Ministry of Justice

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.

The data below shows the annual spend for Probation services in the Greater Manchester Probation Region and Oldham since 2021.

To note:

Data prior to July 2021 is unable to be reported on, due to the structure of probation regions following Transforming Rehabilitation in 2014 where a National Probation Service (NPS) for high-risk work, and 21 Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs) for low/medium risk were created.

Under the National Probation Service, Greater Manchester was part of a wider area called North West Division.

The unification of CRCs and the National Probation Service (NPS) in England and Wales took place on 26 June 2021, creating The Probation Service and marked a significant restructuring of the probation system.

The Government does not record the number of litigants who were unable to present their case properly due to lack of representation. The Ministry of Justice publish official statistics includes legal representation data in the following: Family_Court_Tables__Apr-Jun_2025_.ods

The Government is committed to ensuring all court users can access justice fairly. HMCTS offers practical guidance and intermediary support for litigants in person, while wider legal help is available through organisations funded by over £6 million from the Ministry of Justice (April 2025–March 2026), including online resources like Advicenow.

We have not made a specific assessment of the delays in cases involving litigants in person. However, published statistics show that cases where both parties, or the respondent only, had legal representation generally took longer to conclude than those where only the applicant was represented or both parties were unrepresented.

We recognise the impact delays have on families and are taking action to improve outcomes. In private law proceedings relating to children, Pathfinder courts are reducing case durations, delivering some of the fastest times nationally and providing better support for vulnerable parties, including domestic abuse survivors.

This Government has not made an assessment of judicial outcomes. The Judiciary are constitutionally independent from the Government. Commenting on or evaluating judicial decisions would risk undermining this independence.

The Government does not record the number of litigants who were unable to present their case properly due to lack of representation. The Ministry of Justice publish official statistics includes legal representation data in the following: Family_Court_Tables__Apr-Jun_2025_.ods

The Government is committed to ensuring all court users can access justice fairly. HMCTS offers practical guidance and intermediary support for litigants in person, while wider legal help is available through organisations funded by over £6 million from the Ministry of Justice (April 2025–March 2026), including online resources like Advicenow.

We have not made a specific assessment of the delays in cases involving litigants in person. However, published statistics show that cases where both parties, or the respondent only, had legal representation generally took longer to conclude than those where only the applicant was represented or both parties were unrepresented.

We recognise the impact delays have on families and are taking action to improve outcomes. In private law proceedings relating to children, Pathfinder courts are reducing case durations, delivering some of the fastest times nationally and providing better support for vulnerable parties, including domestic abuse survivors.

This Government has not made an assessment of judicial outcomes. The Judiciary are constitutionally independent from the Government. Commenting on or evaluating judicial decisions would risk undermining this independence.

The Government does not record the number of litigants who were unable to present their case properly due to lack of representation. The Ministry of Justice publish official statistics includes legal representation data in the following: Family_Court_Tables__Apr-Jun_2025_.ods

The Government is committed to ensuring all court users can access justice fairly. HMCTS offers practical guidance and intermediary support for litigants in person, while wider legal help is available through organisations funded by over £6 million from the Ministry of Justice (April 2025–March 2026), including online resources like Advicenow.

We have not made a specific assessment of the delays in cases involving litigants in person. However, published statistics show that cases where both parties, or the respondent only, had legal representation generally took longer to conclude than those where only the applicant was represented or both parties were unrepresented.

We recognise the impact delays have on families and are taking action to improve outcomes. In private law proceedings relating to children, Pathfinder courts are reducing case durations, delivering some of the fastest times nationally and providing better support for vulnerable parties, including domestic abuse survivors.

This Government has not made an assessment of judicial outcomes. The Judiciary are constitutionally independent from the Government. Commenting on or evaluating judicial decisions would risk undermining this independence.

The Disclosure of Information between Family and Criminal Agencies and Jurisdictions: Protocol 2024 came into effect on 1 March 2024 and applies to the exchange of information and material between criminal and family agencies and jurisdictions.

The Ministry of Justice does not hold records on the average financial cost for people meeting their own legal fees in family court proceedings. These are private arrangements and there is no statutory requirement for them to be reported.

It is not possible to identify from the data whether the mother or father was represented during proceedings. However, representation can be broken down by applicant and respondent, and this information is published in the Family Court Statistics Quarterly collection. The latest publication is available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/family-court-statistics-quarterly

Reasons why parties may not have been represented are not held centrally.

