Asked by: Rupert Lowe (Restore Britain - Great Yarmouth)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, pursuant to Answer of 5 January 2026 to Question 101253, in which categories of private‑law children cases Cafcass or the family courts apply a domestic‑abuse‑first assessment as the initial step in their safeguarding or case‑analysis process; and what other circumstances automatically trigger domestic‑abuse screening as the primary explanatory framework.
Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
Practice Direction 12J (PD12J) sets out what the court should do in any case in which domestic abuse is alleged or admitted or there is other reason to believe that a child or party has experienced abuse perpetrated by another party or that there is a risk of such abuse.
Cafcass’ Domestic Abuse Practice Policy sets out the actions that Cafcass practitioners and managers must undertake when working with children and adults who have or may have experienced domestic abuse and for whom, therefore, the requirements and definitions of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 and its accompanying statutory guidance apply. It is informed by Practice Direction 12J and by our understanding of the impact of domestic abuse and harmful parenting on a child and the child’s primary and protective carers. The protection of children from harm or further harm is the central and fundamental purpose of this policy.
Cafcass’ Domestic Abuse Practice Pathway and Guidance supports practitioners in applying a structured, sensitive approach to assessing domestic abuse in Family Court proceedings. It reflects the statutory responsibilities outlined in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 and is aligned with the Cafcass Domestic Abuse Practice Policy (2025) and Practice Quality Standards.
Asked by: Rupert Lowe (Restore Britain - Great Yarmouth)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether his Department will publish the full list of case types, behavioural indicators, or presenting circumstances in which Cafcass or the family courts are instructed to prioritise domestic‑abuse considerations as the initial step in their assessment; and to specify the statutory or policy basis for each such trigger.
Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
Practice Direction 12J (PD12J) sets out what the court should do in any case in which domestic abuse is alleged or admitted or there is other reason to believe that a child or party has experienced abuse perpetrated by another party or that there is a risk of such abuse.
Cafcass’ Domestic Abuse Practice Policy sets out the actions that Cafcass practitioners and managers must undertake when working with children and adults who have or may have experienced domestic abuse and for whom, therefore, the requirements and definitions of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 and its accompanying statutory guidance apply. It is informed by Practice Direction 12J and by our understanding of the impact of domestic abuse and harmful parenting on a child and the child’s primary and protective carers. The protection of children from harm or further harm is the central and fundamental purpose of this policy.
Cafcass’ Domestic Abuse Practice Pathway and Guidance supports practitioners in applying a structured, sensitive approach to assessing domestic abuse in Family Court proceedings. It reflects the statutory responsibilities outlined in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 and is aligned with the Cafcass Domestic Abuse Practice Policy (2025) and Practice Quality Standards.
Asked by: Jas Athwal (Labour - Ilford South)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps his Department is taking to ensure that family courts safeguard the wellbeing of both parents and children.
Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
This Government is committed to ensuring that families involved in private family law proceedings receive the support they need and we are delivering a package of reforms to strengthen their wellbeing and safety throughout the process.
A key part of this reform is the repeal of the presumption of parental involvement from the Children Act 1989. We have carefully assessed the impact of this measure, which involves courts adopting an open minded enquiry into what is in a child’s best interests, rather than starting from an assumption about parental involvement. Repealing the presumption will help ensure that decisions about child arrangements keep the child’s welfare at the centre of decision-making and are based on a robust assessment of risk. The impact assessment can be found at: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/59-01/0389/Non-IRCC_impact_assessment.pdf.
We are also expanding our Child Focused Courts programme nationally, which improves how Family Courts manage many private law children cases, including those involving a child arrangements order. By providing early risk assessment, specialist domestic abuse support and a non-adversarial, problem-solving process, it better safeguards the wellbeing of children and families.
Asked by: Jas Athwal (Labour - Ilford South)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment his Department has made of the potential impact of the repeal of the presumption of parental involvement on children’s safety and wellbeing.
Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
This Government is committed to ensuring that families involved in private family law proceedings receive the support they need and we are delivering a package of reforms to strengthen their wellbeing and safety throughout the process.
A key part of this reform is the repeal of the presumption of parental involvement from the Children Act 1989. We have carefully assessed the impact of this measure, which involves courts adopting an open minded enquiry into what is in a child’s best interests, rather than starting from an assumption about parental involvement. Repealing the presumption will help ensure that decisions about child arrangements keep the child’s welfare at the centre of decision-making and are based on a robust assessment of risk. The impact assessment can be found at: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/59-01/0389/Non-IRCC_impact_assessment.pdf.
We are also expanding our Child Focused Courts programme nationally, which improves how Family Courts manage many private law children cases, including those involving a child arrangements order. By providing early risk assessment, specialist domestic abuse support and a non-adversarial, problem-solving process, it better safeguards the wellbeing of children and families.
Asked by: Adam Jogee (Labour - Newcastle-under-Lyme)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the a) deterrents and b) sentences issued to repeat offenders.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
Prolific offenders represent nearly 10% of offenders but account for just over 50% of all sentences. That clearly cannot continue. Their offending, while not high harm, hurts local communities through shoplifting and anti-social behaviour.
Sentencing in individual cases is a matter for the courts and parliament has provided the courts with a broad range of sentencing powers to deal effectively and appropriately with offenders. When deciding what sentence to impose, courts must consider the circumstances of the case, including the culpability of the offender, the harm they caused or intended to cause, and any aggravating and mitigating factors. The courts also have a statutory duty to follow any relevant sentencing guidelines, developed by the Sentencing Council for England and Wales.
Previous convictions are a statutory aggravating factor, with sentencing guidelines being clear that sentencers must consider the nature and relevance of previous convictions, and the time elapsed since the previous convictions. For more serious prolific offending, we are clear that custody has a crucial role to play as a robust backstop, within the maximum penalties set out in statute.
The Sentencing Act 2026 introduced a presumption to suspend short sentences of 12 months or less. Around 60% of adults sentenced for under a year reoffend within 12 months, whereas the evidence shows that those given a community order or suspended sentence reoffend less than similar offenders given a short prison sentence. We are following the evidence to reduce crime, leading to fewer victims and safer communities. Short prison sentences will continue to be available where an offender has breached a court order, including breaching the requirements of a previous suspended sentence order or committing a further offence, as well as where an individual is at significant risk of harm and in exceptional circumstances.
There are a range of tools in the community available to tackle prolific offenders. Integrated Offender Management (IOM) sees joint management of the most persistent and problematic neighbourhood crime offenders by probation, police, and other partnership agencies providing cross-agency supervision and support. Our new approach on Intensive Supervision Courts will impose tough measures that address the causes of prolific offending.
We are investing up to £700 million in probation and community services by 2028/29 to help rebuild the Probation Service to deliver a strong, professional service at the heart of the criminal justice system. We will continue to work with cross government partners and police forces to consider new ways of targeting and focusing on persistent and prolific offenders.
Asked by: Suella Braverman (Reform UK - Fareham and Waterlooville)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment has he made of the reliability of the Online Civil Money Claims system in recording and processing defendants’ submissions, including defences and responses to court directions.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
There were more than 1.9 million civil claims issued in the County Court in 2025. County Court claims can be made via HMCTS’ modern digital services (Online Civil Money Claims and Damages Claims services), older digital services (Money Claims Online and Possession Claims Online) or on paper.
HMCTS keeps the Online Civil Money Claims (OCMC) service under routine operational monitoring.
No assessment has been undertaken specifically on the reliability of recording and processing defendants’ submissions. Issues identified through live running have been limited in number and resolved promptly and have not indicated a need for a wider assessment.
In 2025, of incidents and complaints received by HMCTS relating to civil claims, 342 complaints were classified as ‘documents or information went missing’, 222 complaints classified as ‘my documents were not filed’; 92 data incidents recorded as ‘loss or theft of paper documents inside HMCTS premises’ and 31 data incidents recorded as ‘loss or theft of paper documents outside HMCTS premises’. There will be further instances of lost or unprocessed documents which have not been recorded, for example because they have not caused a complaint or data incident.
HMCTS is reducing the risk of administrative errors in civil claims though work to digitalise processes. The OCMC and Damages Claims services enable parties to manage a civil claim digitally from start to finish, including the ability to upload evidence, make applications and view judicial orders online. A digital Possession Service is being developed. The Deputy Prime Minister has announced further modernisation of the Civil Courts with an over £50 million investment to continue digitalising the County Court. HMCTS is also improving internal electronic document management and replacing paper-based and email processes with a digital, centrally stored case file, reducing reliance on manual handling and physical transfer of documents between teams and courts.
HMCTS has processes to reduce the risk of default judgment being entered where a defence has been submitted but not yet processed. Defences provided by paper are prioritised and judgment requests returned; Money Claims Online (MCOL) applies a buffer to check for paper responses; and responses provided on paper to claims made via OCMC are processed on receipt, with functionality to set aside judgments where a response and judgment request coincide.
“Properly processed” means received and recorded by the court. Where a defence has not been received, default judgment cannot be prevented, but urgent set-aside processes are in place where court error is identified.
Asked by: Suella Braverman (Reform UK - Fareham and Waterlooville)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many instances of lost or unprocessed documents have been recorded by County Courts in the last 12 months; and what steps his Department is taking to reduce administrative errors in civil claims.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
There were more than 1.9 million civil claims issued in the County Court in 2025. County Court claims can be made via HMCTS’ modern digital services (Online Civil Money Claims and Damages Claims services), older digital services (Money Claims Online and Possession Claims Online) or on paper.
HMCTS keeps the Online Civil Money Claims (OCMC) service under routine operational monitoring.
No assessment has been undertaken specifically on the reliability of recording and processing defendants’ submissions. Issues identified through live running have been limited in number and resolved promptly and have not indicated a need for a wider assessment.
In 2025, of incidents and complaints received by HMCTS relating to civil claims, 342 complaints were classified as ‘documents or information went missing’, 222 complaints classified as ‘my documents were not filed’; 92 data incidents recorded as ‘loss or theft of paper documents inside HMCTS premises’ and 31 data incidents recorded as ‘loss or theft of paper documents outside HMCTS premises’. There will be further instances of lost or unprocessed documents which have not been recorded, for example because they have not caused a complaint or data incident.
HMCTS is reducing the risk of administrative errors in civil claims though work to digitalise processes. The OCMC and Damages Claims services enable parties to manage a civil claim digitally from start to finish, including the ability to upload evidence, make applications and view judicial orders online. A digital Possession Service is being developed. The Deputy Prime Minister has announced further modernisation of the Civil Courts with an over £50 million investment to continue digitalising the County Court. HMCTS is also improving internal electronic document management and replacing paper-based and email processes with a digital, centrally stored case file, reducing reliance on manual handling and physical transfer of documents between teams and courts.
HMCTS has processes to reduce the risk of default judgment being entered where a defence has been submitted but not yet processed. Defences provided by paper are prioritised and judgment requests returned; Money Claims Online (MCOL) applies a buffer to check for paper responses; and responses provided on paper to claims made via OCMC are processed on receipt, with functionality to set aside judgments where a response and judgment request coincide.
“Properly processed” means received and recorded by the court. Where a defence has not been received, default judgment cannot be prevented, but urgent set-aside processes are in place where court error is identified.
Asked by: Suella Braverman (Reform UK - Fareham and Waterlooville)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what safeguards are in place to prevent default judgments being issued where a defendant has submitted a defence that has not been properly processed by the court.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
There were more than 1.9 million civil claims issued in the County Court in 2025. County Court claims can be made via HMCTS’ modern digital services (Online Civil Money Claims and Damages Claims services), older digital services (Money Claims Online and Possession Claims Online) or on paper.
