Ministry of Justice

The Ministry of Justice welcomes HMIP’s scrutiny visit report, published on 2 June, and takes the concerns raised seriously. The Inspectorate found improvements over the course of the pandemic and since their last report, but we recognise there is more to do.

We remain committed to the expansion of Approved Premises through the delivery of an additional 200 bed placements. The Approved Premise Expansion Programme (APEX) has delivered 56 bed spaces to date and we have further bed spaces confirmed for this financial year, which includes a new site for women in Bristol. The Programme is continuing to progress additional sites and we are confident in achieving the 200 placement target.

All prisons in England and Wales are expected to have Equality Strategies and Action Plans, as specified within PSI 2011-32 – Ensuring Equality, and this document will be updated in the coming months providing further guidance to this requirement. HMP North Sea Camp is working with the National Equalities Team to develop an overarching Equalities strategy that both supports and is supportive of the needs of those in the charge of HMPPS.

We are committed to making all our prisons decent and safe for all those who live and work there. Further easing of the restrictions will enable us to work on embedding additional improvements. We will continue to ensure that action is taken to improve conditions for those in our prisons and their outcomes on release.

The Ministry of Justice welcomes HMIP’s scrutiny visit report, published on 2 June, and takes the concerns raised seriously. The Inspectorate found improvements over the course of the pandemic and since their last report, but we recognise there is more to do.

We remain committed to the expansion of Approved Premises through the delivery of an additional 200 bed placements. The Approved Premise Expansion Programme (APEX) has delivered 56 bed spaces to date and we have further bed spaces confirmed for this financial year, which includes a new site for women in Bristol. The Programme is continuing to progress additional sites and we are confident in achieving the 200 placement target.

All prisons in England and Wales are expected to have Equality Strategies and Action Plans, as specified within PSI 2011-32 – Ensuring Equality, and this document will be updated in the coming months providing further guidance to this requirement. HMP North Sea Camp is working with the National Equalities Team to develop an overarching Equalities strategy that both supports and is supportive of the needs of those in the charge of HMPPS.

We are committed to making all our prisons decent and safe for all those who live and work there. Further easing of the restrictions will enable us to work on embedding additional improvements. We will continue to ensure that action is taken to improve conditions for those in our prisons and their outcomes on release.

The Ministry of Justice welcomes HMIP’s scrutiny visit report, published on 2 June, and takes the concerns raised seriously. The Inspectorate found improvements over the course of the pandemic and since their last report, but we recognise there is more to do.

We remain committed to the expansion of Approved Premises through the delivery of an additional 200 bed placements. The Approved Premise Expansion Programme (APEX) has delivered 56 bed spaces to date and we have further bed spaces confirmed for this financial year, which includes a new site for women in Bristol. The Programme is continuing to progress additional sites and we are confident in achieving the 200 placement target.

All prisons in England and Wales are expected to have Equality Strategies and Action Plans, as specified within PSI 2011-32 – Ensuring Equality, and this document will be updated in the coming months providing further guidance to this requirement. HMP North Sea Camp is working with the National Equalities Team to develop an overarching Equalities strategy that both supports and is supportive of the needs of those in the charge of HMPPS.

We are committed to making all our prisons decent and safe for all those who live and work there. Further easing of the restrictions will enable us to work on embedding additional improvements. We will continue to ensure that action is taken to improve conditions for those in our prisons and their outcomes on release.

The Ministry of Justice welcomes HMIP’s scrutiny visit report, published on 2 June, and takes the concerns raised seriously. The Inspectorate found improvements over the course of the pandemic and since their last report, but we recognise there is more to do.

We remain committed to the expansion of Approved Premises through the delivery of an additional 200 bed placements. The Approved Premise Expansion Programme (APEX) has delivered 56 bed spaces to date and we have further bed spaces confirmed for this financial year, which includes a new site for women in Bristol. The Programme is continuing to progress additional sites and we are confident in achieving the 200 placement target.

All prisons in England and Wales are expected to have Equality Strategies and Action Plans, as specified within PSI 2011-32 – Ensuring Equality, and this document will be updated in the coming months providing further guidance to this requirement. HMP North Sea Camp is working with the National Equalities Team to develop an overarching Equalities strategy that both supports and is supportive of the needs of those in the charge of HMPPS.

We are committed to making all our prisons decent and safe for all those who live and work there. Further easing of the restrictions will enable us to work on embedding additional improvements. We will continue to ensure that action is taken to improve conditions for those in our prisons and their outcomes on release.

Ensuring the safety of staff and prisoners is a key priority and we continue to prioritise giving all staff the tools and training needed to help them to improve safety outcomes.

HMP Berwyn has continued to support the delivery of safer prisons work throughout the pandemic. This has included launching an intervention programme to address violence for prisoners involved in a number of violent incidents; introducing a new debt strategy with an appointed debt team; and the introduction of a new peer support process to provide support for prisoners to help reduce the risk of self-harm and violence.

