Asked by: Andrew Snowden (Conservative - Fylde)
Question to the Ministry of Defence:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, if he will establish a judge-led inquiry into the RAF Chinook ZD576 crash on the Mull of Kintyre on 2 June 1994.
Answered by Louise Sandher-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Defence)
The Mull of Kintyre crash was a tragic accident and our thoughts and sympathies remain with the families, friends and colleagues of all those who died.
The Department has received a formal claim for a Judicial Review of our decision to reject the demand for a Judge-led inquiry into the circumstances of the crash from the Chinook Justice Campaign. We are committed to engaging fully with this process, and you will understand that I am unable to provide further comment while this work is ongoing.
Asked by: Colum Eastwood (Social Democratic & Labour Party - Foyle)
Question to the Ministry of Defence:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what estimate his Department has made of the cost to the public purse of (a) legal costs and (b) other support provided to Soldier F relating to the case of the alleged murders of James Wray and William McKinney.
Answered by Al Carns - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Defence) (Minister for Veterans)
The Ministry of Defence is committed to supporting veterans and their families. As part of this, Soldier F has received legal and welfare support throughout his legal proceedings at public expense.
The legal fees associated with these proceedings (including associated judicial reviews) amount to £4.3 million, which may rise marginally once final bills are received. These costs cover the period from when Soldier F was initially charged in March 2019. This includes costs associated with the Judicial Review leading to the PPS recommencing proceedings in 2022. Legal representation has been provided by the same experienced legal team since the Saville Inquiry, supplemented by leading solicitors and barristers, including King's Counsel, based in Northern Ireland.
Other costs associated with the support of Soldier F, such as pastoral care, arrangement and payment of travel and accommodation, etc, are met from a central budget and involve the time of various employees for which a specific cost cannot be calculated.
Asked by: Monica Harding (Liberal Democrat - Esher and Walton)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if he will make an assessment of the reasons for which the number of Crown Court sitting days has been below the maximum operational capacity forecast by HM Courts and Tribunals Service since September 2024.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
Operational capacity in the criminal courts does not refer solely to judicial sitting days. Consideration of court capacity necessarily includes consideration of capacity in terms of numbers of advocates, defence and prosecution, legal advisors and other court staff of which there is a finite supply. To fund additional sitting days, the Lord Chancellor needed to be confident that the extra days were both deliverable and affordable.
The Crown Court is currently sitting the most sitting days since records began. The previous Lord Chancellor had already funded a significant increase over previous years’ allocations for this year. Having assessed regional delivery performance and confidence across criminal justice partners required for delivery, and considered the Department’s broader financial position, the Lord Chancellor chose to fund a further 1,250 Crown Court sitting days, taking the total to a record 111,250 this financial year.
The additional sitting days will be distributed to areas of the country able to support higher sitting levels and will enable the courts to sit at record levels this year, meaning more trials will be able to be heard. New courts and prison projections which include the assumed 111,250 days will be published in December.
Whilst the Crown Court sitting days allocation is at a record level, it is not even higher due to capacity constraints and the Department’s wider financial position. This means while we are prioritising Crown Court funding we also have to consider the capacity not just of HMCTS, but the capacity and cost of the judges, lawyers, prosecutors, legal aid and defence barristers that underpin the rest of the system. We do not hold data for the number of cases not heard each month as a result of the cap on sitting days. We consider capacity across the year and have adjusted sitting day levels accordingly, as detailed below.
The Lord Chancellor and his officials engage regularly with the Treasury on court resourcing and funding. This increase in sitting days reflects the Government’s commitment to ensuring the Crown Court has the resources it needs to deliver timely justice. This year we have secured record investment in the courts system – up to £450 million by the end of the Spending Review period.
While extra sitting days will help to tackle delays in our courts, only major reform will address the crisis in our courts. That is why the previous Lord Chancellor commissioned Sir Brian Leveson to lead an Independent Review of the Criminal Courts, to propose bold and ambitious reforms to improve timeliness in the courts and deliver swifter justice for victims.
Asked by: Monica Harding (Liberal Democrat - Esher and Walton)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what estimate he has made of the number of Crown Court cases that were not heard as a result of the cap on sitting days for each month for which data is available.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
Operational capacity in the criminal courts does not refer solely to judicial sitting days. Consideration of court capacity necessarily includes consideration of capacity in terms of numbers of advocates, defence and prosecution, legal advisors and other court staff of which there is a finite supply. To fund additional sitting days, the Lord Chancellor needed to be confident that the extra days were both deliverable and affordable.