HMCTS keeps the Online Civil Money Claims (OCMC) service under routine operational monitoring.
No assessment has been undertaken specifically on the reliability of recording and processing defendants’ submissions. Issues identified through live running have been limited in number and resolved promptly and have not indicated a need for a wider assessment.
In 2025, of incidents and complaints received by HMCTS relating to civil claims, 342 complaints were classified as ‘documents or information went missing’, 222 complaints classified as ‘my documents were not filed’; 92 data incidents recorded as ‘loss or theft of paper documents inside HMCTS premises’ and 31 data incidents recorded as ‘loss or theft of paper documents outside HMCTS premises’. There will be further instances of lost or unprocessed documents which have not been recorded, for example because they have not caused a complaint or data incident.
HMCTS is reducing the risk of administrative errors in civil claims though work to digitalise processes. The OCMC and Damages Claims services enable parties to manage a civil claim digitally from start to finish, including the ability to upload evidence, make applications and view judicial orders online. A digital Possession Service is being developed. The Deputy Prime Minister has announced further modernisation of the Civil Courts with an over £50 million investment to continue digitalising the County Court. HMCTS is also improving internal electronic document management and replacing paper-based and email processes with a digital, centrally stored case file, reducing reliance on manual handling and physical transfer of documents between teams and courts.
HMCTS has processes to reduce the risk of default judgment being entered where a defence has been submitted but not yet processed. Defences provided by paper are prioritised and judgment requests returned; Money Claims Online (MCOL) applies a buffer to check for paper responses; and responses provided on paper to claims made via OCMC are processed on receipt, with functionality to set aside judgments where a response and judgment request coincide.
“Properly processed” means received and recorded by the court. Where a defence has not been received, default judgment cannot be prevented, but urgent set-aside processes are in place where court error is identified.
Asked by: Charlotte Nichols (Labour - Warrington North)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment his Department has made of the level of risk to named judges who replace juries in trials.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The safety and security, welfare, and independence of the judiciary remain paramount. Engagement with the judiciary on the court reform measures in the Courts and Tribunals Bill included consideration of personal safety and security. We will continue to work with the judiciary as the Courts and Tribunals Bill progresses and these measures are implemented.
When implemented, judge‑only trials will operate within the existing robust HMCTS security framework. This already includes a range of judicial security policies and procedures, such as the Judicial Harassment Protocol, designed to protect judicial office holders in court, outside of court, and online as a result of their judicial role.
Last year, the Department invested over £20 million extra funding in judicial security, and HMCTS is continuing to improve its security procedures. We stand ready to do more if required.
Asked by: James McMurdock (Independent - South Basildon and East Thurrock)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the potential impact of gender on (a) custodial sentence length and (b) rates of reoffending.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
Sentencing decisions are a matter for the courts, which must follow statutory sentencing guidelines, developed by the Sentencing Council, unless it would be contrary to the interests of justice to do so.
Those guidelines are gender‑neutral, requiring courts to assess culpability, harm, and all relevant aggravating and mitigating factors in each individual case. The law and guidelines allow sentencers to take account of an offender’s personal circumstances where relevant, such as primary caring responsibilities, pregnancy, mental health needs, or experiences of abuse, which may arise more frequently among female offenders.
The Independent Sentencing Review recognised that women in the criminal justice system often present with complex vulnerabilities and are typically lower risk to the public, and that short custodial sentences can be less effective for many women than robust community‑based alternatives. In response, the Government has taken forward reforms through the Sentencing Act 2026 to reduce the unnecessary use of short custodial sentences and expand the use of community‑based disposals where appropriate. These reforms apply to all offenders.
The Government is committed to ensuring sentencing is fair, proportionate, and equitable. Consistency is promoted through statutory guidelines and judicial training. Alongside this, in 2024, the Government has established a Women’s Justice Board to advise on reducing the number of women going to prison with more managed in the community. Community supervision can often be more effective than custody in addressing the root causes of offending, helping women rebuild their lives and reduce reoffending.