Asked by: Liz Saville Roberts (Plaid Cymru - Dwyfor Meirionnydd)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether the Welsh Government has made a formal request for the devolution of (a) justice, (b) youth justice, (c) probation and (d) policing.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
Welsh Government and Ministry of Justice ministers have met to discuss progressing the manifesto commitments on youth justice and probation. Welsh Government and Ministry of Justice officials continue to work together to progress this.
The Ministry of Justice is not responsible for policing and therefore has not received a request in respect of the devolution of policing.
Asked by: Neil O'Brien (Conservative - Harborough, Oadby and Wigston)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many people were convicted or cautioned for an indictable offence did not receive an immediate custodial sentence and had a) one, b) two, c) three, d) four and e) five or more prior convictions for violence against the person in each of the past 5 years.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
The information requested is provided in the attached excel table. This table includes data covering the period 2020 – 2024 on:
The number of offenders who were a) convicted and b) cautioned for an indictable offence who did not receive an immediate custodial sentence by number of previous indictable convictions for specified offences, and
The number of offenders who were convicted or cautioned for an indictable offence who did not receive an immediate custodial sentence by number of previous indictable convictions for specified offences.
This data is not regularly published or held in an easily accessible format. The information supplied has been sourced from a bespoke retrieval from the Police National Computer database.
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 already a statutory aggravating factor, with Sentencing Guidelines being clear that sentencers must consider the nature and relevance of previous convictions, and the time elapsed since the previous convictions.
Asked by: Neil O'Brien (Conservative - Harborough, Oadby and Wigston)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many people were convicted or cautioned for an indictable offence did not receive an immediate custodial sentence and had a) one, b) two, c) three, d) four and e) five or more prior convictions for theft or robbery in each of the past 5 years.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
The information requested is provided in the attached excel table. This table includes data covering the period 2020 – 2024 on:
The number of offenders who were a) convicted and b) cautioned for an indictable offence who did not receive an immediate custodial sentence by number of previous indictable convictions for specified offences, and
The number of offenders who were convicted or cautioned for an indictable offence who did not receive an immediate custodial sentence by number of previous indictable convictions for specified offences.
This data is not regularly published or held in an easily accessible format. The information supplied has been sourced from a bespoke retrieval from the Police National Computer database.
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 already a statutory aggravating factor, with Sentencing Guidelines being clear that sentencers must consider the nature and relevance of previous convictions, and the time elapsed since the previous convictions.
Asked by: Neil O'Brien (Conservative - Harborough, Oadby and Wigston)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many people were convicted or cautioned for an indictable offence did not receive an immediate custodial sentence and had a) one, b) two, c) three, d) four and e) five or more prior convictions for burglary in each of the past 5 years.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
The information requested is provided in the attached excel table. This table includes data covering the period 2020 – 2024 on:
The number of offenders who were a) convicted and b) cautioned for an indictable offence who did not receive an immediate custodial sentence by number of previous indictable convictions for specified offences, and
The number of offenders who were convicted or cautioned for an indictable offence who did not receive an immediate custodial sentence by number of previous indictable convictions for specified offences.
This data is not regularly published or held in an easily accessible format. The information supplied has been sourced from a bespoke retrieval from the Police National Computer database.
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 already a statutory aggravating factor, with Sentencing Guidelines being clear that sentencers must consider the nature and relevance of previous convictions, and the time elapsed since the previous convictions.
Asked by: Carla Lockhart (Democratic Unionist Party - Upper Bann)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps her Department is taking to ensure the timely processing of domestic abuse cases in courts; and what additional resources have been allocated to minimise case backlogs.
Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
Whilst judges already prioritise cases involving vulnerable victims and witnesses, including domestic abuse, we know that victims who cases are heard at the Crown Court are waiting too long for justice.
That is why this Government commissioned Sir Brian Leveson’s Independent Review of the Criminal Courts. After considering the recommendations made in Part 1 of this report, we have announced our intention to take forward a bold package of structural reforms, designed to improve timeliness in the Crown Court and speed up justice for all victims, including victims of domestic abuse. This financial year we also funded 111,250 Crown Court sitting days – an all-time high.
