Asked by: Kirith Entwistle (Labour - Bolton North East)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether she plans to equalise the statutory limitation periods for prosecution in (a) section 66B(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, (b) clause 141 of the Data (Use and Access) Bill and (c) section 127(1) of the Communications Act 2003.
Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
We have tabled a Government amendment to the offence of creating a purported intimate image at clause 135 of the Data (Use and Access) Bill. This will extend the time limit in a similar way to the offence at section 127(1) of the Communications Act 2003, ensuring that perpetrators can be prosecuted for creating an intimate image deepfake without consent, even if it only comes to light more than six months after its creation.
The Women and Equalities Committee has recommended an extension of the time limit for the prosecution of other existing and proposed intimate image offences, and we are carefully reviewing their recommendations.
Asked by: Kirith Entwistle (Labour - Bolton North East)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what recent assessment she has made of the potential merits of extending time limits for prosecuting summary-only offences involving the taking of intimate images without consent to be brought into line with those for prosecuting the creation and solicitation of intimate images.
Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
We have tabled a Government amendment to the offence of creating a purported intimate image at clause 135 of the Data (Use and Access) Bill. This will extend the time limit in a similar way to the offence at section 127(1) of the Communications Act 2003, ensuring that perpetrators can be prosecuted for creating an intimate image deepfake without consent, even if it only comes to light more than six months after its creation.
The Women and Equalities Committee has recommended an extension of the time limit for the prosecution of other existing and proposed intimate image offences, and we are carefully reviewing their recommendations.
Asked by: Kirith Entwistle (Labour - Bolton North East)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment she has made of the potential merits of harmonising the time within which an offence can be tried in court after it has been committed for (a) taking and (b) creating intimate images without consent.
Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
We have tabled a Government amendment to the offence of creating a purported intimate image at clause 135 of the Data (Use and Access) Bill. This will extend the time limit in a similar way to the offence at section 127(1) of the Communications Act 2003, ensuring that perpetrators can be prosecuted for creating an intimate image deepfake without consent, even if it only comes to light more than six months after its creation.
The Women and Equalities Committee has recommended an extension of the time limit for the prosecution of other existing and proposed intimate image offences, and we are carefully reviewing their recommendations.
Asked by: Kirith Entwistle (Labour - Bolton North East)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, when she plans to respond to (a) Question 34399 on Legal Costs: Low Incomes and (b) Question 34403 on Sentencing: Legal Costs, tabled on 27 February 2025.
Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
I refer the Honourable Member to the answers given to PQs 34399 and 34403 on 7 March 2025 by the Minister for Courts and Legal Services.
Asked by: Kirith Entwistle (Labour - Bolton North East)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what recent assessment she has made of the adequacy of costs recovery available to people found not guilty after a criminal trial.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
Defendants facing trial at the magistrates’ court or Crown Court may apply for legal aid to pay for their defence costs; this covers the cost of preparing the case and providing legal representation.
The evidence provision fee, which was introduced in 2010 alongside implementation of the Crown Court means testing scheme, applies in cases that are committed, sent or transferred for trial to the Crown Court and comprises a lower tier of £45 and an upper tier of £90. This fee remunerates defence solicitors for the extra work which may be incurred when collating evidence of the defendant’s income and capital resources required to complete the legal aid application at the Crown Court.
At the Crown Court, subject to the outcome of the financial means assessment, some defendants may be required to pay an income contribution towards their legal aid costs. This is paid on a monthly basis for a maximum six month period and will be refunded to the defendant with interest if they are acquitted or the Crown Prosecution Service withdraws due to insufficient evidence. If the defendant is convicted, they do not recoup any income contributions and may also be liable to pay any outstanding legal aid costs from their capital assets.
If a defendant does not qualify for legal aid, either because they do not pass the financial eligibility criteria or the ‘Interests of Justice’ (merits) test, they may choose to pay privately for their defence or to represent themselves. In circumstances where a privately funded defendant is acquitted or charges are dropped, they may seek to claim their defence costs back from central funds through a Defendant’s Costs Order. However, following changes introduced by the Coalition Government, the refund of defence costs has been based on legal aid rates.
There are a range of factors which may influence a defendant’s decision over whether to plead guilty. The drivers behind this decision will vary with the circumstances of each individual case.
Ministers are currently considering their preferred approach to the rules and arrangements governing legal aid financial eligibility.
