Robert Jenrick

The Ministry of Justice publishes data on the number of ineffective trials at the magistrates’ courts across England and Wales in the “Trial effective in the courts” data tool (latest to December 2024). This can be downloaded from the Criminal Court Statistics landing page here: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/criminal-court-statistics.

The Ministry of Justice does not collect data on ineffective trials specifically caused by staffing shortages within HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS). However, we monitor staffing levels closely and do not assess them to be a significant driver of ineffective trials in magistrates’ courts.

Staffing levels across HMCTS have remained broadly stable, with administrative staffing at junior grades (AA–EO) holding steady, and staffing at more senior grades (HEO–G6), including legal and administrative roles, showing an upward trend. These patterns reflect continued investment in workforce capacity and ongoing recruitment activity.

We recognise the importance of a reliable and efficient court system, and the impact on victims when trials do not proceed as planned. That is why the Lord Chancellor has appointed Sir Brian Leveson to conduct an Independent Review of the Criminal Courts. Phase 2 of the review will consider the efficiency and timeliness of processes of the criminal courts through charge to conviction/acquittal.

The Ministry of Justice regularly monitors the impact of interpreter availability on court proceedings. According to the latest data published in the “Trial effectiveness in the courts” tool (covering up to December 2024), there were 364 ineffective trials in magistrates’ courts between July and December 2024 due to the unavailability of an interpreter. This represents 4% of all ineffective trials and less than 1% of all listed trials during that period.

The information requested could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

HM Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) maintains a zero-tolerance approach to smuggling contraband into prisons, including weapons, drugs and mobile phones, which can fuel violence and create instability.

Airport-style Enhanced Gate Security, comprising of metal detectors and X-ray baggage scanners, is used in 52 highest-risk prison sites (both private and public sector), including all of the High Security prisons in the Long Term High Security Estate.

The Temporary Presumptive Recategorisation Scheme (TPRS) is not a new scheme; it was first introduced in March 2023 under the previous Government. On 9 June 2025, the scheme was extended to allow eligible prisoners to transfer to the open estate 36 months prior to release. Due to being in the early stages of operationalising this change, our staff are still in the process of conducting risk assessments to determine eligibility.

There is limited eligibility for the scheme; all sexual, terrorist and violent offenders serving a sentence of at least four years are barred. Furthermore, prisoners are assessed against clear criteria to ensure that their move will not pose a serious risk to the public. We can immediately return any offender in the Category D estate back to closed conditions at any point if there is any evidence of an increased risk, and Governors retain the discretion to rule prisoners out of moves if there are serious concerns.

The UK participates in regular engagement with the Council of Europe and its member States – including on the important issues raised in this letter.

The interim Permanent Secretary attended the televised press conference on 14 May to provide a factual update on prison capacity.

The information requested could only be obtained at disproportionate cost by manually going through each individual’s record on the Electronic Monitoring (EM) supplier’s and probation service’s systems where this detail is recorded.

HM Prison & Probation Service has commissioned an internal review to establish whether it is necessary for our brave and hard-working prison officers to wear Protective Body Armour either routinely or when working in high-risk environments within the prison estate which will report in early June. We will announce the outcome of the review and next steps to be taken following the review’s conclusion.

On Thursday 15 May, we announced the appointment of Jonathan Hall KC as the reviewer of the HMP Frankland Independent Review. The Lord Chancellor has asked for the review to report back promptly, and to leave no stone unturned so we can prevent such an incident ever happening again.

Extremist gang activity is not tolerated in prisons. Staff act swiftly to clamp down on intimidating or threatening behaviour regardless of cultural or religious sensitivities. Anyone who threatens assaults or attempts to control others faces tough sanctions, including time added on to their sentence. Our message is clear: follow the rules or pay for breaking them.

We do not tolerate any attempts by extremists to coerce others. Where we do identify evidence that this may be happening, we take a zero-tolerance approach. We have robust measures in place to manage offenders and prevent them from radicalising others. This includes specialist staff training, monitoring of communications, and targeted interventions, both in custody and upon release, to prevent the spread of harmful ideologies and reduce reoffending.

Extremist gang activity is not tolerated in prisons. Staff act swiftly to clamp down on intimidating or threatening behaviour regardless of cultural or religious sensitivities. Anyone who threatens assaults or attempts to control others faces tough sanctions, including time added on to their sentence. Our message is clear: follow the rules or pay for breaking them.