We have also published our Violence Against Women and Girls Strategy - ‘Freedom from Violence and Abuse’ - setting out the Government’s approach to tackling domestic abuse and other offences perpetrated against women and girls. We are already acting by:
Asked by: Neil O'Brien (Conservative - Harborough, Oadby and Wigston)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many people who were (a) convicted and (b) cautioned for an indictable offence did not receive an immediate custodial sentence and had (i) one, (ii) two, (iii) three, (iv) four and (iv) five or more prior convictions for a violent offence in each of the last five years.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
The information requested is provided in the attached excel table. This table includes data covering the period 2020 – 2024 on:
The number of offenders who were a) convicted and b) cautioned for an indictable offence who did not receive an immediate custodial sentence by number of previous indictable convictions for specified offences, and
The number of offenders who were convicted or cautioned for an indictable offence who did not receive an immediate custodial sentence by number of previous indictable convictions for specified offences.
This data is not regularly published or held in an easily accessible format. The information supplied has been sourced from a bespoke retrieval from the Police National Computer database.
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 already a statutory aggravating factor, with Sentencing Guidelines being clear that sentencers must consider the nature and relevance of previous convictions, and the time elapsed since the previous convictions.
Asked by: Adam Jogee (Labour - Newcastle-under-Lyme)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps he is taking to increase the number of probation officers.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
The Government recognises the vital role probation officers play in protecting the public and reducing reoffending. Recruitment and retention continue to be a priority and through these efforts we are starting to see the positive impact of a centralised recruitment process as a large number of qualified probation officers come through the pipeline.
In 2024/25, we exceeded our commitment to onboard 1,000 trainee probation officers, successfully onboarding 1,057. We are now going further, having committed to onboard a total of 1,300 trainee probation officers in 2025/26. Probation officer numbers have increased over both the last quarter and the last year. The Professional Qualification in Probation (PQiP) 20 recruitment campaign, which went live on the 19th of January, will further support our efforts to maintain strong recruitment momentum and sustain the pipeline of future probation officers.
A retention toolkit has been developed, informed by research into the drivers of attrition. This toolkit supports local, regional, and national interventions and is used alongside structured exit interviews which were introduced to gather feedback and shape future actions. It is positive that we are seeing a continued reduction in Probation Service attrition.
Both probation officer numbers in post and leaving rates can be found at HM Prison and Probation Service workforce quarterly: September 2025 - GOV.UK
Asked by: Alex Sobel (Labour (Co-op) - Leeds Central and Headingley)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether his Department has conducted research into the potential impacts on long-term rehabilitation of Imprisonment for Public Protection sentences.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
Section 67 of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 requires the Secretary of State to prepare and publish an annual report about the steps taken to support the rehabilitation of IPP and Detention for Public Protection (DPP) offenders and their progress towards release from prison or licence termination and lay the report before Parliament.
Although there has not been research conducted in this area the Government published its latest IPP Annual Report on 17 July 2025, which included a commitment for HMPPS Psychology Services to complete a review of the Never Released IPP cohort. The review aims to ensure the current barriers to IPP progression are considered and services reviewed relating to these findings to support IPP progression. We will report on the outcome of this review in our next Annual Report, which is due to be published this summer.
The 2025 Annual Report also contained a refreshed version of the IPP Action Plan, which includes measurable targets to ensure transparency and accountability.
Through the IPP Action Plan we have significantly improved support for those serving the IPP sentence, with greater access to rehabilitation and mental health support.
Changes we have made in the Sentencing Act 2026 will provide IPP offenders with an earlier opportunity for licence termination, whilst allowing suitable time for support and rehabilitation in the community and ensuring victims and the public are best protected from harm.
Asked by: Alex Sobel (Labour (Co-op) - Leeds Central and Headingley)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if his Department will consider the potential merits of retrospectively abolishing Imprisonment for Public Protection sentences.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
It is right that the Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) sentence was abolished. Public protection will always be the top priority and abolishing the IPP sentence retrospectively would result in prisoners being released whom the independent Parole Board has determined are too dangerous. This would pose an unacceptable risk of harm to victims and the public.
We are determined to support those serving IPP sentences, but not in a way that undermines public protection. This is why the Government made changes in the Sentencing Act 2026 to provide IPP offenders with an earlier opportunity for licence termination, whilst allowing suitable time for support and rehabilitation in the community and ensuring victims and the public are best protected from harm
Asked by: Siân Berry (Green Party - Brighton Pavilion)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether he plans to hold discussions with the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights on his comments of December 2025 on the treatment of hunger-striking prisoners.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
No discussions are planned. We are confident that the measures in place to ensure proper care for prisoners who refuse food are in accordance with the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners.