Prisoner Releases in Error

Julie Minns Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

I explained at length in my statement who is at large. I have released data today outwith the normal cycle of releasing in July, which was done under the previous Government. I have been as transparent with the House today on this issue as any Minister has been. I remind the House that I checked the record and, despite 860 releases in error on their watch, the Conservatives never came to the House once on this issue—not once.

[Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)]

Our constituents deserve a prison system that they can have confidence in, yet prisoner releases in error increased every year since 2021. Despite that, there was no call for an investigation and there were no reforms. Can the Justice Secretary therefore reassure my Carlisle constituents that it is this Government who will implement the findings of Dame Lynne Owens’s investigation and restore the confidence that was eroded under the previous Government?

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: not once did the previous Government make a statement. Even when William Fernandez was released in error under them and went on to commit an horrific crime, not once did a Minister come to this Dispatch Box. Not once did the previous Government release extra detail, which I have done today.

Oral Answers to Questions

Julie Minns Excerpts

Wednesday 5th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Irene Campbell (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)]

1. What steps she is taking with Cabinet colleagues to help tackle violence against women and girls.

[Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)]

2. What steps she is taking with Cabinet colleagues to help tackle violence against women and girls.

[Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)]

5. What steps she is taking with Cabinet colleagues to help tackle violence against women and girls.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jess Phillips]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. However, there have been recent successful campaigns by British Transport police and the Rail Delivery Group, which is the rail industry-funded group representing the views of the rail industry, to encourage reporting of offences against women and girls, and we believe that some of the rise in recorded offences is because of that success and the willingness of victims to come forward and bystanders to intervene or report on a victim’s behalf. However, we are not complacent. The Department for Transport recently announced £17 million of investment to better connect CCTV at train stations. The project will enable greater real-time access for the BTP to accelerate investigations and identify offenders as quickly as possible to bring them to justice.

[Ms Minns]

Over the past year, my office and I have supported a depressing number of constituents who have been failed—failed by the police and social services for not listening to reports of coercive control; failed by the family court for not recognising who the victim is; and failed by the Crown Prosecution Service for not proceeding to prosecute cases of domestic abuse because it does not believe the victim to be credible. What steps is the Minister taking with colleagues from across Government to ensure that women are believed and listened to?

[Jess Phillips]

Sadly, what my hon. Friend describes is something that I think everybody in the House would recognise. We are strengthening the justice system to better support victims, and we have committed to ensuring that there are specialist rape and sexual offences teams in every police force and that police officers receive stronger training on violence against women and girls, including on coercive and controlling behaviour. We will also ban anyone with a history of violence against women and girls from joining the police force and we will increase the powers of the Victims’ Commissioner through the Victims and Courts Bill, so that they can hold criminal justice systems accountable and independently scrutinise the victims code of compliance.

Sentencing Bill

Julie Minns Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Tuesday 21st October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Kohler]

Government new clause 1 seeks to strengthen the deportation framework by making it available to those given a suspended sentence. I urge the House to pause before we simply nod it through. It may be politically attractive to say that we are toughening deportation powers, but in practice the change risks blurring the distinction between the offenders who pose a genuine threat to the public and those who do not. A suspended sentence is imposed precisely where the court believes that immediate custody is not necessary for justice or public safety. To treat those individuals like those who have served time in prison lacks logic and may well invite legal challenge.

My concern is that we are legislating in haste, as seen in today’s Committee of the whole House, and layering new powers on a system that already fails to use effectively those that it already has. Instead of focusing on headline-grabbing amendments, we should be fixing the operational chaos in the Home Office that allows people to slip through the cracks in the first place, as we have seen in my constituency; the notorious Wimbledon prowler has recently been released but not deported, despite the Home Office vowing to deport him when he was sent down in 2019. What assessment have the Government made of the likely number of offenders who will be deported under the expanded definition, and how will the Home Office ensure that deportation decisions made under the broader power remain compliant with article 8 rights and do not clog up the courts with appeals that could delay the removal of genuinely dangerous offenders?

[Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)]

I am going to speak in favour of Government new clause 1, but I first want to take the opportunity to mention the Conservatives party’s record in government. A lot has been made during this debate about the prisons that were built during the last Government, so let us place it on record that, between 2010 and 2024, there was a net addition of 482 prison places. If that is a record that the Conservatives are proud to stand on, I will happily give it to them.

Secondly, a lot has been said about lefty lawyers. I would like to draw to the Chamber’s attention that, almost two years ago to the day, the then Conservative Lord Chancellor—presumably a well-known lefty lawyer—spoke about suspended sentences. Of reoffending rates, he said:

“The fact is that more than 50% of people who leave prison after serving less than 12 months go on to commit further crimes…However, the figure for those who are on suspended sentence orders with conditions is 22%.”—[Official Report, 16 October 2023; Vol. 738, c. 60.]

It is important that we understand what we are talking about when we are talking about suspended sentences. That point is relevant to the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) as well.

[Dr Mullan]

I did try to explain that there is a difference between association and causality. The hon. Member is comparing two different cohorts. If she were to match the cohorts properly, the difference in reoffending rates is nothing like that; it is more like 3% or 4%.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Minns]

I think the hon. Gentleman is making a correction to the former Lord Chancellor, because those were his words. I am sorry that the Conservative party has moved so far in two years that you wish to disown the work of a Lord Chancellor who stood in this Chamber just two years ago.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Ms Minns, please—“you wish to disown”? I am not contributing to the debate.

[Ms Minns]

I really do apologise, Ms Ghani.

Moving on, I support new clause 1. It would strengthen our approach to the deportation of foreign criminals by amending the definition of “period of imprisonment” in two key pieces of legislation: the UK Borders Act 2007 and the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. The amendment is about ensuring that the law reflects the seriousness of the sentence handed down by the courts, whether it is immediate or suspended.

Currently, a suspended sentence of 12 months or more does not count towards the definition of a foreign criminal for deportation purposes. This creates a loophole that risks undermining confidence in our immigration and justice systems. I have met the Minister for Border Security and Asylum to discuss the deportation of foreign criminals with suspended sentences, and I very much welcome the closure of this loophole. It is not an abstract policy change; it is a necessary correction to a real and pressing issue.

New clause 1 ensures that suspended sentences of 12 months or more are treated with the gravity they deserve when considering deportation. It sends a clear message that serious criminal behaviour will not be overlooked simply because the sentence was suspended, and it strengthens our ability to protect communities, uphold justice and maintain public confidence in our immigration system.

Let us be clear: a suspended sentence is still a sentence of imprisonment. It is imposed by a judge who has determined that the offence is serious enough to warrant custody. The fact that the sentence is suspended does not diminish the gravity of the crime.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady not accept that most victims of crime would say that a suspended sentence is very much not a custodial sentence?

[Ms Minns]

It is nevertheless a suspended sentence. By passing new clause 1, we are saying that serious offences—whether the sentence is served behind bars or under conditions in the community—carry consequences, including the possibility of removal from the UK.

[Mr Kohler]

Could the hon. Lady tell us why a judge would suspend the sentence?

[Ms Minns]

I am not going to pretend to be an expert in the judiciary or the actions of individual judges. Nevertheless, it is important that we recognise that a suspended sentence and a sentence that places an individual in prison are both sentences of punishment. We are talking, in our discussion on new clause 1, about how that relates to whether a foreign criminal should be removed from the country.

The new clause is a targeted, proportionate and principled amendment. It does not expand the scope of deportation arbitrarily. It simply ensures that those who commit serious crimes are not shielded from deportation by technicalities. I urge colleagues from across the House to support it.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

The Gauke review was a thorough exercise carried out in good faith. It was intended to fix some of the problems that persist in the justice system, and was particularly aimed at easing the burden on the prison estate. As a member of the Justice Committee, I had the opportunity to question the former Lord Chancellor and was struck by his thoughtfulness and expertise. Despite that, I do have reservations about parts of the Bill, particularly those around the early release of certain prisoners. Amendment 24, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), seeks to add an extra protection to the Bill to combat this. It would ensure that the most violent and dangerous offenders—those guilty of crimes like rape, grievous bodily harm, child sex abuse and causing death by dangerous driving—do not benefit from automatic sentence reductions.

We all agree that rehabilitation has a place in our justice system, but that is not its only purpose. The public expect criminals to be punished for their wrongdoing and to be protected from those criminals causing future harm. I fear that Labour Members do not know the consequences of the Bill, which are that violent and sexual offenders will be released from prison early and will then go on to commit further criminal offences. We will have to deal with those consequences in the years to come if the Bill is passed unamended. Those who commit the most serious crimes should serve the full sentence handed down by our courts. Early release should never be a reward for those who have shattered lives beyond repair.