We do not tolerate any attempts by extremists to coerce others. Where we do identify evidence that this may be happening, we take a zero-tolerance approach. We have robust measures in place to manage offenders and prevent them from radicalising others. This includes specialist staff training, monitoring of communications, and targeted interventions, both in custody and upon release, to prevent the spread of harmful ideologies and reduce reoffending.

Extremist gang activity is not tolerated in prisons. Staff act swiftly to clamp down on intimidating or threatening behaviour regardless of cultural or religious sensitivities. Anyone who threatens assaults or attempts to control others faces tough sanctions, including time added on to their sentence. Our message is clear: follow the rules or pay for breaking them.

We do not tolerate any attempts by extremists to coerce others. Where we do identify evidence that this may be happening, we take a zero-tolerance approach. We have robust measures in place to manage offenders and prevent them from radicalising others. This includes specialist staff training, monitoring of communications, and targeted interventions, both in custody and upon release, to prevent the spread of harmful ideologies and reduce reoffending.

Access to kitchen facilities in Separation Centres and Close Supervision Centres was immediately suspended following the horrific attack at HMP Frankland on 12 April. A rapid review of access to, and use of, self-cook areas across the prison estate, including special units, is due to report with recommendations in June.

R (De Silva) v Secretary of State for Justice [2025] EWHC 128 (Admin) concerned an individual placement review decision, rather than general use of Separation Centres. We have continued to refer and place dangerous radicalisers into Separation Centres where they meet the criteria in Rule 46A of the Prison Rules 1999. Our use of Close Supervision Centres, designed to hold the most physically violent and disruptive prisoners, has not been affected.

Specialist counter-terrorism staff undertake regular assessments on the scale and nature of the terrorist threat across HMPPS, including on the radicalisation of inmates by other inmates. Assessments are conducted at establishment level, regional level, and national level to support day-to-day decision making and inform wider strategic priorities.

The Joint Extremism Unit maintains a consolidated list of extremist materials that are banned within the prison estate. This list is shared with relevant teams to ensure these materials are not available to prisoners. Prison Governors also have discretion over additional materials that may not be permitted within their establishments.

Access to kitchen facilities in Separation Centres and Close Supervision Centres was immediately suspended following the horrific attack at HMP Frankland on 12 April. A rapid review of access to, and use of, self-cook areas across the prison estate, including special units, is due to report with recommendations in June.

R (De Silva) v Secretary of State for Justice [2025] EWHC 128 (Admin) concerned an individual placement review decision, rather than general use of Separation Centres. We have continued to refer and place dangerous radicalisers into Separation Centres where they meet the criteria in Rule 46A of the Prison Rules 1999. Our use of Close Supervision Centres, designed to hold the most physically violent and disruptive prisoners, has not been affected.

Specialist counter-terrorism staff undertake regular assessments on the scale and nature of the terrorist threat across HMPPS, including on the radicalisation of inmates by other inmates. Assessments are conducted at establishment level, regional level, and national level to support day-to-day decision making and inform wider strategic priorities.

The Joint Extremism Unit maintains a consolidated list of extremist materials that are banned within the prison estate. This list is shared with relevant teams to ensure these materials are not available to prisoners. Prison Governors also have discretion over additional materials that may not be permitted within their establishments.

Access to kitchen facilities in Separation Centres and Close Supervision Centres was immediately suspended following the horrific attack at HMP Frankland on 12 April. A rapid review of access to, and use of, self-cook areas across the prison estate, including special units, is due to report with recommendations in June.

R (De Silva) v Secretary of State for Justice [2025] EWHC 128 (Admin) concerned an individual placement review decision, rather than general use of Separation Centres. We have continued to refer and place dangerous radicalisers into Separation Centres where they meet the criteria in Rule 46A of the Prison Rules 1999. Our use of Close Supervision Centres, designed to hold the most physically violent and disruptive prisoners, has not been affected.

Specialist counter-terrorism staff undertake regular assessments on the scale and nature of the terrorist threat across HMPPS, including on the radicalisation of inmates by other inmates. Assessments are conducted at establishment level, regional level, and national level to support day-to-day decision making and inform wider strategic priorities.