HMP Berwyn rolled out ‘Purple Video Visits’ during the pandemic, helping to maintain important family ties – which is vital to rehabilitation. The prison also developed distraction packs to keep prisoners better occupied and support their wellbeing.

We routinely publish figures for assaults by establishment as part of the Safety in Custody statistics. These statistical bulletins include breakdowns (at prison level) for prisoner-on-prisoner assault and prisoner-on-staff assault, including by serious assaults. They are available at the following link:

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/safety-in-custody-quarterly-update-to-december-2020

The Ministry of Justice has published information on convictions and sentencing outcomes up to December 2020, available in the Outcomes by Offence data tool:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/987715/outcomes-by-offence-2020.xlsx

In the ‘Offence’ filter, select ‘8.22 Assault of an emergency worker’. Number of defendants convicted will populate Row 24, and those sentenced to immediate custody will populate Row 35. The number of defendants who received sentence lengths greater than 6 months will populate Rows 60 to 77.

The Ministry of Justice has published information on convictions and sentencing outcomes up to December 2020, available in the Outcomes by Offence data tool:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/987715/outcomes-by-offence-2020.xlsx

In the PivotTable Fields, remove the ‘Values’ variable from the ‘Rows’ field and replace with ‘Offence’. Then, drag the ‘Average custodial sentence length (months)’ variable into the ‘Values’ field. Use the ‘Offence group’ filter to select (a) ‘01: Violence against the person’, (b) ‘04: Theft Offences’, (c) ‘Robbery’ and (d) ’07: Possession of weapons’.

The Ministry of Justice has published information on convictions and sentencing outcomes up to December 2020, available in the Outcomes by Offence data tool:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/987715/outcomes-by-offence-2020.xlsx

Use the ‘Offence group’ filter to select (a) ‘01: Violence against the person’, (b) ‘04: Theft Offences’, (c) ’03: Robbery’ and (d) ’07: Possession of weapons’. In order to identify the number of offenders sentenced who did not receive an immediate custodial sentence, subtract the values of Row 35 (Total immediate custody) from the respective values of Row 25 (Sentenced).

The Government recognises that the violence and abuse faced by retail workers can have a significant impact. It also understands that the pandemic has resulted in some shop workers feeling more vulnerable and susceptible to adverse societal behaviours and at an increased risk of harm from members of the public. The Government is clear that no worker should be made to suffer such abuse or violence in providing a service to the public – it is wholly unacceptable.

We therefore understand the motivations behind the campaigns to create a new assault offence for retail workers but there are already a wide range of offences which exist, and which cover assaults against any worker, including shop workers. In all cases, the fact that an offence has been committed against a person serving the public will be considered as an aggravating factor for the purpose of passing sentence.

The Government is committed to keeping our retail environments safe by driving down violence and abuse towards shop staff and this is being tackled by other means. That is why we are working with retail stakeholders through the Home Office led National Retail Crime Steering Group chaired by the Minister for Crime and Policing and the British Retail consortium to ensure the response to these crimes is as robust as it possibly can be. We are taking necessary steps to ensure that abuse and violence towards retail workers are reported to the police by victims and/or their employers. We believe these practical steps will offer a more direct and robust solution in the longer term.

We are also aware that two amendments have been tabled to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill. For now, we remain unpersuaded of the necessity of a new criminal offence to deal with assaults against retail workers. But we will continue to keep the matter under review and listen to the debate on this matter.

The government keeps offences and penalties under revew. We have no current plans to increase the maximum penalty for causing death by careless driving.

As reported in the latest statistics released on gov.uk, there were 184 persons serving custodial sentences for terrorist offences in Great Britain (as of 31 December 2020). A further 25 were being held on remand, ahead of trial or sentencing. Those in custody are assessed according to their individual risk and rehabilitation needs and are held in various prisons across the estate. We do not disclose operational detail regarding the location of all terrorist offenders in prison.

Data detailing the number of people serving custodial sentences for terrorist offences is available at Gov.uk. You can access this information here:

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/operation-of-police-powers-under-the-terrorism-act-2000-quarterly-update-to-december-2020

Northern Ireland Security statistics are available and published by the Northern Ireland Office.

Non-payment of council tax is not a criminal offence and cannot attract a custodial sentence. However, as a last resort, a magistrates’ court has the option to commit an individual to prison for non-payment.

Before a magistrates’ court commits someone to prison for failure to pay their council tax, it must have issued a “liability order” and the local authority must have (at least) tried and failed to take control of the debtor’s goods and sell them to recover the debt. Councils have additional powers of enforcement under a liability order, including deduction from earnings, deduction from benefit, charging orders on the property, and bankruptcy. If a council applies for committal to prison, the court must inquire into the debtor’s means, and the council must satisfy the court that there is no other effective method of collection and that failure to pay is due to wilful refusal or culpable neglect. This is to prevent persons who are genuinely unable to pay their council tax from being committed to prison. Where that is the case, courts have the power to remit the debt.