It is not possible to identify from the data whether the mother or father was represented during proceedings. However, representation can be broken down by applicant and respondent, and this information is published in the Family Court Statistics Quarterly collection. The latest publication is available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/family-court-statistics-quarterly

Reasons why parties may not have been represented are not held centrally.

We acknowledge and appreciate the constructive way that providers have worked with us following the serious criminal attack on the Legal Aid Agency’s (LAA) digital systems. They have continued to do vital work in challenging circumstances.

From the outset the LAA has consulted with providers and provider representative bodies to understand their concerns. These consultations confirmed that maintaining cash flow was a key priority and we immediately took steps to ensure that providers had the cash flow that they needed.

For some types of legal aid this meant adjusting the way in which providers submitted their claim for payment to the LAA. From 19 May, providers have been able to claim their usual payments for Legal Help, Crime Lower & Mediation work via a contingency process. Due to previous investment, the criminal legal aid systems were more modern, and internal access was restored more quickly. This enabled the LAA to resume paying Crown Court bills from early June.

It was necessary to agree a payment contingency for Civil Representation work with HM Treasury. This led to the implementation of the Average Payment Scheme on 27 May. The Average Payment Scheme enables providers to opt in to receive a temporary average payment for Civil Representation work that would otherwise be due. Payments are made on a weekly basis. The weekly average payment is based on previous payments made to that provider over the preceding 3-month period.  Some providers have not opted in to receive payment, but it is there should they need it.

As of 30 November, 2,045 advocates, and 1,206 legal aid provider offices have received payment through the Average Payment Scheme. As payments are calculated as a weekly average there is no scope or need to make a ‘partial’ or ‘emergency’ payment. However, there is, in addition, a simple escalation process in place to enable providers to request a payment in excess of the average amount offered to meet specific expenditure.

We are satisfied that providers have been able to access payment for work carried out whilst systems have been offline.

The Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) Part 55, 55.1 (a) states a possession claim means a claim for the recovery of possession of land (including buildings or parts of buildings), on which a vehicle might be parked.

The CPR stipulate that possession claims should be listed within 4-8 weeks. The most recent published statistics, covering the period July to September 2025 show that the median time from claim to order is 7.6 weeks. The timeliness of the subsequent enforcement of an order, where this is required, can be influenced by the actions of users as well as the court. For 2024 only 26% of possession claims required enforcement.

The Ministry of Justice publishes quarterly data on possession claims at: Mortgage and landlord possession statistics: July to September 2025 - GOV.UK.

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.

The new ‘swift courts’ will operate within the existing Crown Court which means the same procedures in the Crown Court will apply, apart from mode of trial. Judges will assign triable-either-ways cases to the new Crown Court Bench Division where the likely sentence is three years or less, but they will retain the full sentencing powers of the Crown Court. Sentencing decisions remain a matter for the independent judiciary and the Ministry of Justice is unable to provide estimates.

The new ‘swift courts’ will operate within the existing Crown Court which means the same procedures in the Crown Court will apply, apart from mode of trial. Judges will assign triable-either-ways cases to the new Crown Court Bench Division where the likely sentence is three years or less, but they will retain the full sentencing powers of the Crown Court.

The eligibility for family legal aid does not discriminate as between Mothers and Fathers. In any case, the eligibility criteria apply equally to both.

The legal aid framework was reformed by previous governments through the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO). In 2019, the then Government published a post-implementation review of LASPO; the outcome of that review, including in relation to legal aid in family proceedings, is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/post-implementation-review-of-part-1-of-laspo. Furthermore, between January 2023 and March 2025, the Ministry of Justice undertook a comprehensive Review of Civil Legal Aid (RoCLA); all reports are available at https://www.gov.uk/guidance/civil-legal-aid-review, this includes a deep dive on legal aid in family law cases.

Non means tested legal aid is available for parents and those with parental responsibility in most public family special Children Act 1989 cases, including care proceedings as well as related proceedings. A light-touch merits test is applied, so that only the need for representation is considered. As a result, more than one parent may be eligible for legal aid.

Legal aid is available in some private family matters for individuals experiencing, or at risk of, domestic abuse; for individuals (for example, parents) where the child who is the subject of the order is a victim of child abuse or at risk of abuse; for people under the age of 18; in certain cases of international or domestic abduction; for family mediation where there is a family dispute; and for certain urgent protection applications – for example, non-molestation orders. To be eligible for legal aid in these cases, means and merits tests usually need to be met, and evidence of domestic abuse also needs to be provided.

