist on their choice of having a jury trial at the taxpayer’s expense and greater length, irrespective of the seriousness of the offence. What this means it that, currently, according to Crown Prosecution Service figures, over 4,000 defendants, whose cases could have been heard in the magistrates’ court with magistrates’ court sentencing powers, were heard in the Crown Court because the defendant was able to insist on a full jury trial. This means that in each of those cases, money and significant time and resource was spent on a jury trial, not only at taxpayer’s expense but all those in the system.

Under the Government’s proposals, the mode of trial will be triaged by the Court, which will determine whether a case needs to be heard in the Crown Court, or could be heard more swiftly in the Magistrates’ Court. The latest figures show offences heard by magistrates already complete more than four times faster than similar cases in the Crown Court. Only reform will free up the space and time needed to prioritise the most serious cases – including those that can and should have a jury trial. We think that will benefit victims, witnesses, and defendants alike.

The Ministry of Justice does not collate data on cases that are not progressed due to lost, missing or damaged evidence. We keep our data gathering processes under constant review and will need to consider whether the areas identified in the question can feasibly be collected.

Reducing the number of cases which are either delayed or collapse all together due to lost or missing evidence or mislaying of documents is important. As part of our ongoing efforts to improve timeliness and efficiency in our criminal courts, we asked Sir Brian Leveson to undertake a review of the court operations and make recommendations designed to boost court efficiency in Part 2 of his review. We are awaiting that report in the New Year and will look to act on its recommendations. It is vital that all partners, across the justice system, work together to create a sustainable justice system, including through the Criminal Justice Board, chaired by the Deputy Prime Minister.

The Ministry of Justice does not hold a specific membership with LinkedIn. However, our spend on LinkedIn for the financial year 2024/2025 was £155,247.65.

Please note this cost covers multiple recruitment services and advertising that span across all our operationally critical frontline roles. For example, those in HMPPS and HMCTS. All our campaign activity is data driven to maximise our reach to our target audiences.

The Department’s spend for other subscriptions in 2024/2025 is £628,213.00. These subscriptions/memberships cover things such as The Solicitors Regulation Authority, The Bar Council, and the Office for National Statistics and ensure we are able to operate compliantly and effectively.

A full Equalities Impact Assessment will be published alongside legislation as is usual practice. This will include an assessment of the potential impact of these reforms on minority ethnic groups. The criminal court reforms are not expected to impact trial outcomes, only how trials are heard.

The Budget 2025 was announced on 26 November 2025 and table C.2 confirms our Spending Review settlement of £2.3bn for 2026-2027, £2.3bn for 2027-2028, £2.3bn for 2028-2029 and £2.0bn for 2029-2030.

Of which we must spend the following split to complete the 14,000 prison place programme: £1.2bn for 2026-2027, £1.2bn for 2027-2028, £1,2bn for 2028-2029 and £1.14bn for 2029-2030. This is a total investment of £4.7bn over this period.

All other areas of spend will be subject to future allocations discussions in the usual way.

The Government will repeal the presumption of parental involvement when Parliamentary time allows. Doing so requires amendments to the Children Act 1989 which will be taken forward once an appropriate legislative vehicle is identified. This remains a Ministerial priority, and we will announce further plans for implementation in due course.

His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) co-commissioned an independent report to inform understanding of the prevalence of gambling harms among those in prison and on probation in the community: Report on Gambling Harms and the Criminal Justice System.

We are committed to rehabilitating those impacted by gambling and its harms, through a rehabilitative culture, positive relationships and pro-social staff. Together with this, HMPPS delivers a broad range of interventions to address individuals’ criminogenic risks and needs, including accredited offending behaviour programmes. In addition, the NHS provides support for individuals who are experiencing gambling addiction.

His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) co-commissioned an independent report to inform understanding of the prevalence of gambling harms among those in prison and on probation in the community: Report on Gambling Harms and the Criminal Justice System.

We are committed to rehabilitating those impacted by gambling and its harms, through a rehabilitative culture, positive relationships and pro-social staff. Together with this, HMPPS delivers a broad range of interventions to address individuals’ criminogenic risks and needs, including accredited offending behaviour programmes. In addition, the NHS provides support for individuals who are experiencing gambling addiction.

Any release in error is unacceptable, and public safety is the Government’s first duty. In such cases, we coordinate across multiple agencies including the police to ensure individuals are returned to custody. The majority of those released in error are recaptured swiftly.