Data on the number of non-criminal admissions to prison for non-payment of council tax, covering the period 1990 – 2020, can be viewed in Table A2.12 at the following link: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/983553/Receptions_2020.ods

In 2020, there were no admissions into prison associated with failing to pay a fine in respect of the non-payment of a TV licence in England and Wales.

This government takes the mental health needs of prisoners very seriously and to keep them safe and well, prison officers must have the skills, knowledge and confidence to offer support, alongside healthcare professionals.

Improved mental health awareness training has been developed as part of Prison Officer Entry Level Training and refresher training for existing staff. We are currently developing an improved modular safety training package. This includes an enhanced mental health training module, building on the introductory module for staff supporting individuals with complex needs. Resources also include a suicide and self-harm learning tool, developed in partnership with Samaritans, and a range of guidance relating to known risk factors.

Any use of force must be necessary, reasonable and proportionate to the seriousness of the circumstances. A clinical assessment must take place to determine whether the prisoner has capacity. If the prisoner has been assessed as not having capacity, then the Mental Capacity Act 2005 makes provision for the person to be treated and, if necessary, for force or restraint to be used. When considering the options, healthcare/clinical staff will make the decision and liaise closely with prison staff on the level and type of restraint that might be used.

The most recently published information regarding combined waiting times for a grant of probate, on paper and digital cases, covers September 2020 to December 2020 and is published on gov.uk via Family Court Statistics Quarterly (Table 26):

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/family-court-statistics-quarterly-october-to-december-2020

Average time to grant issue for grants of Probate, England and Wales, quarterly Q2 2019 - Q4 2020^1,2,3

Source: HMCTS Core Case Data

Notes:

1) HMCTS Core Case Data came into effect at the end of March 2019, following a transition between data systems recording information regarding the Probate Service.

2) The average timeliness figures are produced by calculating the time from application/document receipt (which may be from an earlier period) to the grant issued made in that period. Currently grants being issued on the same day as the application submission/document receipt are being calculated as 0 days. This is being reviewed as to whether it is an accurate reflection of workload and may be adjusted in future..

3) Some averages presented here may be based on a small number of grants. Where this occurs, any conclusion drawn from these will be limited..

4) Document receipt occurs after payment has been made and all accompanying paperwork has been received by HMCTS.

5) Due to quality issues in the transition between data systems, the breakdown by type of grant has not been published for Q2 2019.

6) A probate application can be stopped for several reasons: a caveat can be entered when there’s a dispute about either who can apply for probate or issues with a will or proposed will, or if an error is identified and a request for further information is made.

Despite the unprecedented challenges faced by the probate service during the Covid 19 pandemic, the average waiting for a grant of probate following receipt of the documents required has been maintained at between four to six weeks.

More recent management information published by HMCTS (which does not go through the same level of quality assurance and analysis as the Family Court Statistics Quarterly) provides waiting time information up to March 2021. This shows that the waiting time on digital grant of probate applications, which are not stopped due to errors or missing documentation, has been below one week since September 2020. Similarly paper cases, not stopped, took less than three weeks on average in March 2021 compared to five weeks in March 2020.

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/hmcts-management-information-march-2021

National data on all prisoner enrolments (starts) and completions of prison delivered accredited offending behaviour programmes (OBPs) is collected and published annually. The latest available data goes up to and includes March 2019. Data up to and including March 2020 is due to be published shortly by the Ministry of Justice. This data will include some individuals who may have attended more than one accredited programme over time. Data on starts and completions before 2010 is not available, and the data available does not break-down information further by those currently in custody, or by sentence type.

Data shown in the tables below identify the number of enrolments (starts) in Table 1 and the completions each year over the same period in Table 2. The data shows a general maintained level of sexual offending programmes delivered over time. However, for other accredited offending behaviour programmes there has been a reduction in the volumes delivered.

Accredited programmes have significantly changed over time from a range of shorter programmes to more intensive specialist programmes which take longer to deliver and target prisoners with a medium and higher risk of reoffending. In 2011, responsibility for commissioning substance misuse programmes moved to the NHS resulting in a reduction in delivered volumes of accredited programmes. The changes have decreased the volume of places available, but places are better aligned to demands and the evidence base which suggests accredited programmes are most effective when targeted at cohorts with medium and higher risk of reoffending.

Table 1: Number of starts for OBPs in custody between the years ending March 2010 and March 2019, England and Wales

Table 2: Number of completions for OBPs in custody between the years ending March 2010 and March 2019, England and Wales

Table note: As with any data derived from large-scale recording systems, the figures are subject to possible errors with data migration and processing.

Source: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/873346/accredited-programmes-prisons-2018-19-march-2020-update.XLSX

The Government’s primary responsibility is to protect the public. Accredited programmes aim to protect the public and reduce reoffending and are part of a range of rehabilitation opportunities available. HM Prison and Probation Service remains committed to supporting the progression of those serving IPP and life sentences in custody, so that the Parole Board may direct their release as soon as it is safe to do so.

