Asked by: Markus Campbell-Savours (Independent - Penrith and Solway)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what proportion of decisions made in magistrates’ courts in the most recent year for which data is available were appealed to the Crown Court, by way of case stated, or by judicial review.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
Data on appeals to the Crown Court from magistrates’ courts are published as part of the Criminal Court Statistics quarterly release in table C11. Data is split into appeals against the verdict and appeals against the sentence with breakdowns provided for those ‘Allowed’ (the same definition as successful) / ‘Dismissed’ and ‘Abandoned or otherwise disposed’. There is no breakdown specifically available for ‘Withdrawn’.
Figures are also provided for the proportion of appeals against the verdict and appeals against the sentence that were successful (“Allowed”): ccsq_accessible_publication_tables_2025Q3.ods.
Appeals by way of case stated and Judicial reviews are heard in the High Court with some of these originating from the Crown and magistrates’ courts. Published statistics on the annual volume of judicial reviews can be found in Table 2.5: Civil justice statistics quarterly: July to September 2025 - GOV.UK.
Asked by: Lee Anderson (Reform UK - Ashfield)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what recent assessment he has made of the adequacy of judicial penalties for domestic abuse.
Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
Sentencing in individual cases is a matter for the courts. 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, issued by the Sentencing Council for England and Wales.
Although domestic abuse is not a standalone offence, it is a context within which a wide range of criminal offences may be committed, which courts will take into account.
We recognise the importance of consistently identifying domestic abuse offenders at every stage of the system. That is why we are moving at pace to implement a domestic abuse identifier at sentencing in criminal cases, delivering on a recommendation made in the Independent Sentencing Review.
This domestic abuse identifier will enable police, prisons and probation to more consistently identify domestic abuse offenders. This will mean improved support for victims, whether the domestic abuse perpetrator is in the community or in prison.
Asked by: Karl Turner (Labour - Kingston upon Hull East)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many Crown Court courtrooms are not sitting on average in each month, and what steps he is taking to address the issue of Crown Courts not sitting.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
HMCTS’s priority is to ensure all funded sitting days are fully utilised each financial year through active courtroom management. Last year we sat 107,771 Crown court sitting days, representing over 99% of our allocation, and we remain on track to deliver all allocated days this year. While I acknowledge existing challenges in relation to the maintenance of the court estate, this Government is increasing investment to address this - £148.5 million was allocated to court and tribunal maintenance and project funding this financial year, £28.5 million more than the previous government funded last financial year.
Estate capacity is not the limiting factor when it comes to making full use of the available sitting days. Whether we can make full use of the physical space available depends on “system capacity” i.e. the sufficiency of judges, magistrates, legal advisors, advocates and wider system partners available to support them.
In the Crown Court for this financial year, we have allocated 111,250 sitting days - the highest number of sitting days on record and over 5,000 more than the previous government funded for the last financial year. That is on top of an additional investment of up to £92 million per year for criminal legal aid solicitor fees and up to £34 million per year for criminal legal aid advocates. We have also secured record investment of up to £450 million per year for the courts system over the Spending Review period, alongside investing almost £150 million to modernise the court estate.
The Deputy Prime Minister and Lady Chief Justice continue discussions on allocation for 2025-26, aiming to give an unprecedented three-year certainty to the system. The Deputy Prime Minister has been clear that sitting days in the Crown and magistrates’ courts must continue to rise, and his ambition is to continue breaking records by the end of this Parliament.
The Crown Court operates from 84 buildings across England and Wales, with a core estate of over 500 courtrooms. Most are jury-enabled and suitable for trials, with the remainder supporting other judicial work, such as interlocutory hearings. The wider HMCTS estate—including magistrates’, civil, family, and tribunal rooms —can also be used for Crown Court business when required. As a result, the precise number of rooms available for Crown Court use at any given time is variable.
Temporary unavailability may arise due to maintenance, but also due to overspill from other trials, alternative judicial activities (such as, box work, civil, family and tribunals hearings, or coroner’s court work), or other legitimate uses (including meetings and video-link sessions). However, these factors do not prevent the Crown Courts from sitting at their funded allocation.
Asked by: Karl Turner (Labour - Kingston upon Hull East)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps he is taking to ensure that available Crown Court courtrooms are utilised on every sitting day.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
HMCTS’s priority is to ensure all funded sitting days are fully utilised each financial year through active courtroom management. Last year we sat 107,771 Crown court sitting days, representing over 99% of our allocation, and we remain on track to deliver all allocated days this year. While I acknowledge existing challenges in relation to the maintenance of the court estate, this Government is increasing investment to address this - £148.5 million was allocated to court and tribunal maintenance and project funding this financial year, £28.5 million more than the previous government funded last financial year.