Releases in error are another long-term symptom of the prison system crisis this Government inherited. While the overwhelming majority of offenders are released correctly, we are bearing down on those errors that do occur.

On 11 November, the Deputy Prime Minister announced a five-point action plan. This includes strengthening release checks across prisons, a multi-million pound investment in new technology, and an independent review, which will report its recommendations in spring next year.

The Bernard Lodge inquiry was commissioned initially as an ad hoc investigation with no statutory powers. The investigation was converted to a statutory inquiry under section 15 of the Inquiries Act 2005 on 23 February 2009.

The Chairs of the Bernard Lodge and Azelle Rodney Inquiries completed their investigations and submitted reports, which were published on 15 December 2009 and 5 July 2013, respectively.

The term “immigration related offences” covers a wide range of offending behaviour including making illegal entry to the country, overstaying leave to remain, employing illegal workers and facilitating breaches of immigration law.

As a result, providing reoffending data across all of these offence types would come at disproportionate cost and it is difficult to make generalised assumptions about future risk of offending.

More broadly the Government is tackling the root causes of reoffending by investing in a range of services which address offenders’ underlying criminogenic needs and support their rehabilitation journey. This includes education, employment, accommodation and access to substance misuse treatment.

The term “immigration related offences” covers a wide range of offending behaviour including making illegal entry to the country, overstaying leave to remain, employing illegal workers and facilitating breaches of immigration law.

As a result, providing reoffending data across all of these offence types would come at disproportionate cost and it is difficult to make generalised assumptions about future risk of offending.

More broadly the Government is tackling the root causes of reoffending by investing in a range of services which address offenders’ underlying criminogenic needs and support their rehabilitation journey. This includes education, employment, accommodation and access to substance misuse treatment.

The term “immigration related offences” covers a wide range of offending behaviour including making illegal entry to the country, overstaying leave to remain, employing illegal workers and facilitating breaches of immigration law.

As a result, providing reoffending data across all of these offence types would come at disproportionate cost and it is difficult to make generalised assumptions about future risk of offending.

More broadly the Government is tackling the root causes of reoffending by investing in a range of services which address offenders’ underlying criminogenic needs and support their rehabilitation journey. This includes education, employment, accommodation and access to substance misuse treatment.

We publish proven reoffending statistics quarterly, including detailed data by sentence type, offence type, and offender characteristics. The next publication is due at the end of January 2026 (Proven reoffending statistics - GOV.UK).

We are tackling the root causes of reoffending by investing in a range of services which address offenders’ underlying criminogenic needs and support their rehabilitation journey. This includes education, employment, accommodation and access to substance misuse treatment.

For example, to support employment, we are delivering vocational courses, a future skills programme, and expanding the prisoner apprenticeship scheme. All 93 resettlement prisons have key roles in place to prepare prisoners for employment on release, and we have launched regional Employment Councils, which for the first time bring businesses together with prisons, probation, and the Department for Work and Pensions to support prison leavers.

Reoffending rates for adults sentenced to less than 12 months in custody remain high – in the latest data, just over 60% reoffended within a year. Ministry of Justice research shows that community orders and suspended sentences are up to 4 percentage points more effective at reducing reoffending than short custodial sentences. That is why we are introducing a presumption to suspend custodial sentences of 12 months or less via the Sentencing Bill, and expanding Intensive Supervision Courts (ISCs), which aim to reduce reoffending by diverting individuals from short custodial sentences into enhanced community-based orders.

We are not, however, abolishing short sentences. Judges will always have the power to send offenders to prison where they have breached a court order, where there is a significant risk of physical or psychological harm to a particular individual, or in exceptional circumstances.

We publish proven reoffending statistics quarterly, including detailed data by sentence type, offence type, and offender characteristics. The next publication is due at the end of January 2026 (Proven reoffending statistics - GOV.UK).

We are tackling the root causes of reoffending by investing in a range of services which address offenders’ underlying criminogenic needs and support their rehabilitation journey. This includes education, employment, accommodation and access to substance misuse treatment.

For example, to support employment, we are delivering vocational courses, a future skills programme, and expanding the prisoner apprenticeship scheme. All 93 resettlement prisons have key roles in place to prepare prisoners for employment on release, and we have launched regional Employment Councils, which for the first time bring businesses together with prisons, probation, and the Department for Work and Pensions to support prison leavers.

