Asked by: Charlotte Cane (Liberal Democrat - Ely and East Cambridgeshire)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps she is taking to support survivors of (a) domestic abuse and (b) violence against women through the criminal justice system.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
This Government is working towards the ambition of halving violence against women and girls, including domestic abuse, in the next decade.
We are committed to supporting victims of these abhorrent crimes. We have protected VAWG spending by maintaining 2024/25 ringfenced funding levels for sexual violence and domestic abuse support this year, as well as the Rape and Sexual Abuse Support Fund and funding for Independent Domestic and Sexual Violence Advocates.
In November, we launched Domestic Abuse Protection Orders in selected areas. These orders will improve protection for victims of domestic abuse, including non-physical abuse and coercive and controlling behaviour.
Further, we will increase the powers of the Victims’ Commissioner to improve accountability when victims’ needs are not met, and the Victims and Prisoners Act will improve awareness of, and compliance with, the Victims’ Code which supports victims of crime to understand what they can expect from the justice system. It will also require local commissioners to collaborate when commissioning support for victims of domestic and sexual abuse.
Asked by: Caroline Voaden (Liberal Democrat - South Devon)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment she has made of the potential merits of extending the time limit on bringing forward a civil legal claim for abuse.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The basic principle of limitation law is to provide fair and equitable access to justice for claimants by setting reasonable time limits, whilst for defendants the law offers fairness, finality and certainty in terms of the period in which they may face litigation. Rules exist to enable the possibility for extensions in exceptional cases where this is justified.
The position on personal injury cases (such as abuse claims) is that claims should be brought within three years (from the age of 18 for minors), although the legislation specifically provides for courts to extend this where it is satisfied that would be equitable.
The Government considers that the current law as set out in the Limitation Act 1980 is fair and balanced, but reforms are being considered in relation to child sexual abuse claims. The Government will be publishing its consultation response to time limits for those cases shortly.
Asked by: Luke Charters (Labour - York Outer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether her Department has made an assessment of whether there are socio-economic disparities in the outcomes of special educational needs and disability tribunals.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
Information about appeal outcomes to the First-tier Tribunal for Special Educational Needs and Disability is published at: www.gov.uk/government/collections/tribunals-statistics.
This information includes outcomes of appeals, types of educational need and the age group of the child. The socio-economic status of appellants and the outcomes they achieve is not collected.
Asked by: Lord Kamall (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to (1) trial and (2) introduce artificial intelligence to speed up legal processes and reduce the courts backlog.
Answered by Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede - Lord in Waiting (HM Household) (Whip)
The Government continues to explore the use of technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI) to improve the efficiency of courts and legal processes.
The Ministry of Justice has established a new Justice AI Unit, led by the Department’s first Chief AI Officer, to develop a comprehensive AI strategy for the Department and its agencies.
With regards to the criminal courts, the Government is committed to bearing down on the outstanding caseload in the Crown Court and the Independent Review of the Criminal Courts led by Sir Brian Leveson will assess how the use of new technologies, including AI, could be used to improve efficiency across the criminal courts. Furthermore, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has ambitious plans to leverage new technologies to redesign and enhance legal systems and processes. Plans include the integration of AI into casework, potentially unlocking thousands of hours in improved productivity.
In the Family Courts, we are considering where both policy and technology can work together to improve services. We are seeking to reduce demand by using AI to signpost people to the right information to assist in their situation and provide AI tools such as parent arrangement planners to help separating parents to resolve issues quickly and without the need to involve courts. We aim to blend both AI, other technologies and policy to form cohesive services that address both court backlogs and court demand.
Asked by: Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they plan to implement the proposal of the Law Commission in its Celebrating Marriage: A New Weddings Law, published on 18 July 2022 (HC 557), to place regulatory conditions on the officiant rather than the location in which the wedding takes place.
Answered by Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede - Lord in Waiting (HM Household) (Whip)
The Law Commission’s 2022 report on weddings law made 57 recommendations for the wholesale reform of weddings law, including recommendations for an officiant-based weddings model. This would shift the focus of regulation from the building or venue where the wedding takes place to the officiant. The Law Commission set out its view that its recommendations would provide greater choice for couples in deciding how and where they get married, and the form and content of the ceremony.
I am sure you will agree that marriage will always be one of our most important institutions, and we have a duty to consider any changes to the law carefully. As a new Government, we need time to consider this issue, and we will set out our position on weddings reform in the coming months.
Asked by: Liz Saville Roberts (Plaid Cymru - Dwyfor Meirionnydd)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many people with a home address in Wales before entering custody were held in prison aged (a) 15-17, (b) 18-20, (c) 21-24, (d) 25-29, (e) 30-39, (f) 40-49, (g) 50-59, (h) 60 and over and (i) not recorded or not known in (i) March 2024, (ii) June 2024, (iii) September 2024 and (iv) December 2024.
Answered by Nicholas Dakin - Government Whip, Lord Commissioner of HM Treasury
The requested information has been provided as an Excel file alongside this response. The dataset for December 2024 is a subset of data scheduled to be published as part of the Offender management statistics quarterly - GOV.UK release and cannot be provided in advance of that publication.
