Asked by: Max Wilkinson (Liberal Democrat - Cheltenham)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment his department has made of the potential merits of recognising humanist marriages using existing powers.
Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
The Government announced on 2 October that it intends to reform weddings law when parliamentary time allows. The reforms reflect a commitment to making weddings 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 is of the view that using the existing order-making power under section 14 of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 legally to recognise Humanist weddings would mean introducing new inequalities into existing law. This is because Humanists would gain more freedoms in relation to how they marry than those available to most religious groups. The Government has decided to enable Humanist weddings as part of comprehensive reform that ensures all groups are treated fairly.
Asked by: Wendy Morton (Conservative - Aldridge-Brownhills)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to the Written Statement entitled Criminal Court Reform, published on 2 December 2025, HCWS1123, what assessment his Department has made of the potential impact of removing the option for defendants to elect for trial by jury in certain triable-either-way cases on (a) the constitutional role of juries, (b) defendants’ right to a fair trial and (c) public confidence in the criminal justice system.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
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.
The removal of the defendants’ right to elect is compatible with Article 6 of the ECHR. Whilst 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 are dealt with by magistrates and only around 3% of all criminal trials are heard by a jury. It is the obligation of Government to guarantee everybody a fair trial and timely justice is fundamental to fairness. But the status quo is not working for victims, defendants, or anyone involved in the justice system.
The new ‘swift courts’ will operate within the existing Crown Court framework, following the same process and procedures. Safeguards will be in place, including the existing appeals procedure, and judges in the ‘swift courts’ will be required to provide reasoned judgments when delivering decisions to convict or acquit. An impact assessment will accompany our legislative measures, as is usual practice.
Asked by: Helen Maguire (Liberal Democrat - Epsom and Ewell)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if he will place a moratorium on the granting of exhumation licences for former asylum cemeteries, including Horton Cemetery, until a review of historic and cultural importance has been undertaken.
Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
The Government recognises the sensitivities surrounding burial grounds linked to former psychiatric institutions, including Horton Cemetery, and is committed to upholding the dignity of these sites and the memory of those interred within them.
All applications for exhumation are assessed individually and require consents from next of kin, the owner of any related exclusive right of burial and the burial authority to ensure that respect for the deceased person is balanced with a legitimate request from the family or burial authority. A general ban would remove this balance and prevent valid cases from being considered. All applications undergo rigorous scrutiny, and disturbing remains without authority is a criminal offence.
The Law Commission is currently reviewing burial legislation, including the legal provision for exhumation, as part of its Burial, Cremation and New Funerary Methods project (Burial, cremation, and new funerary methods – Law Commission). Its report on this issue is expected to be published in early 2026, and the Government will respond in due course.
Asked by: Louise Haigh (Labour - Sheffield Heeley)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many recorders were sitting in the crown and county courts in 2023, 2024 and 2025.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The annual official Diversity of the Judiciary statistics includes the total numbers of Recorders in post, as of 1 April of the relevant year (Data tables: Tab 3_1_JO_Appt):
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/diversity-of-the-judiciary-2025-statistics.
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/diversity-of-the-judiciary-2024-statistics.
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/diversity-of-the-judiciary-2023-statistics.
Recorders can be authorised to sit in multiple courts and jurisdictions, and the judiciary is responsible for assigning them to sit in specific Crown or County Courts.
Asked by: Wendy Morton (Conservative - Aldridge-Brownhills)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to the Written Statement entitled Criminal Court Reform, published on 2 December 2025, HCWS1123, what assessment he has made of the potential impact of expanding judge-only trials to a wider class of offences, including fraud cases and triable-either-way cases involving likely sentences of up to three years, on the right to a fair trial and jury participation in the justice system; and what safeguards he intends to put in place to ensure transparency, accountability and public confidence in verdicts reached without a jury.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
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.
The removal of the defendants’ right to elect is compatible with Article 6 of the ECHR. Whilst 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 are dealt with by magistrates and only around 3% of all criminal trials are heard by a jury. It is the obligation of Government to guarantee everybody a fair trial and timely justice is fundamental to fairness. But the status quo is not working for victims, defendants, or anyone involved in the justice system.
The new ‘swift courts’ will operate within the existing Crown Court framework, following the same process and procedures. Safeguards will be in place, including the existing appeals procedure, and judges in the ‘swift courts’ will be required to provide reasoned judgments when delivering decisions to convict or acquit. An impact assessment will accompany our legislative measures, as is usual practice.