The Crown Court is currently sitting the most sitting days since records began. The previous Lord Chancellor had already funded a significant increase over previous years’ allocations for this year. Having assessed regional delivery performance and confidence across criminal justice partners required for delivery, and considered the Department’s broader financial position, the Lord Chancellor chose to fund a further 1,250 Crown Court sitting days, taking the total to a record 111,250 this financial year.
The additional sitting days will be distributed to areas of the country able to support higher sitting levels and will enable the courts to sit at record levels this year, meaning more trials will be able to be heard. New courts and prison projections which include the assumed 111,250 days will be published in December.
Whilst the Crown Court sitting days allocation is at a record level, it is not even higher due to capacity constraints and the Department’s wider financial position. This means while we are prioritising Crown Court funding we also have to consider the capacity not just of HMCTS, but the capacity and cost of the judges, lawyers, prosecutors, legal aid and defence barristers that underpin the rest of the system. We do not hold data for the number of cases not heard each month as a result of the cap on sitting days. We consider capacity across the year and have adjusted sitting day levels accordingly, as detailed below.
The Lord Chancellor and his officials engage regularly with the Treasury on court resourcing and funding. This increase in sitting days reflects the Government’s commitment to ensuring the Crown Court has the resources it needs to deliver timely justice. This year we have secured record investment in the courts system – up to £450 million by the end of the Spending Review period.
While extra sitting days will help to tackle delays in our courts, only major reform will address the crisis in our courts. That is why the previous Lord Chancellor commissioned Sir Brian Leveson to lead an Independent Review of the Criminal Courts, to propose bold and ambitious reforms to improve timeliness in the courts and deliver swifter justice for victims.
Asked by: Monica Harding (Liberal Democrat - Esher and Walton)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if he will make an assessment of the potential impact of holding 111,250 Crown Court sitting days in the 2025-26 financial year on the criminal case backlog.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
Operational capacity in the criminal courts does not refer solely to judicial sitting days. Consideration of court capacity necessarily includes consideration of capacity in terms of numbers of advocates, defence and prosecution, legal advisors and other court staff of which there is a finite supply. To fund additional sitting days, the Lord Chancellor needed to be confident that the extra days were both deliverable and affordable.
The Crown Court is currently sitting the most sitting days since records began. The previous Lord Chancellor had already funded a significant increase over previous years’ allocations for this year. Having assessed regional delivery performance and confidence across criminal justice partners required for delivery, and considered the Department’s broader financial position, the Lord Chancellor chose to fund a further 1,250 Crown Court sitting days, taking the total to a record 111,250 this financial year.
The additional sitting days will be distributed to areas of the country able to support higher sitting levels and will enable the courts to sit at record levels this year, meaning more trials will be able to be heard. New courts and prison projections which include the assumed 111,250 days will be published in December.
Whilst the Crown Court sitting days allocation is at a record level, it is not even higher due to capacity constraints and the Department’s wider financial position. This means while we are prioritising Crown Court funding we also have to consider the capacity not just of HMCTS, but the capacity and cost of the judges, lawyers, prosecutors, legal aid and defence barristers that underpin the rest of the system. We do not hold data for the number of cases not heard each month as a result of the cap on sitting days. We consider capacity across the year and have adjusted sitting day levels accordingly, as detailed below.
The Lord Chancellor and his officials engage regularly with the Treasury on court resourcing and funding. This increase in sitting days reflects the Government’s commitment to ensuring the Crown Court has the resources it needs to deliver timely justice. This year we have secured record investment in the courts system – up to £450 million by the end of the Spending Review period.
While extra sitting days will help to tackle delays in our courts, only major reform will address the crisis in our courts. That is why the previous Lord Chancellor commissioned Sir Brian Leveson to lead an Independent Review of the Criminal Courts, to propose bold and ambitious reforms to improve timeliness in the courts and deliver swifter justice for victims.
Asked by: Monica Harding (Liberal Democrat - Esher and Walton)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether he has had discussions with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the provision of funding to increase the number of Crown Court sitting days.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
Operational capacity in the criminal courts does not refer solely to judicial sitting days. Consideration of court capacity necessarily includes consideration of capacity in terms of numbers of advocates, defence and prosecution, legal advisors and other court staff of which there is a finite supply. To fund additional sitting days, the Lord Chancellor needed to be confident that the extra days were both deliverable and affordable.
