Asked by: Andy Slaughter (Labour - Hammersmith and Chiswick)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what proportion of ineffective Crown Court trials which started after day one of the set trial date in 2024 reached completion.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
Of all Crown Court trials that were ineffective between January and September 2024, 21% were subsequently effective on a later date (up to the end of September 2024). The remainder will include trials listed for a date beyond the end of September 2024, as well as those cases no longer requiring a trial date (for example the defendant has pleaded guilty).
Of all ineffective trials that subsequently started between January and September 2024, 80% had reached conclusion by the end of September 2024.
These data are management information and are not subject to the same level of checks as official statistics. The data provided is the most recent available and for that reason might differ slightly from any previously published information. Recent data are especially vulnerable to quality checking and so may be subject to change.
Asked by: Andy Slaughter (Labour - Hammersmith and Chiswick)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what proportion of ineffective trials in the Crown Court started later than day one of the set trial date in 2024.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
Of all Crown Court trials that were ineffective between January and September 2024, 21% were subsequently effective on a later date (up to the end of September 2024). The remainder will include trials listed for a date beyond the end of September 2024, as well as those cases no longer requiring a trial date (for example the defendant has pleaded guilty).
Of all ineffective trials that subsequently started between January and September 2024, 80% had reached conclusion by the end of September 2024.
These data are management information and are not subject to the same level of checks as official statistics. The data provided is the most recent available and for that reason might differ slightly from any previously published information. Recent data are especially vulnerable to quality checking and so may be subject to change.
Asked by: Andy Slaughter (Labour - Hammersmith and Chiswick)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether trials in the Crown Court starting on day two or later are classified as ineffective.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
If the trial does not go ahead on the scheduled day of listing due to action or inaction by the prosecution, the defence or the court (see list of reasons in table below), and a further listing for trial is required, it is termed ‘ineffective.’
Court | W1 - Another case over-ran |
| W2 - Judge / magistrate availability due to illness etc. |
| W3 - Case not reached / insufficient cases drop out / floater not reached |
| W4 - Equipment / accommodation failure |
| X - Insufficient jurors available |
Defence | Q1 - Defence not ready: disclosure problems (inc. late alibi notice) |
| Q2 - Defence not ready: specify in comments (inc. no instructions) |
| Q3 - Defence asked for additional prosecution witness to attend |
| R - Defence witness absent |
| S1 - Defendant absent - did not proceed in absence (judicial discretion) |
| S2 - Defendant ill or otherwise unfit to proceed |
| S4 - Defendant absent - unable to proceed as Defendant not notified of place and time of hearing |
| T - Defence increased time estimate, insufficient time for trial to start |
| U1 - Defence advocate engaged in other trial |
| U2 - Defence advocate failed to attend |
| V - Defendant dismissed advocate |
Other | S3 - Defendant not produced by PECS |
| W5 - No interpreter available |
| Y - Outstanding cases in a Magistrates' Court |
| Z - Outstanding cases in other Crown Court centre |
Prosecution | M1 - Prosecution not ready: served late notice of additional evidence on defence |
| M2 - Prosecution not ready: specify in comments |
| M3 - Prosecution failed to disclose unused evidence |
| N1 - Prosecution witness absent: police |
| N2 - Prosecution witness absent: professional / expert |
| N3 - Prosecution witness absent: other |
| O1 - Prosecution advocate engaged in another trial |
| O2 - Prosecution advocate failed to attend |
| P - Prosecution increased time estimate - insufficient time for trial to start |
Where a trial is not ready to go ahead, it is recorded as ineffective and listed again, either for the following day, or if not possible, for some future date agreed by the court. If the trial starts on the second day, it will then be marked as effective. However, if it is still unable to proceed on the second day, it will be marked as ineffective again.
Asked by: Andy Slaughter (Labour - Hammersmith and Chiswick)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what metrics determine whether a Crown Court trial is classified as ineffective.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
If the trial does not go ahead on the scheduled day of listing due to action or inaction by the prosecution, the defence or the court (see list of reasons in table below), and a further listing for trial is required, it is termed ‘ineffective.’
Court | W1 - Another case over-ran |
| W2 - Judge / magistrate availability due to illness etc. |
| W3 - Case not reached / insufficient cases drop out / floater not reached |
| W4 - Equipment / accommodation failure |
| X - Insufficient jurors available |
Defence | Q1 - Defence not ready: disclosure problems (inc. late alibi notice) |
| Q2 - Defence not ready: specify in comments (inc. no instructions) |
| Q3 - Defence asked for additional prosecution witness to attend |
| R - Defence witness absent |
| S1 - Defendant absent - did not proceed in absence (judicial discretion) |
| S2 - Defendant ill or otherwise unfit to proceed |
| S4 - Defendant absent - unable to proceed as Defendant not notified of place and time of hearing |
| T - Defence increased time estimate, insufficient time for trial to start |
| U1 - Defence advocate engaged in other trial |
| U2 - Defence advocate failed to attend |
| V - Defendant dismissed advocate |
Other | S3 - Defendant not produced by PECS |
| W5 - No interpreter available |
| Y - Outstanding cases in a Magistrates' Court |
| Z - Outstanding cases in other Crown Court centre |
Prosecution | M1 - Prosecution not ready: served late notice of additional evidence on defence |
| M2 - Prosecution not ready: specify in comments |
| M3 - Prosecution failed to disclose unused evidence |
| N1 - Prosecution witness absent: police |
| N2 - Prosecution witness absent: professional / expert |
| N3 - Prosecution witness absent: other |
| O1 - Prosecution advocate engaged in another trial |
| O2 - Prosecution advocate failed to attend |
| P - Prosecution increased time estimate - insufficient time for trial to start |
Where a trial is not ready to go ahead, it is recorded as ineffective and listed again, either for the following day, or if not possible, for some future date agreed by the court. If the trial starts on the second day, it will then be marked as effective. However, if it is still unable to proceed on the second day, it will be marked as ineffective again.
Asked by: Andy Slaughter (Labour - Hammersmith and Chiswick)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether her Department has made an assessment of the potential merits of supported accommodation rather than custody for (a) women and (b) their families.
Answered by Nicholas Dakin - Government Whip, Lord Commissioner of HM Treasury
HMPPS offers a three-tier structure of temporary accommodation known as Community Accommodation Service (CAS), two tiers of which provide accommodation that can be used to support community orders, releases on Home Detention Curfew, and bail. CAS1 (also known as Approved Premises) provides 24-hour staffed accommodation with a high level of monitoring, and CAS2 provides accommodation with a minimum of two hours support per week from a support worker, in addition to probation supervision.
We are establishing a Women’s Justice Board, to set the vision and strategic direction to address the distinct needs of women in or at risk of contract with the Criminal Justice System and will include a focus on residential alternatives to custody.
We know that, for women specifically, supported accommodation as an alternative to custody can be particularly valuable: women supported in the community are 4 percentage points less likely to reoffend than those on short custodial sentences. CAS1 can be used to fulfil a community order residential requirement, CAS2 can support individuals with temporary accommodation who are part of the current Intensive Supervision Court pilots, including the female pilot; and we are providing grant funding for dedicated residential women’s centres to build the evidence base around their use and inform future work. We are working closely with the Judiciary and Offender Managers to promote greater awareness and use of these options.
Asked by: Andy Slaughter (Labour - Hammersmith and Chiswick)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether her Department is taking steps to utilise supported accommodation rather than custody to reduce the impact of prison.
Answered by Nicholas Dakin - Government Whip, Lord Commissioner of HM Treasury
HMPPS offers a three-tier structure of temporary accommodation known as Community Accommodation Service (CAS), two tiers of which provide accommodation that can be used to support community orders, releases on Home Detention Curfew, and bail. CAS1 (also known as Approved Premises) provides 24-hour staffed accommodation with a high level of monitoring, and CAS2 provides accommodation with a minimum of two hours support per week from a support worker, in addition to probation supervision.
We are establishing a Women’s Justice Board, to set the vision and strategic direction to address the distinct needs of women in or at risk of contract with the Criminal Justice System and will include a focus on residential alternatives to custody.
We know that, for women specifically, supported accommodation as an alternative to custody can be particularly valuable: women supported in the community are 4 percentage points less likely to reoffend than those on short custodial sentences. CAS1 can be used to fulfil a community order residential requirement, CAS2 can support individuals with temporary accommodation who are part of the current Intensive Supervision Court pilots, including the female pilot; and we are providing grant funding for dedicated residential women’s centres to build the evidence base around their use and inform future work. We are working closely with the Judiciary and Offender Managers to promote greater awareness and use of these options.
Asked by: Andy Slaughter (Labour - Hammersmith and Chiswick)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to the delayed publication of the criminal court statistics due to an issue affecting the accuracy of the data, what steps her Department is taking to (a) mitigate against potential inaccuracies in that data that is used for criminal justice system planning or modelling and (b) ensure the accuracy of data used in making strategic decisions on sitting days.
Answered by Heidi Alexander - Secretary of State for Transport
In June and September 2024, the Ministry of Justice made the decision to cancel publication of the quarterly Official Accredited statistics on the criminal courts, following concerns about the quality of criminal court performance data.
That initial work highlighted some necessary changes to court processing systems to enable robust and accurate data to be produced. These fixes do not affect the operation of the courts and are purely an issue for the data reporting.
Despite these data issues, we know that the Crown Court outstanding caseload has been increasing in the last 6 months, and remains one of the biggest pressures facing the criminal justice system.
These data fixes are being implemented alongside work to align the Ministry of Justice Official Accredited statistics and HMCTS management information methodologies. This will benefit users by providing greater transparency and coherence in court data.
Publishing accurate statistics for our criminal courts is vital for public confidence in the justice system. I recognise that the prolonged absence of timely and accurate data is an unsatisfactory position. This work is a departmental priority and, is underway to deliver an updated data series (including those missing quarters) as soon as possible when we are confident it meets the required level of accuracy. The Government looks forward to updating the House on the action we are taking soon.
Asked by: Andy Slaughter (Labour - Hammersmith and Chiswick)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to the statement on her Department’s webpage entitled Criminal court statistics, which Criminal court statistics quarterly publication was the first to require work to assure the quality of source data.
Answered by Heidi Alexander - Secretary of State for Transport
In June and September 2024, the Ministry of Justice made the decision to cancel publication of the quarterly Official Accredited statistics on the criminal courts, following concerns about the quality of criminal court performance data.
That initial work highlighted some necessary changes to court processing systems to enable robust and accurate data to be produced. These fixes do not affect the operation of the courts and are purely an issue for the data reporting.
Despite these data issues, we know that the Crown Court outstanding caseload has been increasing in the last 6 months, and remains one of the biggest pressures facing the criminal justice system.
These data fixes are being implemented alongside work to align the Ministry of Justice Official Accredited statistics and HMCTS management information methodologies. This will benefit users by providing greater transparency and coherence in court data.
Publishing accurate statistics for our criminal courts is vital for public confidence in the justice system. I recognise that the prolonged absence of timely and accurate data is an unsatisfactory position. This work is a departmental priority and, is underway to deliver an updated data series (including those missing quarters) as soon as possible when we are confident it meets the required level of accuracy. The Government looks forward to updating the House on the action we are taking soon.
Asked by: Andy Slaughter (Labour - Hammersmith and Chiswick)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether her Department’s data cleanse of the magistrates’ court data will (a) help with listing, (b) benefit other court processes and (c) improve the accuracy of the statistics.
Answered by Heidi Alexander - Secretary of State for Transport
In June and September 2024, the Ministry of Justice made the decision to cancel publication of the quarterly Official Accredited statistics on the criminal courts, following concerns about the quality of criminal court performance data.
That initial work highlighted some necessary changes to court processing systems to enable robust and accurate data to be produced. These fixes do not affect the operation of the courts and are purely an issue for the data reporting.
Despite these data issues, we know that the Crown Court outstanding caseload has been increasing in the last 6 months, and remains one of the biggest pressures facing the criminal justice system.
These data fixes are being implemented alongside work to align the Ministry of Justice Official Accredited statistics and HMCTS management information methodologies. This will benefit users by providing greater transparency and coherence in court data.
Publishing accurate statistics for our criminal courts is vital for public confidence in the justice system. I recognise that the prolonged absence of timely and accurate data is an unsatisfactory position. This work is a departmental priority and, is underway to deliver an updated data series (including those missing quarters) as soon as possible when we are confident it meets the required level of accuracy. The Government looks forward to updating the House on the action we are taking soon.
Asked by: Andy Slaughter (Labour - Hammersmith and Chiswick)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether the issue affecting the quality of the data for the Criminal Court Statistics affects data on the number of Crown Court cases disposed of each month.
Answered by Heidi Alexander - Secretary of State for Transport
In June and September 2024, the Ministry of Justice made the decision to cancel publication of the quarterly Official Accredited statistics on the criminal courts, following concerns about the quality of criminal court performance data.
That initial work highlighted some necessary changes to court processing systems to enable robust and accurate data to be produced. These fixes do not affect the operation of the courts and are purely an issue for the data reporting.
Despite these data issues, we know that the Crown Court outstanding caseload has been increasing in the last 6 months, and remains one of the biggest pressures facing the criminal justice system.
These data fixes are being implemented alongside work to align the Ministry of Justice Official Accredited statistics and HMCTS management information methodologies. This will benefit users by providing greater transparency and coherence in court data.
Publishing accurate statistics for our criminal courts is vital for public confidence in the justice system. I recognise that the prolonged absence of timely and accurate data is an unsatisfactory position. This work is a departmental priority and, is underway to deliver an updated data series (including those missing quarters) as soon as possible when we are confident it meets the required level of accuracy. The Government looks forward to updating the House on the action we are taking soon.