National data on all prisoner enrolments (starts) and completions of prison delivered accredited offending behaviour programmes (OBPs) is collected and published annually. The latest available data goes up to and includes March 2019. Data up to and including March 2020 is due to be published shortly by the Ministry of Justice. This data will include some individuals who may have attended more than one accredited programme over time. Data on starts and completions before 2010 is not available, and the data available does not break-down information further by those currently in custody, or by sentence type.

Data shown in the tables below identify the number of enrolments (starts) in Table 1 and the completions each year over the same period in Table 2. The data shows a general maintained level of sexual offending programmes delivered over time. However, for other accredited offending behaviour programmes there has been a reduction in the volumes delivered.

Accredited programmes have significantly changed over time from a range of shorter programmes to more intensive specialist programmes which take longer to deliver and target prisoners with a medium and higher risk of reoffending. In 2011, responsibility for commissioning substance misuse programmes moved to the NHS resulting in a reduction in delivered volumes of accredited programmes. The changes have decreased the volume of places available, but places are better aligned to demands and the evidence base which suggests accredited programmes are most effective when targeted at cohorts with medium and higher risk of reoffending.

Table 1: Number of starts for OBPs in custody between the years ending March 2010 and March 2019, England and Wales

Table 2: Number of completions for OBPs in custody between the years ending March 2010 and March 2019, England and Wales

Table note: As with any data derived from large-scale recording systems, the figures are subject to possible errors with data migration and processing.

Source: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/873346/accredited-programmes-prisons-2018-19-march-2020-update.XLSX

The Government’s primary responsibility is to protect the public. Accredited programmes aim to protect the public and reduce reoffending and are part of a range of rehabilitation opportunities available. HM Prison and Probation Service remains committed to supporting the progression of those serving IPP and life sentences in custody, so that the Parole Board may direct their release as soon as it is safe to do so.

The Lord Chancellor has a duty to ensure that legal aid is made available in accordance with the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act (2012), for cases where the relevant criteria, such as the financial eligibility of the applicant and/or the degree of legal merit in their case, is met, where applicable.

The Ministry of Justice works within HM Treasury allocations as shown in the Main and Supplementary Estimates (https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/hmt-main-estimates) each year. However, the nature of Legal Aid funding means that it is demand led, and as such the MoJ ensures sufficient allocation is made to cover the incurred costs.

Spend on legal aid since 2010 can be viewed at https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/legal-aid-statistics, which currently shows expenditure up to and including December 2020.

Under the framework established by the Legal Services Act 2007, the legal profession in England and Wales, and the bodies that regulate it, are independent from government. We continue to ensure that legal aid advice remains accessible to those who need it, and the Legal Aid Agency keeps market capacity under continual review to ensure adequate provision across England and Wales.

In England and Wales, the general position as to recovery of legal costs in civil litigation is that the losing party pays the costs of the winning party. If these costs are not agreed, then they are assessed on principles and bases set out in the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), which apply equally across England and Wales.

Under CPR 44.4, the place where the work was done is one of the factors to be taken into account by the court in deciding the amount of costs.

Guideline Hourly Rates (GHR), published by the Master of the Rolls, provide a starting point for the summary assessment of costs, based on the experience and the location of the lawyer undertaking the work.

In January 2021, the Civil Justice Council (CJC), chaired by the Master of the Rolls, issued a draft report for consultation on proposed revisions to the GHR: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/20210108-GHR-Report-for-consultation-FINAL.pdf. The consultation closed on 31 March 2021.

All magistrates can claim a mileage allowance as set out in the magistrates’ expenses policy. The rates for this allowance (per mile) are:

These rates were introduced in April 2021 after a wider review of magistrates’ expenses. They reflect the recommended rates set by HMRC for tax purposes. The new rates are also used by the wider public sector, including the judiciary and the Civil Service.

As these rates are deemed by HMRC to be the appropriate amount to offset the cost of using private vehicles for business purposes, the Ministry of Justice has no plans to introduce an additional mileage allowance for magistrates.

Activities involving the taking and sharing of intimate images are captured by existing offences, for example those tackling revenge pornography, voyeurism, harassment, malicious communications, blackmail, and coercive or controlling behaviour.

To strengthen further the law in this area, the Government recently announced that the “revenge porn” offence will be extended to capture those who threaten to disclose such material. Provisions to extend the parameters of the offence in this manner were introduced in the Domestic Abuse Act.

The provisions will come into force two months after Royal Assent: on 29 June this year.

However, the Government recognises that there is concern over the growth of new technology and the impact on the law in this area.

We have asked the Law Commission to review the law in this area to ensure victims are properly protected. The Law Commission published a public consultation to this review on 26 February this year.

The consultation period ended on 27 May and I understand the Law Commission intends to publish its findings by Spring 2022.