Around 99% of prisoners have an origin location - i.e. addresses that are recorded in our central IT system. If no address is given, an offender’s committal court address is used as a proxy for the area in which they are resident.
This information is included in the data provided in the tables attached. No address has been recorded and no court information is available for around 1% of all offenders; these figures are excluded from the tables attached.
Asked by: Rupert Lowe (Reform UK - Great Yarmouth)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if she will make an assessment of the potential merits of a review of sentences for people serving a custodial sentence for posting offensive remarks on social media.
Answered by Nicholas Dakin - Government Whip, Lord Commissioner of HM Treasury
Sentencing in individual cases is a matter for our independent courts. There are a range of communication related offences, both summary-only and triable either way, across different pieces of legislation with varying maximum penalties. For example, section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 which criminalises the sending of a communication that is either grossly offensive, or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character. This offence carries a maximum 6 months’ imprisonment and/or unlimited fine.
The Government has launched an Independent Review of Sentencing chaired by former Lord Chancellor, David Gauke. The Review will examine options following three core principles: sentences must punish offenders and protect the public; sentences should encourage prisoners to turn their backs on a life of crime and we must expand and make greater use of punishment outside of prison.
Asked by: Ben Obese-Jecty (Conservative - Huntingdon)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps the Government has taken to block mobile phone signals for contraband mobile phones held by prisoners across the prison estate.
Answered by Nicholas Dakin - Government Whip, Lord Commissioner of HM Treasury
HM Prison & Probation Service (HMPPS) is committed to tackling the threat posed by illicit mobile telephones. It has a wide-ranging programme in place to prevent them from entering prisons, to detect and disrupt their use, and to investigate cases where a prisoner may have committed an offence.
HMPPS uses powers under the Prisons (Interference with Wireless Telegraphy) Act 2012 to enable prisons to use technology to suppress the use of wireless telegraphy such as mobile phones.
As part of their local security strategies, prisons are able to deploy a range of measures, but owing to security and operational sensitivities, it would not be appropriate to provide detailed information about the countermeasures that are in place.
Asked by: Kirith Entwistle (Labour - Bolton North East)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps her Department is taking to (a) align the definition of intimate image with existing offences, (b) mandate the removal of non-consensual intimate images from perpetrators' devices after conviction and (c) tackle other gaps in legislation.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
Further to our announcement on 7 January that we would introduce legislation to tackle the creation of sexually explicit deepfakes, the Government will table an amendment to the Data (Use and Access) Bill that will criminalise intentionally creating an intimate deepfake without consent or reasonable belief in consent. This delivers on our manifesto commitment and is the latest important step in our mission to halve violence against women and girls.
This offence will be tech neutral so would cover those using nudify apps as well as other technologies. The Government is considering options in relation to wider concerns about nudify apps themselves, and how best to tackle these technological developments.
Where an individual does not commit the “creating” offence themselves, but they ask someone else to do so, they may be liable under one of the offences set out at sections 44 – 46 of the Serious Crime Act 2007. These ‘inchoate’ offences apply to almost all criminal offences and would automatically apply when the creating deepfakes offence comes into force. But we want to go further and intend to introduce further provisions at a later stage of the Data (Use and Access) Bill.
On wider intimate image abuse legislation, as we announced on 7 January, we will be introducing new offences in relation to taking intimate images and installing equipment to enable someone to do so through the Crime and Policing Bill. These offences have been developed to include definitions aligned with sharing intimate images without consent, this will give law enforcement a holistic package of offences to effectively tackle non-consensual intimate image abuse, and address gaps in existing legislation. These provisions will also amend the Sentencing Code to ensure Courts have the power to order, upon conviction, that the offender be deprived of any images in respect of which they were convicted of this offence, as well as anything on which the images were stored (such as a computer or hard drive).
The Courts already have this power in relation to offenders convicted of sharing intimate images (including deepfakes) without consent. The Sentencing Council is currently reviewing their guidance on ancillary orders, including deprivation orders, and we will monitor any developments closely.
Asked by: Liz Saville Roberts (Plaid Cymru - Dwyfor Meirionnydd)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many people with a home address in Wales before entering custody were in prison for the offence type of (a) possession of weapons, (b) public order offences, (c) miscellaneous crimes against society, (d) fraud offences, (e) summary non-motoring offences, and (f) summary motoring offences in (i) March 2024, (ii) June 2024, (iii) September 2024 and (iv) December 2024.
Answered by Nicholas Dakin - Government Whip, Lord Commissioner of HM Treasury
The requested information has been provided as an Excel file alongside this response. The dataset for December 2024 is a subset of data scheduled to be published as part of the Offender management statistics quarterly - GOV.UK release and cannot be provided in advance of that publication.
Around 99% of prisoners have an origin location - i.e. addresses that are recorded in our central IT system. If no address is given, an offender’s committal court address is used as a proxy for the area in which they are resident.
This information is included in the data provided in the tables attached. No address has been recorded and no court information is available for around 1% of all offenders; these figures are excluded from the tables attached.