Reoffending rates for adults sentenced to less than 12 months in custody remain high – in the latest data, just over 60% reoffended within a year. Ministry of Justice research shows that community orders and suspended sentences are up to 4 percentage points more effective at reducing reoffending than short custodial sentences. That is why we are introducing a presumption to suspend custodial sentences of 12 months or less via the Sentencing Bill, and expanding Intensive Supervision Courts (ISCs), which aim to reduce reoffending by diverting individuals from short custodial sentences into enhanced community-based orders.

We are not, however, abolishing short sentences. Judges will always have the power to send offenders to prison where they have breached a court order, where there is a significant risk of physical or psychological harm to a particular individual, or in exceptional circumstances.

We publish proven reoffending statistics quarterly, including detailed data by sentence type, offence type, and offender characteristics. The next publication is due at the end of January 2026 (Proven reoffending statistics - GOV.UK).

We are tackling the root causes of reoffending by investing in a range of services which address offenders’ underlying criminogenic needs and support their rehabilitation journey. This includes education, employment, accommodation and access to substance misuse treatment.

For example, to support employment, we are delivering vocational courses, a future skills programme, and expanding the prisoner apprenticeship scheme. All 93 resettlement prisons have key roles in place to prepare prisoners for employment on release, and we have launched regional Employment Councils, which for the first time bring businesses together with prisons, probation, and the Department for Work and Pensions to support prison leavers.

Reoffending rates for adults sentenced to less than 12 months in custody remain high – in the latest data, just over 60% reoffended within a year. Ministry of Justice research shows that community orders and suspended sentences are up to 4 percentage points more effective at reducing reoffending than short custodial sentences. That is why we are introducing a presumption to suspend custodial sentences of 12 months or less via the Sentencing Bill, and expanding Intensive Supervision Courts (ISCs), which aim to reduce reoffending by diverting individuals from short custodial sentences into enhanced community-based orders.

We are not, however, abolishing short sentences. Judges will always have the power to send offenders to prison where they have breached a court order, where there is a significant risk of physical or psychological harm to a particular individual, or in exceptional circumstances.

We publish proven reoffending statistics quarterly, including detailed data by sentence type, offence type, and offender characteristics. The next publication is due at the end of January 2026 (Proven reoffending statistics - GOV.UK).

We are tackling the root causes of reoffending by investing in a range of services which address offenders’ underlying criminogenic needs and support their rehabilitation journey. This includes education, employment, accommodation and access to substance misuse treatment.

For example, to support employment, we are delivering vocational courses, a future skills programme, and expanding the prisoner apprenticeship scheme. All 93 resettlement prisons have key roles in place to prepare prisoners for employment on release, and we have launched regional Employment Councils, which for the first time bring businesses together with prisons, probation, and the Department for Work and Pensions to support prison leavers.

Reoffending rates for adults sentenced to less than 12 months in custody remain high – in the latest data, just over 60% reoffended within a year. Ministry of Justice research shows that community orders and suspended sentences are up to 4 percentage points more effective at reducing reoffending than short custodial sentences. That is why we are introducing a presumption to suspend custodial sentences of 12 months or less via the Sentencing Bill, and expanding Intensive Supervision Courts (ISCs), which aim to reduce reoffending by diverting individuals from short custodial sentences into enhanced community-based orders.

We are not, however, abolishing short sentences. Judges will always have the power to send offenders to prison where they have breached a court order, where there is a significant risk of physical or psychological harm to a particular individual, or in exceptional circumstances.

Ministers regularly visit prisons across the country. Any plans to visit specific prisons will be notified to the relevant Members of Parliament in advance.

The following table shows total resource expenditure at each public sector young offender institution (YOI), in the Children and Young People Estate for the three years 2022-23 to 2024-25. The figures do not include expenditure on education, as this is managed collectively across establishments, and it is not therefore possible to apportion it to individual YOIs.

Notes:

1. HMYOI Parc is not included. This is because it is managed under a single contract together with HMP Parc and it is not possible to disaggregate spending between the two establishments.

2. Cookham Wood closed as a YOI in August 2024.

The Youth Education Service contract requires Shaw Trust to deliver education to each learner for at least 15 hours each week. This is in addition to the wider curriculum offer, which includes library access, gym, youth work sessions and other activities that support children’s learning and development.

Every child is assessed to determine the grade or level of tuition they should be working at or towards, from Entry Level 1 in subjects such as Mathematics and English, through to A level.

The table below shows the number of hours planned per child by education providers, and the number of hours delivered.

Planned learning sessions may not take place for a variety of reasons, including court appearances, legal visits, sickness and medical treatment. Absence of provider staff is a further cause of cancellation.

The Youth Custody Service (YCS) has developed a comprehensive improvement plan for the next three years, which aims to increase time spent out of room in purposeful activity. It is also overhauling the incentives systems to ensure it focuses on values-led behaviour. The YCS has seconded staff from HMYOI Parc to develop systems across the other YOIs and share learning from their success. We are already seeing a gradual increase in time out of room in all sites, work which the YCS will continue to build on.

The Youth Education Service contract requires Shaw Trust to deliver education to each learner for at least 15 hours each week. This is in addition to the wider curriculum offer, which includes library access, gym, youth work sessions and other activities that support children’s learning and development.

Every child is assessed to determine the grade or level of tuition they should be working at or towards, from Entry Level 1 in subjects such as Mathematics and English, through to A level.

The table below shows the number of hours planned per child by education providers, and the number of hours delivered.

Planned learning sessions may not take place for a variety of reasons, including court appearances, legal visits, sickness and medical treatment. Absence of provider staff is a further cause of cancellation.

The Youth Custody Service (YCS) has developed a comprehensive improvement plan for the next three years, which aims to increase time spent out of room in purposeful activity. It is also overhauling the incentives systems to ensure it focuses on values-led behaviour. The YCS has seconded staff from HMYOI Parc to develop systems across the other YOIs and share learning from their success. We are already seeing a gradual increase in time out of room in all sites, work which the YCS will continue to build on.

The requested information is not centrally held.

The requested information is not centrally held.

For financial year 2024-2025 the average legal aid expenditure in family proceedings(1) was £4,551 for private family law cases e.g. proceedings concerning child arrangements orders and £10,058 for public family law cases e.g. care and supervision proceedings brought by the local authority. These figures are derived from Civil Representation expenditure data published as part of the LAA’s official statistics.

Under the 2013 Civil Legal Aid (Financial Resources and Payment for Services) Regulations individuals may be assessed as liable to make a contribution towards the cost of their legal aid case from either income or capital. In 2024-2025, in cases where an individual was assessed as liable to make a contribution, the average contribution collected in relation to family cases was £1,019.

Under section 25 of the Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 individuals who recover or preserve money in civil legal aid proceedings are required to repay the cost of their legal aid case from the money recovered (unless exempt under regulations). This is known as the statutory charge. In 2024-2025, for cases subject to the statutory charge, the average amount recovered in respect of family cases was £7,409. Recovery of the statutory charge can be postponed in certain limited circumstances and so recoveries made may not necessarily relate to cases funded in the same period.

(1) As defined in the 2024 Standard Civil Contract: Category Definitions.

For financial year 2024-2025 the average legal aid expenditure in family proceedings(1) was £4,551 for private family law cases e.g. proceedings concerning child arrangements orders and £10,058 for public family law cases e.g. care and supervision proceedings brought by the local authority. These figures are derived from Civil Representation expenditure data published as part of the LAA’s official statistics.

Under the 2013 Civil Legal Aid (Financial Resources and Payment for Services) Regulations individuals may be assessed as liable to make a contribution towards the cost of their legal aid case from either income or capital. In 2024-2025, in cases where an individual was assessed as liable to make a contribution, the average contribution collected in relation to family cases was £1,019.

Under section 25 of the Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 individuals who recover or preserve money in civil legal aid proceedings are required to repay the cost of their legal aid case from the money recovered (unless exempt under regulations). This is known as the statutory charge. In 2024-2025, for cases subject to the statutory charge, the average amount recovered in respect of family cases was £7,409. Recovery of the statutory charge can be postponed in certain limited circumstances and so recoveries made may not necessarily relate to cases funded in the same period.

(1) As defined in the 2024 Standard Civil Contract: Category Definitions.

We are confident that the removal of the defendants’ right to elect is compatible with Article 6 of the ECHR. Whilst the jury trial will remain an important feature of the criminal justice system following these reforms, it is important to recognise that there is no constitutional right to a jury trial. As you will be aware, the vast majority of criminal trials in this country are conducted fairly, without a jury. 90% of all criminal cases being dealt with by magistrates. Only around 3% of all criminal trials are heard by a jury currently. But the status quo is not working for victims, defendants or anyone involved in the justice system.