Asked by: Lola McEvoy (Labour - Darlington)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the relevance of mental health conditions to the sentencing of people convicted of child sexual abuse.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
Sentencing decisions are a matter for our independent courts, following any relevant sentencing guidelines, issued by the Sentencing Council. Sentencing guidelines are designed to increase consistency and transparency in sentencing.
The Council has issued a package of guidelines on sexual offences, as well as an overarching guideline to assist courts when sentencing offenders with any mental disorder, neurological impairment or developmental disorder. These are available on its website at: https://sentencingcouncil.org.uk/guidelines/crown-court/.
As the Deputy Prime Minister mentioned during Justice Oral Questions on 16 December, I will bring your particular concerns to the attention of the Chair of the Council.
Asked by: Seamus Logan (Scottish National Party - Aberdeenshire North and Moray East)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what recent assessment he has made of the potential impact of reducing the pension age of prison officers on levels of staff retention.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
We have seen an improving picture on retention nationally – with resignation rates at their lowest level for four years for Band 3-5 prison officers.
We recognise that pension age is an important issue for frontline staff and our recognised trade unions. Ministers regularly engage with the POA and the Deputy Prime Minister is due to meet with the POA early in the new year.
Asked by: Paul Waugh (Labour (Co-op) - Rochdale)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps his Department is taking to support rape survivors in the criminal justice system.
Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
The Ministry of Justice will be investing £550 million in victim support services over the next three years – the biggest investment in these services to date.
We are introducing a package of legislative measures to improve victims’ experiences and stop practitioners and juries relying on so-called myths and misconceptions in court.
Asked by: Charlie Dewhirst (Conservative - Bridlington and The Wolds)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what the (a) name, (b) job title, (c) annual remuneration, (d) time commitment and (e) expected end date is for each direct ministerial appointment in his Department.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
The Ministry of Justice makes information on its direct ministerial appointments available in line with Cabinet Office guidance on transparency. This information is available on GOV.UK and kept under review to ensure it is up to date.
Name(s) | Job Title | Press Release |
Kate Green; Dr Tom McNeil; Katy Swaine Williams; Dr Shona Minson; Bernie Bowen-Thomson; Michaela Booth; Anne Fox; Lady Edwina Grosvenor; Dame Vera Baird DBE KC; Pia Sinha | Members of Women’s Justice Board | |
Dame Carol Black; Ed Bathgate; Andi Brierley; Vicki Markiewicz; Dr Sunil Lad; Ranjan Bhattacharyya; Dr Ed Day. | Members of Drug and Alcohol Recovery Expert Panel | Drug and Alcohol Recovery Expert Panel: Terms of Reference - GOV.UK |
Dame Lynne Owens | Lead Independent Reviewer into Releases in Error | Appointment of Dame Lynne Owens as independent reviewer - GOV.UK |
Her Honour Deborah Taylor | Chair of the Criminal Legal Aid Advisory Board | New Chair of the Criminal Legal Aid Advisory Board appointed - GOV.UK Extension of Deborah Taylor's term as Chair of the Criminal Legal Aid Advisory Board - GOV.UK |
Chair of the Nottingham Inquiry | Chair appointed for public inquiry into Nottingham attack - GOV.UK | |
The Rt Hon Sir Brian Leveson | Chair of the Independent Review of the Criminal Courts | |
Shaun McNally, Chris Mayer, Jay Bangle, Katie Atkinson, David Ormerod | Expert Advisers to the Independent Review of the Criminal Courts | |
HHJ Sarah Munro KC | Chair of the Andrew Malkinson Inquiry | Judge appointed to chair independent Malkinson Inquiry - GOV.UK |
Lord Philip Sales, The Right Hon. Sir Colin Birss, The Honourable Justice Joanna Smith, Mark Evans, Kirsty Brimelow KC, Dame Elizabeth Gloster DBE, Richard Bamforth, Jonathan Wood, Kevin Nash, Lucy Greenwood, Clare Ambrose, Christina Blacklaws, Charles Clark, Professor Richard Susskind CBE KC (Hon), Dr Linda Yueh, James Palmer CBE, John Foster, Marcus Peffers, Dame Linda Dobbs DBE, Farzana Baduel | Members of English Law Promotion Panel |
Asked by: Gagan Mohindra (Conservative - South West Hertfordshire)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps he is taking to prevent mistaken prisoner releases.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
Releases in error are never acceptable, and 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 prison release checks, investment in new technology, and an independent review, which will report its recommendations in spring next year.