Asked by: Kirith Entwistle (Labour - Bolton North East)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what recent assessment she has made of the availability of costs recovery to defendants when the Crown Prosecution Service withdraws a case on the grounds of insufficient evidence.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
Defendants facing trial at the magistrates’ court or Crown Court may apply for legal aid to pay for their defence costs; this covers the cost of preparing the case and providing legal representation.
The evidence provision fee, which was introduced in 2010 alongside implementation of the Crown Court means testing scheme, applies in cases that are committed, sent or transferred for trial to the Crown Court and comprises a lower tier of £45 and an upper tier of £90. This fee remunerates defence solicitors for the extra work which may be incurred when collating evidence of the defendant’s income and capital resources required to complete the legal aid application at the Crown Court.
At the Crown Court, subject to the outcome of the financial means assessment, some defendants may be required to pay an income contribution towards their legal aid costs. This is paid on a monthly basis for a maximum six month period and will be refunded to the defendant with interest if they are acquitted or the Crown Prosecution Service withdraws due to insufficient evidence. If the defendant is convicted, they do not recoup any income contributions and may also be liable to pay any outstanding legal aid costs from their capital assets.
If a defendant does not qualify for legal aid, either because they do not pass the financial eligibility criteria or the ‘Interests of Justice’ (merits) test, they may choose to pay privately for their defence or to represent themselves. In circumstances where a privately funded defendant is acquitted or charges are dropped, they may seek to claim their defence costs back from central funds through a Defendant’s Costs Order. However, following changes introduced by the Coalition Government, the refund of defence costs has been based on legal aid rates.
There are a range of factors which may influence a defendant’s decision over whether to plead guilty. The drivers behind this decision will vary with the circumstances of each individual case.
Ministers are currently considering their preferred approach to the rules and arrangements governing legal aid financial eligibility.
Asked by: Kirith Entwistle (Labour - Bolton North East)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what recent assessment she has made of the potential impact of the level of the cap on legal aid rates on defendants on a low income.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
Defendants facing trial at the magistrates’ court or Crown Court may apply for legal aid to pay for their defence costs; this covers the cost of preparing the case and providing legal representation.
The evidence provision fee, which was introduced in 2010 alongside implementation of the Crown Court means testing scheme, applies in cases that are committed, sent or transferred for trial to the Crown Court and comprises a lower tier of £45 and an upper tier of £90. This fee remunerates defence solicitors for the extra work which may be incurred when collating evidence of the defendant’s income and capital resources required to complete the legal aid application at the Crown Court.
At the Crown Court, subject to the outcome of the financial means assessment, some defendants may be required to pay an income contribution towards their legal aid costs. This is paid on a monthly basis for a maximum six month period and will be refunded to the defendant with interest if they are acquitted or the Crown Prosecution Service withdraws due to insufficient evidence. If the defendant is convicted, they do not recoup any income contributions and may also be liable to pay any outstanding legal aid costs from their capital assets.
If a defendant does not qualify for legal aid, either because they do not pass the financial eligibility criteria or the ‘Interests of Justice’ (merits) test, they may choose to pay privately for their defence or to represent themselves. In circumstances where a privately funded defendant is acquitted or charges are dropped, they may seek to claim their defence costs back from central funds through a Defendant’s Costs Order. However, following changes introduced by the Coalition Government, the refund of defence costs has been based on legal aid rates.
There are a range of factors which may influence a defendant’s decision over whether to plead guilty. The drivers behind this decision will vary with the circumstances of each individual case.
Ministers are currently considering their preferred approach to the rules and arrangements governing legal aid financial eligibility.
Asked by: Kirith Entwistle (Labour - Bolton North East)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what recent assessment she has made of the number of defendants pleading guilty because of unaffordable legal costs.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
Defendants facing trial at the magistrates’ court or Crown Court may apply for legal aid to pay for their defence costs; this covers the cost of preparing the case and providing legal representation.
The evidence provision fee, which was introduced in 2010 alongside implementation of the Crown Court means testing scheme, applies in cases that are committed, sent or transferred for trial to the Crown Court and comprises a lower tier of £45 and an upper tier of £90. This fee remunerates defence solicitors for the extra work which may be incurred when collating evidence of the defendant’s income and capital resources required to complete the legal aid application at the Crown Court.
At the Crown Court, subject to the outcome of the financial means assessment, some defendants may be required to pay an income contribution towards their legal aid costs. This is paid on a monthly basis for a maximum six month period and will be refunded to the defendant with interest if they are acquitted or the Crown Prosecution Service withdraws due to insufficient evidence. If the defendant is convicted, they do not recoup any income contributions and may also be liable to pay any outstanding legal aid costs from their capital assets.