The Government awaits the Law Commission’s findings with interest and shall consider them carefully.

The Ministry of Justice holds data on prosecutions and convictions for offences relating to scrap metal dealers up to December 2020. Information on scrap metal dealers failing to hold a licence cannot be split by site or mobile collectors as this is not specified in legislation; prosecutions and convictions for failing to hold a licence can be found in the attached table, along with prosecutions and convictions for paying for cash for scrap metal.

The Ministry of Justice holds data on prosecutions and convictions for offences relating to scrap metal dealers up to December 2020. Information on scrap metal dealers failing to hold a licence cannot be split by site or mobile collectors as this is not specified in legislation; prosecutions and convictions for failing to hold a licence can be found in the attached table, along with prosecutions and convictions for paying for cash for scrap metal.

In the courts proceedings database we use binary sex rather than gender, because the binary classification better reflects how individuals are generally reported or managed through the CJS. Sex refers to whether someone is male or female based on their physiology, with ‘gender’ representing a social construct or sense of self that takes a wider range of forms. For example, prisons are either male or female institutions, with prisoners normally placed based on their legally recognised gender. However, given the range of recording practices throughout the CJS, it is likely that most recording includes a mixture of physiological and personal identity.

The recorded sex of defendants dealt with for rape and sexual assault offences can be found in our outcomes by offence tool here (search the drop down list in ‘offence’ and ‘sex’):[DXW1]

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/987715/outcomes-by-offence-2020.xlsx

Offences of aiding, abetting, or conspiracy to, rape are recorded as rape offences in our outcomes by offence tool, but are not separately identifiable.

The Government will bring forward legislation to establish the provisions of the Courts and Tribunals (Online Procedure) Bill when parliamentary time allows.

The Ministry of Justice is committed to ensuring the justice system is supported by a suite of high- quality language service contracts, that meet the needs of all those that require them.

The contracts have a clearly defined list of qualifications, skills, experience and vetting requirements interpreters must meet, which have been designed to meet the needs of the justice system. These are

set out in our contracts, which can be found at the following link:

https://www.contractsfinder.service.gov.uk/Notice/975cb99e-fec6-430f-8f31-fd532a907137?p=@=UFQxblRRPT0=NjJNT08

Our qualification and experience requirements and associated quality assurance arrangements provided by The Language Shop (TLS), have been carefully considered and have been designed so as to maintain the quality of interpretation provided under the contract, meet the demands and requirements of the Ministry and other contract users and encourage new entrants to the profession.

The Ministry of Justice will shortly be undertaking work to develop the next generation of Language Services contracts.

For the period 01/01/2019 – 21/05/2021, 169 language professionals have been removed and 40 language professionals have been sanctioned as a result of a Spot Check or In-Person Assessment.

The required standard comprises a number of different elements

All interpreters are required to meet the qualification requirements set out in the contract between the MoJ and the language service supplier. The requirements vary depending on the complexity of the bookings and the language in question. The specific requirement in each case is set out here: https://www.contractsfinder.service.gov.uk/Notice/975cb99e-fec6-430f-8f31-fd532a907137?p=@=UFQxblRRPT0=NjJNT08

TLS review the qualifications at the point of carrying out an assessment of an interpreter and will remove the interpreter if the supplier fails to demonstrate that they hold the correct qualifications.

All interpreters are required to comply with the MoJ code of conduct at all times. Any serious breach of the code of conduct, observed through an assessment by TLS or identified and confirmed through a complaint investigation, will result in removal from the register.

Interpreters also have to demonstrate competence in language proficiency, interpreting/professional skills, and subject matter knowledge. Interpreters are regularly assessed to ensure their interpreting meets the requirements of the assignment, being observed across each of the three competencies.

The Ministry of Justice is committed to ensuring the justice system is supported by a suite of high- quality language service contracts, that meet the needs of all those that require them.

The contracts have a clearly defined list of qualifications, skills, experience and vetting requirements interpreters must meet, which have been designed to meet the needs of the justice system. These are

set out in our contracts, which can be found at the following link:

https://www.contractsfinder.service.gov.uk/Notice/975cb99e-fec6-430f-8f31-fd532a907137?p=@=UFQxblRRPT0=NjJNT08

Our qualification and experience requirements and associated quality assurance arrangements provided by The Language Shop (TLS), have been carefully considered and have been designed so as to maintain the quality of interpretation provided under the contract, meet the demands and requirements of the Ministry and other contract users and encourage new entrants to the profession.

The Ministry of Justice will shortly be undertaking work to develop the next generation of Language Services contracts.

For the period 01/01/2019 – 21/05/2021, 169 language professionals have been removed and 40 language professionals have been sanctioned as a result of a Spot Check or In-Person Assessment.

The required standard comprises a number of different elements

All interpreters are required to meet the qualification requirements set out in the contract between the MoJ and the language service supplier. The requirements vary depending on the complexity of the bookings and the language in question. The specific requirement in each case is set out here: https://www.contractsfinder.service.gov.uk/Notice/975cb99e-fec6-430f-8f31-fd532a907137?p=@=UFQxblRRPT0=NjJNT08

TLS review the qualifications at the point of carrying out an assessment of an interpreter and will remove the interpreter if the supplier fails to demonstrate that they hold the correct qualifications.

All interpreters are required to comply with the MoJ code of conduct at all times. Any serious breach of the code of conduct, observed through an assessment by TLS or identified and confirmed through a complaint investigation, will result in removal from the register.

Interpreters also have to demonstrate competence in language proficiency, interpreting/professional skills, and subject matter knowledge. Interpreters are regularly assessed to ensure their interpreting meets the requirements of the assignment, being observed across each of the three competencies.

The Ministry of Justice is committed to ensuring the justice system is supported by a suite of high- quality language service contracts, that meet the needs of all those that require them.

The contracts have a clearly defined list of qualifications, skills, experience and vetting requirements interpreters must meet, which have been designed to meet the needs of the justice system. These are

set out in our contracts, which can be found at the following link:

https://www.contractsfinder.service.gov.uk/Notice/975cb99e-fec6-430f-8f31-fd532a907137?p=@=UFQxblRRPT0=NjJNT08

Our qualification and experience requirements and associated quality assurance arrangements provided by The Language Shop (TLS), have been carefully considered and have been designed so as to maintain the quality of interpretation provided under the contract, meet the demands and requirements of the Ministry and other contract users and encourage new entrants to the profession.

The Ministry of Justice will shortly be undertaking work to develop the next generation of Language Services contracts.

For the period 01/01/2019 – 21/05/2021, 169 language professionals have been removed and 40 language professionals have been sanctioned as a result of a Spot Check or In-Person Assessment.

The required standard comprises a number of different elements

All interpreters are required to meet the qualification requirements set out in the contract between the MoJ and the language service supplier. The requirements vary depending on the complexity of the bookings and the language in question. The specific requirement in each case is set out here: https://www.contractsfinder.service.gov.uk/Notice/975cb99e-fec6-430f-8f31-fd532a907137?p=@=UFQxblRRPT0=NjJNT08

TLS review the qualifications at the point of carrying out an assessment of an interpreter and will remove the interpreter if the supplier fails to demonstrate that they hold the correct qualifications.

All interpreters are required to comply with the MoJ code of conduct at all times. Any serious breach of the code of conduct, observed through an assessment by TLS or identified and confirmed through a complaint investigation, will result in removal from the register.

Interpreters also have to demonstrate competence in language proficiency, interpreting/professional skills, and subject matter knowledge. Interpreters are regularly assessed to ensure their interpreting meets the requirements of the assignment, being observed across each of the three competencies.

The civil law of defamation is a devolved issue in Northern Ireland. As such, the development of, or any reform to, the law in this area is a matter for the Northern Ireland Executive and Northern Ireland Assembly to consider.

I note that the Northern Ireland Minister for Finance, Conor Murphy MLA, updated the Assembly late last year and that work is underway in his department to review defamation law. An MLA (Member of the Legislative Assembly) has also been granted consent by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to introduce a Bill into the Northern Ireland Assembly on this issue. I understand that the proposed Bill is currently being considered by the NI Assembly Speaker as per usual processes.

The (1) total number and (2) proportion of life sentence prisoners currently in custody, who have an up to date Offender Assessment System (OASys) assessment, is shown in the following table:

Notes for all tables:

1. These figures have been drawn from the Public Protection Unit Database and OASys National Reporting System held by Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service. This data was matched on PNC and Prison NOMIS ID. As with any large scale recording systems, the figures are subject to possible errors with data migration and processing.

In order to determine whether an assessment was ‘up to date’, the policy and guidance under the HM Prison and Probation Service’s Offender Management in Custody Model has been applied.

1) An initial OASys assessment must be completed within 16 weeks of a new life sentenced prisoner being received into custody. In the interim, where there is a Court OASys risk assessment prepared for sentencing purposes, that is deemed to be an up to date assessment.

2) Following completion of an initial assessment, a review is required as a minimum every 3 years.

Life sentence prisoners will often have reviews of their OASys assessment undertaken more frequently than once every three years due to parole hearings or other significant events.

There are significant vacancies across the Prison Estate, which has an impact on the number of completed assessments. In order to address this, there are ongoing recruitment campaigns for prisons to employ additional probation officers and qualified probation officers and prison officers.

The safety of our staff and those under our supervision remains a top priority, and testing is an important element of our overall set of measures to limit the importation of infection into and between prisons. We have therefore been working closely with the Department of Health and Social Care, the NHS, and health authority colleagues in England and Wales since last summer on providing access to Covid-19 tests in both publicly and privately-run prisons.

Data on prisoners in England and Wales who tested positive broken down by establishment and month was published in the February edition of the HM Prison and Probation Service COVID-19 statistics monthly series. I have attached copy of the summary tables included in the release, with data on positive test results provided in Table 2.

Over the course of the pandemic we have expanded the use of testing based on public health recommendations, and we now offer testing routinely to all staff and those prisoners who are moving into or within the prison estate. We also conduct mass testing as part of a multi-agency response to outbreaks.

The safety of our staff and those under our supervision remains a top priority, and testing is an important element of our overall set of measures to limit the importation of infection into and between prisons. We have therefore been working closely with the Department of Health and Social Care, the NHS, and health authority colleagues in England and Wales since last summer on providing access to Covid-19 tests in both publicly and privately-run prisons.

Data on prisoners in England and Wales who tested positive broken down by establishment and month was published in the February edition of the HM Prison and Probation Service COVID-19 statistics monthly series. I have attached copy of the summary tables included in the release, with data on positive test results provided in Table 2.

Over the course of the pandemic we have expanded the use of testing based on public health recommendations, and we now offer testing routinely to all staff and those prisoners who are moving into or within the prison estate. We also conduct mass testing as part of a multi-agency response to outbreaks.

The average length of the minimum term (sometimes known as a ‘tariff’) for life sentences for murder convictions since 2000 is as follows:

Data sources and quality

Note that the minimum term is the time between date of sentence and tariff expiry date. Time on remand is taken into account when setting the tariff expiry date. The figures do not include whole-life orders.

The figures in these tables have been drawn from administrative IT systems which, as with any large scale recording system, are subject to possible errors with data entry and processing.

Source: Public Protection Unit Database.

Data showing the number of defendants dealt with via single justice procedures (SJP) notices at the magistrates’ courts by plea and offence in England and Wales from January – December 2020 (latest available) can be found in the attached table.

The data supplied is a subset of published information relating to the timeliness of defendants dealt with by SJP notice which is available in Table 1 of the Criminal Court Statistics Quarterly, latest to December 2020.

KRW Law were offered a legal aid contract which allowed them to represent families of the victims at the inquest into the Birmingham Pub Bombings. Our thoughts are with the families of those who died during this horrific attack.

Legal aid is available for inquests in exceptional cases, which is why we funded the families throughout this inquest.

While our review of legal aid showed that legal representation is not necessary for the vast majority of inquests, we are making a number of changes to ensure there is more support for bereaved families.

Payments by the Legal Aid Agency to KRW Law during the last five years are broken down as below. Note that legal aid costs are paid in arrears, therefore payments may be made in a different year to that in which services were provided:

No legal aid has been allocated to Madden and Finucane in any of the last five years.

The Ministry of Justice has published the number of prosecutions, convictions and sentencing outcomes (including fine amounts) for the non-payment of TV licence fees up to December 2020, available in the Outcomes by Offence data tool: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/987715/outcomes-by-offence-2020.xlsx

• Select ‘191A Television licence evasion’ in the Offence filter; prosecutions can be found in row 23 and convictions are in row 24.
• To see these figures for females, select ’02: Female’ in the Sex filter.
• The number of fines issued each year can be found in row 28, and the average fine amount in row 78.

Number of charges withdrawn can be found in the Magistrates’ courts data tool: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/987723/magistrates-court-2020.xlsx

• Select ‘191A Television licence evasion’ in the Offence filter; Charges withdrawn can be found in row 25.

It is not possible to distinguish at which stage the charge was withdrawn, whether the offence was dealt with under a Single Justice Procedure or information regarding plea at magistrates’ court.

Centrally held Ministry of Justice court proceedings data does not record committals for default of fine payment because the offence will be recorded under contempt of court, which will not separately identify non-payment of fines. This information can only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

The Ministry of Justice has published the number of prosecutions, convictions and sentencing outcomes (including fine amounts) for the non-payment of TV licence fees up to December 2020, available in the Outcomes by Offence data tool: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/987715/outcomes-by-offence-2020.xlsx

• Select ‘191A Television licence evasion’ in the Offence filter; prosecutions can be found in row 23 and convictions are in row 24.
• To see these figures for females, select ’02: Female’ in the Sex filter.
• The number of fines issued each year can be found in row 28, and the average fine amount in row 78.

Number of charges withdrawn can be found in the Magistrates’ courts data tool: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/987723/magistrates-court-2020.xlsx

• Select ‘191A Television licence evasion’ in the Offence filter; Charges withdrawn can be found in row 25.

It is not possible to distinguish at which stage the charge was withdrawn, whether the offence was dealt with under a Single Justice Procedure or information regarding plea at magistrates’ court.