The Joint Extremism Unit maintains a consolidated list of extremist materials that are banned within the prison estate. This list is shared with relevant teams to ensure these materials are not available to prisoners. Prison Governors also have discretion over additional materials that may not be permitted within their establishments.

There are three separation centres, all within the Long-Term High Security Estate, with a total capacity of 28 prisoner places. Two are currently operational, and the third is available for use when required.

109 segregation wings or units in the prison estate are currently in use, with a capacity of 1,747 places.

Access to kitchen facilities in Separation Centres and Close Supervision Centres was immediately suspended following the horrific attack at HMP Frankland on 12 April. A rapid review of access to, and use of, self-cook areas across the prison estate, including special units, is due to report with recommendations in June.

R (De Silva) v Secretary of State for Justice [2025] EWHC 128 (Admin) concerned an individual placement review decision, rather than general use of Separation Centres. We have continued to refer and place dangerous radicalisers into Separation Centres where they meet the criteria in Rule 46A of the Prison Rules 1999. Our use of Close Supervision Centres, designed to hold the most physically violent and disruptive prisoners, has not been affected.

Specialist counter-terrorism staff undertake regular assessments on the scale and nature of the terrorist threat across HMPPS, including on the radicalisation of inmates by other inmates. Assessments are conducted at establishment level, regional level, and national level to support day-to-day decision making and inform wider strategic priorities.

The Joint Extremism Unit maintains a consolidated list of extremist materials that are banned within the prison estate. This list is shared with relevant teams to ensure these materials are not available to prisoners. Prison Governors also have discretion over additional materials that may not be permitted within their establishments.

Where a court is considering whether an offender should receive a sentence of immediate custody, a pre-sentence report must be obtained and considered before forming an opinion unless, in the circumstances of the case, the court considers that it is unnecessary to obtain a pre-sentence report. The Probation Service plays an essential role by providing an expert assessment of the nature and causes of the offender's behaviour and the risk the offender poses. Our priority remains the safety of the public and rehabilitation of offenders, and we will take all necessary steps to support the probation service in achieving these goals.

The Sentencing Council is responsible for carrying out its own impact assessments of its guidelines. The assessment for the recent Imposition of community and custodial sentences guidelines published on 5 March 2025, can be found here: https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/html-publication/item/imposition-of-community-and-custodial-sentences-overarching-guideline-final-resource-assessment/#Resource%20impacts.

The Lord Chancellor has been clear that these guidelines regarding pre-sentencing reports do not represent the views of this Government. The Lord Chancellor and the Chairman of the Sentencing Council have had a constructive discussion. It was agreed that the Lord Chancellor will set out her position more fully in writing, which the Sentencing Council will then consider before the guideline is due to come into effect. It remains the case that the Lord Chancellor is reviewing the role and responsibilities of the Sentencing Council – and look at whether a greater role for elected officials is needed.

The Government is strongly committed to achieving a judiciary which better represents the diversity of the population. This comprises of judges, non-legal members and magistrates.

We continue to work closely with the judiciary, the Judicial Appointments Commission, the legal professions, magistrates’ representatives and employers to improve the diversity of the judiciary.

The Lord Chancellor has been closely involved in the response to the urgent notifications we have received. Each is a reminder of the state of crisis that the last Government left behind in our prisons.

The Prisons Minister will be visiting HMP Long Lartin in the coming days and we are working closely with the prison leadership to turn these prisons around.

The longest period between receipt of an electronic monitoring requirement order by the Electronic Monitoring provider and installation for an offender with a revised SDS40 release date was 53 days for releases in tranche one. Tranche two’s performance was much improved with all visits to install tags completed by Monday 4 November.

In respect of faults being reported from individuals subject to release on SDS40, we do not have data readily available to answer this question.

The longest period between receipt of an electronic monitoring requirement order by the Electronic Monitoring provider and installation for an offender with a revised SDS40 release date was 53 days for releases in tranche one. Tranche two’s performance was much improved with all visits to install tags completed by Monday 4 November.

In respect of faults being reported from individuals subject to release on SDS40, we do not have data readily available to answer this question.

Increasing the numbers of foreign national offender returns from our prisons is a priority for this Government. We are working with international partners to achieve this.

In the last six months, Ministers from the Ministry of Justice have met with Polish and Romanian counterparts to discuss cooperation on prisoner transfers in the context of our bilateral criminal justice cooperation.