If a defendant does not qualify for legal aid, either because they do not pass the financial eligibility criteria or the ‘Interests of Justice’ (merits) test, they may choose to pay privately for their defence or to represent themselves. In circumstances where a privately funded defendant is acquitted or charges are dropped, they may seek to claim their defence costs back from central funds through a Defendant’s Costs Order. However, following changes introduced by the Coalition Government, the refund of defence costs has been based on legal aid rates.
There are a range of factors which may influence a defendant’s decision over whether to plead guilty. The drivers behind this decision will vary with the circumstances of each individual case.
Ministers are currently considering their preferred approach to the rules and arrangements governing legal aid financial eligibility.
Asked by: Kirith Entwistle (Labour - Bolton North East)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what recent assessment she has made of the adequacy of the lower tier of the evidence provision fee in covering the legal costs of defendants on a low income.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
Defendants facing trial at the magistrates’ court or Crown Court may apply for legal aid to pay for their defence costs; this covers the cost of preparing the case and providing legal representation.
The evidence provision fee, which was introduced in 2010 alongside implementation of the Crown Court means testing scheme, applies in cases that are committed, sent or transferred for trial to the Crown Court and comprises a lower tier of £45 and an upper tier of £90. This fee remunerates defence solicitors for the extra work which may be incurred when collating evidence of the defendant’s income and capital resources required to complete the legal aid application at the Crown Court.
At the Crown Court, subject to the outcome of the financial means assessment, some defendants may be required to pay an income contribution towards their legal aid costs. This is paid on a monthly basis for a maximum six month period and will be refunded to the defendant with interest if they are acquitted or the Crown Prosecution Service withdraws due to insufficient evidence. If the defendant is convicted, they do not recoup any income contributions and may also be liable to pay any outstanding legal aid costs from their capital assets.
If a defendant does not qualify for legal aid, either because they do not pass the financial eligibility criteria or the ‘Interests of Justice’ (merits) test, they may choose to pay privately for their defence or to represent themselves. In circumstances where a privately funded defendant is acquitted or charges are dropped, they may seek to claim their defence costs back from central funds through a Defendant’s Costs Order. However, following changes introduced by the Coalition Government, the refund of defence costs has been based on legal aid rates.
There are a range of factors which may influence a defendant’s decision over whether to plead guilty. The drivers behind this decision will vary with the circumstances of each individual case.
Ministers are currently considering their preferred approach to the rules and arrangements governing legal aid financial eligibility.
Asked by: Kirith Entwistle (Labour - Bolton North East)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if her Department will bring forward legislative proposals to (a) ensure that new offences are consent-based without requiring proof of motive, (b) clarify the status of nudify apps in (i) creating and (ii) soliciting non-consensual images and (c) criminalise the solicitation of sexually explicit synthetic deepfakes.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
Further to our announcement on 7 January that we would introduce legislation to tackle the creation of sexually explicit deepfakes, the Government will table an amendment to the Data (Use and Access) Bill that will criminalise intentionally creating an intimate deepfake without consent or reasonable belief in consent. This delivers on our manifesto commitment and is the latest important step in our mission to halve violence against women and girls.
This offence will be tech neutral so would cover those using nudify apps as well as other technologies. The Government is considering options in relation to wider concerns about nudify apps themselves, and how best to tackle these technological developments.
Where an individual does not commit the “creating” offence themselves, but they ask someone else to do so, they may be liable under one of the offences set out at sections 44 – 46 of the Serious Crime Act 2007. These ‘inchoate’ offences apply to almost all criminal offences and would automatically apply when the creating deepfakes offence comes into force. But we want to go further and intend to introduce further provisions at a later stage of the Data (Use and Access) Bill.
On wider intimate image abuse legislation, as we announced on 7 January, we will be introducing new offences in relation to taking intimate images and installing equipment to enable someone to do so through the Crime and Policing Bill. These offences have been developed to include definitions aligned with sharing intimate images without consent, this will give law enforcement a holistic package of offences to effectively tackle non-consensual intimate image abuse, and address gaps in existing legislation. These provisions will also amend the Sentencing Code to ensure Courts have the power to order, upon conviction, that the offender be deprived of any images in respect of which they were convicted of this offence, as well as anything on which the images were stored (such as a computer or hard drive).
The Courts already have this power in relation to offenders convicted of sharing intimate images (including deepfakes) without consent. The Sentencing Council is currently reviewing their guidance on ancillary orders, including deprivation orders, and we will monitor any developments closely.