It is possible for both parties to receive legal aid in private family proceedings, if the case is in scope of LASPO and both parties meet the statutory eligibility and evidence requirements, where applicable. It is however also possible under LASPO for only one party to receive legal aid. This is due to the overall intention of LASPO which is to target legal aid to particularly vulnerable cohorts and those most in need.

Where an issue falls outside the scope of legal aid, eligible individuals may be able to obtain Exceptional Case Funding where they can show that, without the provision of legal aid, there is a risk that their human rights may be breached.

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) is an independent statutory tribunal that hears cases of alleged misconduct by solicitors, registered European Lawyers, registered foreign lawyers, and employees of solicitors’ firms.

The SDT is committed to upholding the principles of open justice. Its default position is that hearings should be held in public and that any departure from this principle must be justified as an exception. Rule 35 of the Solicitors (Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules 2019 governs the SDT's power to hold a private hearing and stipulates the specific exceptions where hearings may be private. The primary ground for holding a private hearing is exceptional hardship or prejudice to a party, witness, or affected person. In addition, a private hearing may be necessary where a public hearing would prejudice the interests of justice. Details of the SDT’s approach to conducting hearings, or parts of a hearing, in private are available here: https://solicitorstribunal.org.uk/resource/policy-public-private-hearings/.

Whilst the Ministry of Justice does not intervene in individual cases or decisions of the SDT, we keep the underlying legislative framework under review to ensure it continues to provide an effective and transparent disciplinary system.

Individuals who believe they have been defamed online can bring a claim under the tort of defamation, provided it meets the statutory requirements in the Defamation Act 2013, including demonstrating that the statement has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to their reputation.

Victims of harassment can seek civil remedies under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, which allows applications for injunctions to prevent further harassment and, in some cases, claims for damages.

As with any civil claim there are costs involved which may involve seeking professional advice. The general principle in England and Wales is, however, that legal costs are recoverable; usually the losing party pays the costs, as well as their own, following the event.

To help manage the costs of litigation, individuals may wish to consider a range of funding options, including conditional fee agreements, damages-based agreements, and insurance products such as after-the-event cover. Third-party litigation funding may also be available in some circumstances.

Civil legal aid may be available for injunctions to protect people against harassment. Eligibility depends on both the nature and merits of the case and the applicant’s financial circumstances.

When a Breathing Space is cancelled, the creditor will be automatically notified by the Insolvency Service. They should provide a copy of this notification to the county court when they apply for any further enforcement action.

The decision on whether someone enters a Breathing Space Moratorium is not initially determined by the court but by a debt advice provider authorised by the Financial Conduct Authority or by a local authority (where they provide debt advice to residents). For a Mental Health Breathing Space, an Approved Mental Health Professional must certify that a person is receiving mental health treatment. If a creditor disagrees with a notification, there are grounds under which they can ask the debt advisor for a review. After a review, if the creditor does not agree with the decision, they can then apply to the court to cancel the breathing space.

If a creditor who has applied to the court is concerned about the validity of documents supporting a Mental Health Breathing Space, they should include supporting evidence as to why the documentation may be invalid in their application, verified by a statement of truth. Such applications are treated as a Part 8 claim by the court. The evidence will be considered by a judge who will make the decision.

When a Breathing Space is cancelled, the creditor will be automatically notified by the Insolvency Service. They should provide a copy of this notification to the county court when they apply for any further enforcement action.

The decision on whether someone enters a Breathing Space Moratorium is not initially determined by the court but by a debt advice provider authorised by the Financial Conduct Authority or by a local authority (where they provide debt advice to residents). For a Mental Health Breathing Space, an Approved Mental Health Professional must certify that a person is receiving mental health treatment. If a creditor disagrees with a notification, there are grounds under which they can ask the debt advisor for a review. After a review, if the creditor does not agree with the decision, they can then apply to the court to cancel the breathing space.

If a creditor who has applied to the court is concerned about the validity of documents supporting a Mental Health Breathing Space, they should include supporting evidence as to why the documentation may be invalid in their application, verified by a statement of truth. Such applications are treated as a Part 8 claim by the court. The evidence will be considered by a judge who will make the decision.