Since 05 July, there have been 1,557 Early Removal Scheme returns for foreign national offenders, which is a 26% increase compared to 1,231 in the same period 12 months prior.

The Ministry of Justice published transparent data on Tranche 1 and Tranche 2 SDS40 releases on 7 November 2024. Whilst some of these releases would have had a tag as a licence condition, the data the Department holds on electronic monitoring does not delineate between SDS40 and SDS50 releases.

The Ministry of Justice publishes data on the number of prosecutions and sentences for sexual and grooming related offences at criminal courts in England and Wales in the Outcomes by Offences data tool, which can be downloaded from the Criminal Justice Statistics landing page here: Criminal Justice Statistics Quarterly: June 2024.

Data held centrally does not include if the defendant is prosecuted or sentenced in their absence. This information may be held in the court records but to examine individual court records would be of disproportionate costs.

Furthermore, information on whether defendants dealt with are part of ‘grooming gangs’ is not centrally identified in the criminal courts data systems relevant to this question. Therefore, it is not possible to provide the specific information requested.

The Ministry of Justice publishes data on the number of prosecutions and sentences for sexual and grooming related offences at criminal courts in England and Wales in the Outcomes by Offences data tool, which can be downloaded from the Criminal Justice Statistics landing page here: Criminal Justice Statistics Quarterly: June 2024.

Data held centrally does not include if the defendant is prosecuted or sentenced in their absence. This information may be held in the court records but to examine individual court records would be of disproportionate costs.

Furthermore, information on whether defendants dealt with are part of ‘grooming gangs’ is not centrally identified in the criminal courts data systems relevant to this question. Therefore, it is not possible to provide the specific information requested.

This Government has committed to reviewing the scheme after 18 months of implementation.

I am assuming the Rt. Honourable Gentleman is referring to the Crown Court with his question. The current Lord Chancellor increased the allocation of Crown Court sitting days for the current financial year by 2,500 additional days. This takes the total allocation for FY24/25 to 108,500, the highest number in nearly a decade.

The Government has since announced a record level of investment in our courts for the next financial year. It will fund up to 110,000 sitting days in FY25/26 within a total budget of £2.5 billion - 4,000 more days than the previous Government funded.

HMCTS contracts with external suppliers to provide court transcripts. Management information from these suppliers for the period January to December 2024 was extracted as follows:

• Total number of court and tribunal transcripts produced: 45,178
• The average cost of a transcript order between January and December 2024 based on the transcripts produced: £117.00 (excl. VAT)

Court and tribunal hearings differ significantly in length (from hearings that last less than a day to trials that can last several weeks or months) and transcript costs are in proportion to the volume of audio that must be transcribed and checked on a case-by-case basis. The cost may also vary depending on whether the transcript is new of a copy and the speed of delivery requested.

While costs of shorter hearings may be lower, transcripts of full hearings or trials can incur charges of £25,000 or more. Therefore, the average cost calculated above using supplier data is not reflective of the full range of court and tribunal hearings.

We continue to monitor how AI develops and how it could be used to provide access to court transcripts in future, however, it is important that court transcripts have an extremely high accuracy rate.

This Government inherited a record and rising Crown Court backlog. The outstanding caseload remains one of the biggest challenges facing the criminal justice system and stood at 73,105 as of 30 September 2024. Even if we were to sit at maximum capacity in the Crown Court, without further action, the number of cases entering the system, and therefore the caseload backlog, would continue to rise.

We have already taken steps to increase the capacity of the Crown Court to allow as many cases as possible to be heard. These include increasing magistrates’ court sentencing powers from 6 to 12 months to free up capacity in the Crown Court and funding 108,500 sitting days at the Crown Court this financial year (FY24/25), the highest level in almost 10 years (since FY15/16).

The number of cases entering the Crown Court is now so great that bold action is required, and all options are on the table. This is why the Lord Chancellor has commissioned an Independent Review of the Criminal Courts, led by Sir Brian Leveson, which will consider how the criminal courts could operate as efficiently as possible and longer-term reform to reduce the backlog.

We are committed to reducing the Crown Court outstanding caseload and will therefore look to act on recommendations from Sir Brian’s review swiftly to deliver improvements as soon as possible.