The Government inherited a justice system in crisis, with a record and rising open caseload of nearly 80,000 criminal cases waiting to be heard and too many victims waiting years for justice. One of the first priorities of this Government has been to tackle this crisis which is why we asked Sir Brian Leveson to undertake his independent review. On 2 December, the Deputy Prime Minister responded to the first part of that review and set out why reform is necessary, alongside investment and modernisation.

As with all reforms, we will conduct full equalities impact assessment ahead of implementation to obtain an understanding of the impact.

We are confident that the removal of the defendants’ right to elect is compatible with Article 6 of the ECHR. Whilst the jury trial will remain an important feature of the criminal justice system following these reforms, it is important to recognise that there is no constitutional right to a jury trial. As you will be aware, the vast majority of criminal trials in this country are conducted fairly, without a jury. 90% of all criminal cases being dealt with by magistrates. Only around 3% of all criminal trials are heard by a jury currently. But the status quo is not working for victims, defendants or anyone involved in the justice system.

The Government inherited a justice system in crisis, with a record and rising open caseload of nearly 80,000 criminal cases waiting to be heard and too many victims waiting years for justice. One of the first priorities of this Government has been to tackle this crisis which is why we asked Sir Brian Leveson to undertake his independent review. On 2 December, the Deputy Prime Minister responded to the first part of that review and set out why reform is necessary, alongside investment and modernisation.

As with all reforms, we will conduct full equalities impact assessment ahead of implementation to obtain an understanding of the impact.

The Legal Aid Agency does not specifically track or report on grants of legal aid broken down by whether the applicant was a mother or father as the same eligibility criteria are applicable to all parents and persons with parental responsibility. The requested information could only be obtained by manually reviewing individual applications at disproportionate cost to the Department.

The Legal Aid Agency does not specifically track or report on grants of legal aid broken down by whether the applicant was a mother or father as the same eligibility criteria are applicable to all parents and persons with parental responsibility. The requested information could only be obtained by manually reviewing individual applications at disproportionate cost to the Department.

The court reforms, including removing the right to elect for a jury trial, are not intended to impact trial outcomes; the intention is only to change how trials are heard.

The vast majority of criminal cases - over 90% - are already heard without a jury, by magistrates. Their decisions will continue to be based on the law and the facts of the case. Safeguards are in place to ensure magistrates’ court decisions are consistent and subject to appropriate oversight. This includes a new appeals process whereby defendants will be able to seek permission to appeal based on an arguable point of law for their case. This new process will mirror the appeals process from the Crown Court to the Court of Appeal. Magistrates and judges must also follow sentencing guidelines when making sentencing decisions. These guidelines outline the factors they should consider before reaching a final decision.

Under the reformed system, trials taking place in the Magistrates’ Court will be recorded. This transparency measure represents an important modernisation of our Courts but also represents an important safeguard for all parties.

We will continue to monitor conviction rates and sentencing outcomes as part of our ongoing assessments of the criminal justice system.

The safety of probation staff is our priority, and we are committed to taking action to protect them. Following a comprehensive review of health, safety, and security across all probation premises, we are urgently implementing measures to strengthen protection for staff and improve overall safety.

We have completed a comprehensive nationwide review of local safety arrangements and are currently installing visitor lockers outside all probation contact areas with the aim of preventing the ingress of weapons and rolling out bleed control kits and defibrillators in every office to provide critical emergency support.

We are also planning to pilot enhanced security measures in seven probation offices. The proposed pilots include archway scanners, handheld wands, body-worn cameras, and advanced safety training focused on de-escalation and aggression management. The aim is to prevent weapon ingress, improve staff safety, and assess the effectiveness of the proposed interventions.

Releases in error are never acceptable, and we are bearing down on those errors that do occur.

Releases in error have always existed, and are another long-term symptom of the prison system crisis this Government inherited. While the overwhelming majority of offenders are released correctly, we are taking decisive action to address this issue to reduce the risk of future mistakes.

On 11 November, the Deputy Prime Minister announced a five-point action plan. This includes:

• a new Justice Performance Board which will give a comprehensive view of performance across the criminal justice system;
• the introduction of an urgent query process to allow prisons to quickly escalate warrant-related queries;
• a multi-million pound investment in new technology to reduce human error;
• the simplification of release policy to reduce the scope for errors through the implementation of the Sentencing Bill; and
• an independent system-wide review, led by Dame Lynne Owens, which will report its recommendations in spring next year.