Asked by: Kim Johnson (Labour - Liverpool Riverside)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many and what proportion of people serving a sentence of imprisonment for public protection received a positive direction from the Parole Board for (a) release and (b) transfer to open conditions following a recall to custody having not committed a further offence in each of the last three reporting years.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
The power to recall is a vital public protection measure. Where an offender serving an IPP sentence is recalled to custody, it is because the Probation Service has assessed that the offender’s risk has escalated to the point where the offender may no longer be safely managed in the community and has evidence that the offender’s behaviour is similar to the behaviour at the time of the offending which attracted the IPP sentence. This means that an IPP offender does not have to have committed a further offence to be recalled.
Successive thematic reviews conducted by HM Chief Inspector of Probation have found that the Probation Service is using recall appropriately and for public protection purposes.
Table 1: Number and Proportion of IPP Recalls Not Involving a Charge for a Further Offence, 2023-2025 [note 1]
Category | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
Number not facing further charge | 463 | 449 | 329 |
Proportion not facing further charge | 70% | 73% | 77% |
With regards to the cost of Parole Board hearings relating to people serving an IPP sentence who had been recalled to custody having not committed a further offence, the data are not routinely available to provide a reasonable estimate, and the work to collate it could not be completed without incurring disproportionate costs.
Table 3: Number and proportion of Parole Board IPP recall review outcomes of release and open conditions from completed cases, 2022/23 to 2024/25 [note 2] [note 3]
Review Outcome | 2022/23 | 2023/24 | 2024/25 |
Open | 18 | 23 | 33 |
Release | 294 | 426 | 405 |
Open proportion of completed cases | 4% | 3% | 5% |
Release proportion of completed cases | 61% | 63% | 60% |
Table 4: Number and proportion of Parole Board IPP recall review outcomes of release and open conditions from completed cases, where the offender was not facing a charge for a further offence, 2022/23 to 2024/25 [note 2] [note 3] [note 4]
Review Outcome | 2022/23 | 2023/24 | 2024/25 |
Open | 15 | 22 | 25 |
Release | 207 | 329 | 296 |
Open proportion of completed cases | 5% | 5% | 5% |
Release proportion of completed cases | 65% | 68% | 63% |
We may not disclose the number of recalled IPP prisoners in custody as of 30 April 2026 as the data are a subset of data scheduled to be published at the end of July.
Table notes:
[note 1] The proportions are of total number of IPP recalls. An offender can be recalled multiple times in a year or across years.
[note 2] The outcomes are the final outcomes of each review and do not include intermediate decisions that were subsequently remade such as through reconsideration mechanism.
[note 3] Completed cases are cases that resulted in one of release, knockback and open conditions.
[note 4] Offenders not facing a charge of further offence are those who were not facing a charge of further offence at the point of their recall prior to the recall review.
Asked by: Kim Johnson (Labour - Liverpool Riverside)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many and what proportion of people serving a sentence of imprisonment for public protection received a positive direction from the Parole Board for (a) release and (b) transfer to open conditions following a recall to custody in each of the last three reporting years.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
The power to recall is a vital public protection measure. Where an offender serving an IPP sentence is recalled to custody, it is because the Probation Service has assessed that the offender’s risk has escalated to the point where the offender may no longer be safely managed in the community and has evidence that the offender’s behaviour is similar to the behaviour at the time of the offending which attracted the IPP sentence. This means that an IPP offender does not have to have committed a further offence to be recalled.
Successive thematic reviews conducted by HM Chief Inspector of Probation have found that the Probation Service is using recall appropriately and for public protection purposes.
Table 1: Number and Proportion of IPP Recalls Not Involving a Charge for a Further Offence, 2023-2025 [note 1]
Category | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
Number not facing further charge | 463 | 449 | 329 |
Proportion not facing further charge | 70% | 73% | 77% |
With regards to the cost of Parole Board hearings relating to people serving an IPP sentence who had been recalled to custody having not committed a further offence, the data are not routinely available to provide a reasonable estimate, and the work to collate it could not be completed without incurring disproportionate costs.
Table 3: Number and proportion of Parole Board IPP recall review outcomes of release and open conditions from completed cases, 2022/23 to 2024/25 [note 2] [note 3]
Review Outcome | 2022/23 | 2023/24 | 2024/25 |
Open | 18 | 23 | 33 |
Release | 294 | 426 | 405 |
Open proportion of completed cases | 4% | 3% | 5% |
Release proportion of completed cases | 61% | 63% | 60% |
Table 4: Number and proportion of Parole Board IPP recall review outcomes of release and open conditions from completed cases, where the offender was not facing a charge for a further offence, 2022/23 to 2024/25 [note 2] [note 3] [note 4]
Review Outcome | 2022/23 | 2023/24 | 2024/25 |
Open | 15 | 22 | 25 |
Release | 207 | 329 | 296 |
Open proportion of completed cases | 5% | 5% | 5% |
Release proportion of completed cases | 65% | 68% | 63% |
We may not disclose the number of recalled IPP prisoners in custody as of 30 April 2026 as the data are a subset of data scheduled to be published at the end of July.