Centrally held Ministry of Justice court proceedings data does not record committals for default of fine payment because the offence will be recorded under contempt of court, which will not separately identify non-payment of fines. This information can only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

The Ministry of Justice has published the number of prosecutions, convictions and sentencing outcomes (including fine amounts) for the non-payment of TV licence fees up to December 2020, available in the Outcomes by Offence data tool: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/987715/outcomes-by-offence-2020.xlsx

• Select ‘191A Television licence evasion’ in the Offence filter; prosecutions can be found in row 23 and convictions are in row 24.
• To see these figures for females, select ’02: Female’ in the Sex filter.
• The number of fines issued each year can be found in row 28, and the average fine amount in row 78.

Number of charges withdrawn can be found in the Magistrates’ courts data tool: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/987723/magistrates-court-2020.xlsx

• Select ‘191A Television licence evasion’ in the Offence filter; Charges withdrawn can be found in row 25.

It is not possible to distinguish at which stage the charge was withdrawn, whether the offence was dealt with under a Single Justice Procedure or information regarding plea at magistrates’ court.

Centrally held Ministry of Justice court proceedings data does not record committals for default of fine payment because the offence will be recorded under contempt of court, which will not separately identify non-payment of fines. This information can only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

The Ministry of Justice has published the number of prosecutions, convictions and sentencing outcomes (including fine amounts) for the non-payment of TV licence fees up to December 2020, available in the Outcomes by Offence data tool: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/987715/outcomes-by-offence-2020.xlsx

• Select ‘191A Television licence evasion’ in the Offence filter; prosecutions can be found in row 23 and convictions are in row 24.
• To see these figures for females, select ’02: Female’ in the Sex filter.
• The number of fines issued each year can be found in row 28, and the average fine amount in row 78.

Number of charges withdrawn can be found in the Magistrates’ courts data tool: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/987723/magistrates-court-2020.xlsx

• Select ‘191A Television licence evasion’ in the Offence filter; Charges withdrawn can be found in row 25.

It is not possible to distinguish at which stage the charge was withdrawn, whether the offence was dealt with under a Single Justice Procedure or information regarding plea at magistrates’ court.

Centrally held Ministry of Justice court proceedings data does not record committals for default of fine payment because the offence will be recorded under contempt of court, which will not separately identify non-payment of fines. This information can only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

The information requested is not held centrally.

HM Courts & Tribunals Service is unable to disaggregate costs specifically related to the prosecution of non-payment of TV Licences from the overall costs of the magistrates’ court.

The Act provides for the biggest reform of divorce law in fifty years and will reduce conflict between couples legally ending a marriage or civil partnership. At Commons Third Reading of the Bill the Lord Chancellor explained the need to allow time for careful implementation and that, at that early stage, the Government was working towards an indicative timetable of autumn 2021. This was an ambitious timetable.

Following Royal Assent on 25 June 2020, the Ministry of Justice has worked closely with the Family Procedure Rule Committee to identify the significant changes needed to Family Procedure Rules and supporting practice directions, and to devise some key new procedures. Those procedural changes are critical as they will shape amendments to family court forms, the online digital divorce service, and information on gov.uk. The Family Procedure Rule Committee has now consulted on draft rule amendments and is working to finalise these rules post consultation.

In parallel, officials have begun work to identify, design and build the necessary amendments to court forms and, importantly, amend the new online digital divorce service while the procedural rules themselves are being finalised. This work includes consideration of commitments made during the passage of the Act through parliament to improve the information and signposting for couples when they navigate the legal process of divorce, dissolution or separation.

The Ministry of Justice is committed to ensuring that the amended digital service allows for a smooth transition from the existing service which has reformed the way divorce is administered in the courts and improved the service received by divorcing couples at a traumatic point in their lives. Following detailed design work, it is now clear that these amendments, along with the full and rigorous testing of the new system ahead of implementation, will not conclude before the end of the year.

The Government recognises the need for clarity on when these important reforms will come into force. This will now be on the common commencement date of 6 April 2022. While this delay is unfortunate it is essential that we take the time to get this right. The new divorce process will work to reduce conflict, which is especially damaging for children, and will reflect work the Government are undertaking through the Reducing Parental Conflict programme. That programme will build the evidence on what works to reduce harmful levels of parental conflict below the threshold of domestic abuse, working with local areas to help them embed support in their local services for families. We will also use this opportunity to strengthen signposting to family mediation as a means to resolve arrangements for children and the division of assets on divorce.

In England and Wales, the general position as to recovery of legal costs in civil litigation is that the losing party pays the costs of the winning party. If these costs are not agreed, then they are assessed on principles and bases set out in the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), which apply equally across England and Wales.

Under CPR 44.4, the place where the work was done is one of the factors to be taken into account by the court in deciding the amount of costs.

Guideline Hourly Rates (GHR), published by the Master of the Rolls, provide a starting point for the summary assessment of costs, based on the experience and the location of the lawyer undertaking the work.

In January 2021, the Civil Justice Council (CJC), chaired by the Master of the Rolls, issued a draft report for consultation on proposed revisions to the GHR: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/20210108-GHR-Report-for-consultation-FINAL.pdf. The consultation closed on 31 March 2021.