This Government inherited a record and rising Crown Court backlog. The outstanding caseload remains one of the biggest challenges facing the criminal justice system and stood at 73,105 as of 30 September 2024. Even if we were to sit at maximum capacity in the Crown Court, without further action, the number of cases entering the system, and therefore the caseload backlog, would continue to rise.

We have already taken steps to increase the capacity of the Crown Court to allow as many cases as possible to be heard. These include increasing magistrates’ court sentencing powers from 6 to 12 months to free up capacity in the Crown Court and funding 108,500 sitting days at the Crown Court this financial year (FY24/25), the highest level in almost 10 years (since FY15/16).

The number of cases entering the Crown Court is now so great that bold action is required, and all options are on the table. This is why the Lord Chancellor has commissioned an Independent Review of the Criminal Courts, led by Sir Brian Leveson, which will consider how the criminal courts could operate as efficiently as possible and longer-term reform to reduce the backlog.

We are committed to reducing the Crown Court outstanding caseload and will therefore look to act on recommendations from Sir Brian’s review swiftly to deliver improvements as soon as possible.

HM Inspectorate of Prisons (HMIP) and HM Inspectorate of Probation for England and Wales are independent inspectorates which provide scrutiny of the conditions for, and treatment of prisoners and offenders. They report their findings for prisons, Young Offender Institutions, and effectiveness of the work of probation, and youth offending services across England and Wales to the Ministry of Justice and His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS).

In response to the report, HMPPS/the Ministry of Justice are required to draft a robust and timely action plan to address the priority and key concerns. Action plans provide specific steps and actions to address the priority and key concerns, which are clear, outcome focussed, measurable, achievable, and relevant with the owner and timescale of each step clearly identified. Action plans are sent to HMIP and published on the GOV.UK website. Progress against the implementation and delivery of the action plans will also be monitored and reported on.

Actions plans are active for both HMP Manchester and HMP Long Lartin in line with this process, which seek to address the concerns of the Inspectorate.

We are working hard to deter, detect and disrupt the use of drones to deliver contraband into prisons. We conduct vulnerability assessments across the prison estate to identify risks, and to develop and implement plans to manage and mitigate them.

We work across Government, to examine options to mitigate the threat of drones to prisons. We are also engaging with international counterparts to support our strategy and share best practice. Owing to security sensitivities, we are not able to discuss in detail the measures used to disrupt drones.

The Lord Chancellor meets the Lady Chief Justice regularly in the course of her duties, as part of her constitutional obligation to engage the judiciary on relevant matters.

Minister Davies-Jones responded to the letter from the Rt Hon Robert Jenrick MP on 27 November 2024. The Government remains neutral on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill but, as the public would expect, the Government has a responsibility to make sure any legislation that passes through Parliament is effective and enforceable. The Government will continue to assess the potential impacts of the Bill, which will include publishing an Impact Assessment before MPs consider the Bill at Report Stage.

At HMP Manchester, a project to install grills and restrictors on all windows, and to install netting around all buildings, is in the design and development phase. As the prison is a listed building, full planning permission is required. The project is expected to be fully delivered by mid-2026. Maintenance teams at HMP Manchester have completed a full CCTV survey. Work to upgrade wiring and replace faulty cameras, as well as filling gaps in coverage, is projected to complete by April 2025.

Similarly, at HMP Long Lartin, a project to install grills and restrictors on all windows, and to install netting around all buildings, has been commissioned, and is expected to be fully delivered by mid-2026. A local review of the condition of all windows across the site is also being completed, and funding is being sought to begin the work in 2025-26. The local maintenance team has commissioned a full CCTV survey: this will inform a programme of rapid improvement works.

In addition, major projects to upgrade security systems at both Manchester and Long Lartin form part of the 2025-26 custodial capital maintenance programme. This includes upgrading CCTV and Perimeter Intruder Detection Systems. The timescale for completing this work is dependent on completion of the design and contract stages.

Since her appointment, the Secretary of State for Justice has made a range of Ministerial Visits across the UK. She is due to visit HMP Manchester in the coming months but will not be giving a running commentary on her diary.

The Minister for Prisons, Probation and Reducing Reoffending visited HMP Manchester on 24 October, in advance of our published response to the UN on 6 November. He will be visiting Long Lartin in the coming months. Details of Ministerial meetings are published on the gov.uk website.