Table notes:
[note 1] The proportions are of total number of IPP recalls. An offender can be recalled multiple times in a year or across years.
[note 2] The outcomes are the final outcomes of each review and do not include intermediate decisions that were subsequently remade such as through reconsideration mechanism.
[note 3] Completed cases are cases that resulted in one of release, knockback and open conditions.
[note 4] Offenders not facing a charge of further offence are those who were not facing a charge of further offence at the point of their recall prior to the recall review.
Asked by: Kim Johnson (Labour - Liverpool Riverside)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what estimate he has made of the cost to the public purse of Parole Board hearings relating to people serving a sentence of imprisonment for public protection who had been recalled to custody having not committed a further offence in each of the last three reporting years.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
The power to recall is a vital public protection measure. Where an offender serving an IPP sentence is recalled to custody, it is because the Probation Service has assessed that the offender’s risk has escalated to the point where the offender may no longer be safely managed in the community and has evidence that the offender’s behaviour is similar to the behaviour at the time of the offending which attracted the IPP sentence. This means that an IPP offender does not have to have committed a further offence to be recalled.
Successive thematic reviews conducted by HM Chief Inspector of Probation have found that the Probation Service is using recall appropriately and for public protection purposes.
Table 1: Number and Proportion of IPP Recalls Not Involving a Charge for a Further Offence, 2023-2025 [note 1]
Category | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
Number not facing further charge | 463 | 449 | 329 |
Proportion not facing further charge | 70% | 73% | 77% |
With regards to the cost of Parole Board hearings relating to people serving an IPP sentence who had been recalled to custody having not committed a further offence, the data are not routinely available to provide a reasonable estimate, and the work to collate it could not be completed without incurring disproportionate costs.
Table 3: Number and proportion of Parole Board IPP recall review outcomes of release and open conditions from completed cases, 2022/23 to 2024/25 [note 2] [note 3]
Review Outcome | 2022/23 | 2023/24 | 2024/25 |
Open | 18 | 23 | 33 |
Release | 294 | 426 | 405 |
Open proportion of completed cases | 4% | 3% | 5% |
Release proportion of completed cases | 61% | 63% | 60% |
Table 4: Number and proportion of Parole Board IPP recall review outcomes of release and open conditions from completed cases, where the offender was not facing a charge for a further offence, 2022/23 to 2024/25 [note 2] [note 3] [note 4]
Review Outcome | 2022/23 | 2023/24 | 2024/25 |
Open | 15 | 22 | 25 |
Release | 207 | 329 | 296 |
Open proportion of completed cases | 5% | 5% | 5% |
Release proportion of completed cases | 65% | 68% | 63% |
We may not disclose the number of recalled IPP prisoners in custody as of 30 April 2026 as the data are a subset of data scheduled to be published at the end of July.
Table notes:
[note 1] The proportions are of total number of IPP recalls. An offender can be recalled multiple times in a year or across years.
[note 2] The outcomes are the final outcomes of each review and do not include intermediate decisions that were subsequently remade such as through reconsideration mechanism.
[note 3] Completed cases are cases that resulted in one of release, knockback and open conditions.
[note 4] Offenders not facing a charge of further offence are those who were not facing a charge of further offence at the point of their recall prior to the recall review.
Asked by: Kim Johnson (Labour - Liverpool Riverside)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many and what proportion of people serving a sentence of imprisonment for public protection were recalled to custody having not committed a further offence in each of the last three reporting years.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
The power to recall is a vital public protection measure. Where an offender serving an IPP sentence is recalled to custody, it is because the Probation Service has assessed that the offender’s risk has escalated to the point where the offender may no longer be safely managed in the community and has evidence that the offender’s behaviour is similar to the behaviour at the time of the offending which attracted the IPP sentence. This means that an IPP offender does not have to have committed a further offence to be recalled.
Successive thematic reviews conducted by HM Chief Inspector of Probation have found that the Probation Service is using recall appropriately and for public protection purposes.
Table 1: Number and Proportion of IPP Recalls Not Involving a Charge for a Further Offence, 2023-2025 [note 1]
Category | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
Number not facing further charge | 463 | 449 | 329 |
Proportion not facing further charge | 70% | 73% | 77% |
With regards to the cost of Parole Board hearings relating to people serving an IPP sentence who had been recalled to custody having not committed a further offence, the data are not routinely available to provide a reasonable estimate, and the work to collate it could not be completed without incurring disproportionate costs.