The Crown Court is currently sitting the most sitting days since records began. The previous Lord Chancellor had already funded a significant increase over previous years’ allocations for this year. Having assessed regional delivery performance and confidence across criminal justice partners required for delivery, and considered the Department’s broader financial position, the Lord Chancellor chose to fund a further 1,250 Crown Court sitting days, taking the total to a record 111,250 this financial year.
The additional sitting days will be distributed to areas of the country able to support higher sitting levels and will enable the courts to sit at record levels this year, meaning more trials will be able to be heard. New courts and prison projections which include the assumed 111,250 days will be published in December.
Whilst the Crown Court sitting days allocation is at a record level, it is not even higher due to capacity constraints and the Department’s wider financial position. This means while we are prioritising Crown Court funding we also have to consider the capacity not just of HMCTS, but the capacity and cost of the judges, lawyers, prosecutors, legal aid and defence barristers that underpin the rest of the system. We do not hold data for the number of cases not heard each month as a result of the cap on sitting days. We consider capacity across the year and have adjusted sitting day levels accordingly, as detailed below.
The Lord Chancellor and his officials engage regularly with the Treasury on court resourcing and funding. This increase in sitting days reflects the Government’s commitment to ensuring the Crown Court has the resources it needs to deliver timely justice. This year we have secured record investment in the courts system – up to £450 million by the end of the Spending Review period.
While extra sitting days will help to tackle delays in our courts, only major reform will address the crisis in our courts. That is why the previous Lord Chancellor commissioned Sir Brian Leveson to lead an Independent Review of the Criminal Courts, to propose bold and ambitious reforms to improve timeliness in the courts and deliver swifter justice for victims.
Asked by: Lee Anderson (Reform UK - Ashfield)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what process her Department follows after an asylum seekers’ claim has been rejected.
Answered by Alex Norris - Minister of State (Home Office)
Asylum claims can be refused with a right of appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) or refused without a right of appeal (certified). Those who do not exercise, or do not have, a right of appeal are expected to leave the United Kingdom voluntarily or can be subject to enforced removal. If a claim is certified without a right of appeal, there is an avenue to apply for a Judicial Review.
A claimant may introduce fresh evidence during the appeal process. Even if they exhaust the appeal process there is still an opportunity to present fresh evidence as “further submissions” to which the Home Office must give due consideration.
Once all legal barriers have been removed the claimant can be subject to enforced removal.
Asked by: Mike Wood (Conservative - Kingswinford and South Staffordshire)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, what assessment he has made of the potential impact of section 1 of the Public Office (Accountability) Bill on judicial reviews of (a) public bodies and (b) Ministerial decisions.
Answered by Nick Thomas-Symonds - Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office
Clause 1 of the Public Office (Accountability) Bill sets out that the purpose of the Bill is to ensure that public authorities and public officials at all times perform their functions (a) with candour, transparency and frankness, and (b) in the public interest. Clause 1 then sets out how the remainder of the Bill achieves that purpose.
Clause 1 does not in itself establish new obligations subject to judicial review.
Asked by: Mary Glindon (Labour - Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the adequacy of safeguards to prevent the misuse of private prosecutions for vexatious purposes.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The Government recognises that vexatious private prosecutions are a serious problem. There are established mechanisms for dealing with vexatious applications. In deciding whether to issue a summons for an individual or organisation to bring a private prosecution, magistrates will review whether the application is vexatious and will decline the application if it is. Defendants who wish to challenge the grant of a summons for a private prosecution against them can do so by requesting a judicial review of the decision or applying to the High Court to quash the summons.
Fairness and transparency are the cornerstones of our justice system and there is a clear need to set consistent standards amongst private prosecutors. We think there is scope to do more to ensure such high standards.
That is why the Government launched a consultation into the regulation of private prosecutors which closed earlier this year. We will set out next steps shortly.
Asked by: Mary Glindon (Labour - Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps he is taking to ensure that private prosecutions are not misused for vexatious purposes.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The Government recognises that vexatious private prosecutions are a serious problem. There are established mechanisms for dealing with vexatious applications. In deciding whether to issue a summons for an individual or organisation to bring a private prosecution, magistrates will review whether the application is vexatious and will decline the application if it is. Defendants who wish to challenge the grant of a summons for a private prosecution against them can do so by requesting a judicial review of the decision or applying to the High Court to quash the summons.
Fairness and transparency are the cornerstones of our justice system and there is a clear need to set consistent standards amongst private prosecutors. We think there is scope to do more to ensure such high standards.
That is why the Government launched a consultation into the regulation of private prosecutors which closed earlier this year. We will set out next steps shortly.