Table 3: Number and proportion of Parole Board IPP recall review outcomes of release and open conditions from completed cases, 2022/23 to 2024/25 [note 2] [note 3]
Review Outcome | 2022/23 | 2023/24 | 2024/25 |
Open | 18 | 23 | 33 |
Release | 294 | 426 | 405 |
Open proportion of completed cases | 4% | 3% | 5% |
Release proportion of completed cases | 61% | 63% | 60% |
Table 4: Number and proportion of Parole Board IPP recall review outcomes of release and open conditions from completed cases, where the offender was not facing a charge for a further offence, 2022/23 to 2024/25 [note 2] [note 3] [note 4]
Review Outcome | 2022/23 | 2023/24 | 2024/25 |
Open | 15 | 22 | 25 |
Release | 207 | 329 | 296 |
Open proportion of completed cases | 5% | 5% | 5% |
Release proportion of completed cases | 65% | 68% | 63% |
We may not disclose the number of recalled IPP prisoners in custody as of 30 April 2026 as the data are a subset of data scheduled to be published at the end of July.
Table notes:
[note 1] The proportions are of total number of IPP recalls. An offender can be recalled multiple times in a year or across years.
[note 2] The outcomes are the final outcomes of each review and do not include intermediate decisions that were subsequently remade such as through reconsideration mechanism.
[note 3] Completed cases are cases that resulted in one of release, knockback and open conditions.
[note 4] Offenders not facing a charge of further offence are those who were not facing a charge of further offence at the point of their recall prior to the recall review.
Asked by: Nick Timothy (Conservative - West Suffolk)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many courtrooms in crown courts were not sitting on each day in the past month.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The Crown Court operates from 84 buildings across England and Wales, with a core estate of over 500 courtrooms. The table below outlines the number of courtrooms in the Crown Court that were not sitting each day in April 2026. To contextualise these figures, in April 2026 the Crown Court sat a total of 9,019 days. This compares to 8,751 in April 2025, 9,571 in April 2024, 7,337 in April 2023, 7,041 in April 2022 and 7,487 in April 2021.
It would be extremely unusual to have 100% courtroom utilisation in any jurisdiction, not least because the system needs to flex at short notice to meet unexpected capacity loss, cope with surges in demand, or accommodate overrunning trials and to allow for additional public and press access.
There is also a difference between system capacity and physical capacity. Running courtrooms requires not just available rooms but also, for example (but not limited to), judicial time, court staff, and sufficient numbers of barristers and solicitors.
We have invested a record £2.78 billion in our courts and tribunals service in 2026/27, including uncapped sitting days in the Crown Court for 2026/27 so that it can run at maximum system capacity. We have also announced additional investment in the workforce and legal professionals, including an additional £92 million per year for criminal legal aid solicitor fees, up to £34 million per year extra for criminal legal aid advocates, and match-funded criminal law pupillages to open a career at the Criminal Bar to more young people from across society.
This financial investment is just one element of our work to tackle the crisis in our criminal courts as it is only by pulling all levers at our disposal – financial investment, modernisation and pragmatic structural reform – that we can put the criminal courts onto a genuinely sustainable footing.
Dates | Available(2) courtrooms that did not sit | |
01/04/2026 | 86 | |
02/04/2026 | Easter holiday period | 103 |
07/04/2026 | 115 | |
08/04/2026 | 103 | |
09/04/2026 | 106 | |
10/04/2026 | 123 | |
13/04/2026 | 47 | |
14/04/2026 | 47 | |
15/04/2026 | 51 | |
16/04/2026 | 56 | |
17/04/2026 | 63 | |
20/04/2026 | 46 | |
21/04/2026 | 41 | |
22/04/2026 | 44 | |
23/04/2026 | 54 | |
24/04/2026 | 56 | |
27/04/2026 | 46 | |
28/04/2026 | 44 | |
29/04/2026 | 48 | |
30/04/2026 | 49 | |
Source System - HMCTS Management Information (Courtroom Planner)
1 - Data extracted from Courtroom Planner on 4 June 2026, for courtrooms allocated to the Crown Court.
2 - Data is based on individual courtrooms in the Crown Court estate. These are rooms whose primary use has been assigned to the Crown Court, not necessarily in a Crown Court venue and excludes rooms that were unavailable to sit for another reason.
3 - Although care is taken when processing and analysing the data, the details are subject to inaccuracies inherent in any large-scale case management system and is the best data that is available.
4 - Data are management information and are not subject to the same level of checks as official statistics.
5 - Data are taken from a live management information system and can change over time and for that reason might differ slightly from any previously published information.
6 - Data has not been cross referenced with case files.
7 - Crown courts do not normally sit on bank holidays or weekends so these have been removed.
8 – Crown court sittings can be intentionally reduced over Christmas and Easter holiday periods, as reflected in the table.
Asked by: Kim Johnson (Labour - Liverpool Riverside)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what recent assessment he has made of the adequacy of support available to unreleased prisoners serving sentences of imprisonment for public protection.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
The Government remains determined to support the rehabilitation of IPP prisoners, through the IPP Action Plan, which we published on 17 July 2025. The Plan sets out actions and associated targets, to ensure that those serving IPP sentences, including those who have never been released, have robust and effective sentence plans and that they are held in a prison most appropriate to their needs. These measures offer the most effective and responsible way to support the safe and sustainable release of those serving the sentence.
Progress against the IPP Action Plan is reported in the HMPPS annual report on the IPP sentence, most recently published on 17 July 2025. This report includes a focus on specific cohorts of individuals serving IPP sentences, including those who have never been released, in recognition of the particular needs of such prisoners. The next HMPPS annual report is due to be published in Summer 2026, this will set out in detail the progress made on supporting IPP prisoners.
Asked by: Kim Johnson (Labour - Liverpool Riverside)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what data his Department receives from NHS providers on the mental health conditions of prisoners serving a sentence of imprisonment for public protection.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
The NHS is responsible for delivering healthcare services, including mental health services, in prisons in England and Wales.
All prisoners, including those serving IPP sentences, have access to integrated mental health services. Healthcare provision is based on assessed clinical need and is not determined by sentence type. Consequently, routine data sets do not generally allow for identification of specific diagnoses across patient groups based on the prisoner’s sentence category. Any detailed or bespoke analysis of clinical conditions among cohorts defined by sentence type would, therefore, need to be led by DHSC and NHS England, who are responsible for the relevant data and its governance.
More broadly, the Government remains determined to support the rehabilitation of IPP prisoners, through the IPP Action Plan, which we published on 17 July 2025. The Plan puts an important emphasis on effective frontline delivery in our prisons and the Probation Service, to ensure that those serving IPP sentences have robust and effective sentence plans and that they are in the location most appropriate to their needs. It also includes a commitment to explore ways to better identify and support IPP prisoners with mental health needs, ensuring they can access appropriate treatment and interventions as part of their sentence progression.
Asked by: Kim Johnson (Labour - Liverpool Riverside)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what comparative assessment he has made between prisoners serving sentences of imprisonment for public protection and those serving determinate sentences of levels of access to (a) education, (b) employment training programmes and (c) resettlement services.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
The Government is committed to ensuring that all prisoners, including those serving Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) sentences, have access to appropriate rehabilitative support. Access to education, employment training and resettlement services is provided to all prisoners regardless of sentence type.
Prisoners serving IPP sentences are eligible to access the same educational offer as those serving determinate sentences, including literacy, numeracy, English for Speakers of Additional Languages, digital skills and library services, in line with Prison Rule 32. They may also participate in vocational training and work-related activity subject to operational availability. Each prison is responsible for determining an education offer that meets the needs of their cohort. The Department has not made a comparative assessment between IPP and determinate sentence prisoners in respect of access to these services and this could not be obtained without incurring disproportionate cost.
Resettlement services are likewise available to people serving IPP sentences, delivered according to individual need and sentence plans. The Government’s IPP Action Plan published in July 2025, places a strong emphasis on effective sentence planning, frontline delivery and ensures prisoners are located in establishments where they can access the services required to support progression towards a safe and sustainable release.
Asked by: Kim Johnson (Labour - Liverpool Riverside)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether the interventions available to unreleased prisoners serving sentences of imprisonment for public protection differ from those available to other prisoners serving such sentences.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
There are a range of interventions aimed at reducing reoffending and aiding resettlement into the community. These are allocated on an individual basis. Those working with prisoners serving sentences of imprisonment for public protection (IPP) will identify what interventions or services will be most suitable, based on the presenting need.
A small number of initiatives are designed specifically, or primarily, for IPP prisoners. These are not necessarily formal interventions, but they provide holistic, therapeutic services and unit-based approaches, aimed at increasing hope and reducing feelings of dejection, in order to increase insight, and improve relationships and engagement. Examples include the progression regimes currently in four prisons across the estate, and the Midlands Therapeutic Service.
Asked by: James McMurdock (Independent - South Basildon and East Thurrock)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the potential impact of increases in court expenditure on (a) court efficiency and (b) case resolution times.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
We are investing at record levels in the courts, including a landmark settlement of £2.78 billion for courts and tribunals in 2026/27.
We are also investing in uncapped Crown Court sitting days, court buildings and technology, and in legal professionals with a significant funding uplift in legal aid.
But the Independent Review of Criminal Courts is clear that investment alone, whilst important, is not enough. Only by pulling every lever we have – investment, efficiency and reform – can we reduce the backlog to acceptable levels and begin to deliver faster and fairer justice.