Estate capacity is not the limiting factor when it comes to making full use of the available sitting days. Whether we can make full use of the physical space available depends on “system capacity” i.e. the sufficiency of judges, magistrates, legal advisors, advocates and wider system partners available to support them.
In the Crown Court for this financial year, we have allocated 111,250 sitting days - the highest number of sitting days on record and over 5,000 more than the previous government funded for the last financial year. That is on top of an additional investment of up to £92 million per year for criminal legal aid solicitor fees and up to £34 million per year for criminal legal aid advocates. We have also secured record investment of up to £450 million per year for the courts system over the Spending Review period, alongside investing almost £150 million to modernise the court estate.
The Deputy Prime Minister and Lady Chief Justice continue discussions on allocation for 2025-26, aiming to give an unprecedented three-year certainty to the system. The Deputy Prime Minister has been clear that sitting days in the Crown and magistrates’ courts must continue to rise, and his ambition is to continue breaking records by the end of this Parliament.
The Crown Court operates from 84 buildings across England and Wales, with a core estate of over 500 courtrooms. Most are jury-enabled and suitable for trials, with the remainder supporting other judicial work, such as interlocutory hearings. The wider HMCTS estate—including magistrates’, civil, family, and tribunal rooms —can also be used for Crown Court business when required. As a result, the precise number of rooms available for Crown Court use at any given time is variable.
Temporary unavailability may arise due to maintenance, but also due to overspill from other trials, alternative judicial activities (such as, box work, civil, family and tribunals hearings, or coroner’s court work), or other legitimate uses (including meetings and video-link sessions). However, these factors do not prevent the Crown Courts from sitting at their funded allocation.
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 increased trials without juries on the number of judicial review applications.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
Following reforms to the criminal courts, judicial review of criminal court decisions will be available in the same circumstances as it is currently.
We might expect to see an increase in the number of applications, given we expect to see more cases retained in the magistrates’ courts; however, the permission stage of a judicial review will mean that only those with proper grounds for a judicial review will progress.
Asked by: Peter Bedford (Conservative - Mid Leicestershire)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what public consultation his Department has undertaken on planned changes to jury trials.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
In developing his recommendations, Sir Brian Leveson and his expert advisers, including Professor David Ormerod, consulted with many external bodies involved in the Criminal Justice System including criminal legal organisations, charities, academics, and members of the judiciary.
The Review conducted a call for evidence on GOV.UK, to ensure it heard as many perspectives as possible. A full list of those who engaged with the Review is at Annex C of Sir Brian’s report.
In addition, when considering Sir Brian’s recommendations and developing our proposals, I have engaged regularly with stakeholders and relevant sectors over the last 12 months including meeting regularly representatives from the legal sector (Law Society, Bar Council, Criminal Bar Association), victims and victims representatives (the Victims Commissioner, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, Rape Crisis), judiciary (Circuit leaders, Judicial leadership), magistracy (Magistrates’ Association, Magistrates’ Leadership Executive), non-governmental organisations (Appeal, JUSTICE, Transform Justice), court staff in criminal courts around the country (Wood Green, Snaresbrook) and similar international jurisdictions. For example, I met judges and visited courts in Canada, which uses types of judge-only trial.
Asked by: Joshua Reynolds (Liberal Democrat - Maidenhead)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the process for assigning judges to cases involving legal challenges to Government decisions.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
Under section 7(2)(c) of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, the Lady Chief Justice is responsible for the maintenance of appropriate arrangements for the deployment of the judiciary and the allocation of work within courts. Accordingly, the Government has no role in the process for assigning judges to cases.
This is consistent with the important principle of judicial independence, which shields judges from external pressures and gives the public confidence that cases will be decided fairly and in accordance with the law.
Asked by: Mims Davies (Conservative - East Grinstead and Uckfield)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, on what date the Home Office received the legal action submitted by Crowborough Shield; when the Department plans to respond to that legal action; which Minister will be responsible for responding.
Answered by Alex Norris - Minister of State (Home Office)
The Home Office takes its legal obligations seriously. The Department can confirm that it has received a claim for judicial review from Crowborough Shield. As legal proceedings are ongoing, it would not be appropriate to comment further on the timing of any response or which Minister will respond.
Asked by: Liz Jarvis (Liberal Democrat - Eastleigh)
Question to the Ministry of Defence:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, whether his Department has plans to review documentation made public following the expiry of the 20-year confidentiality period relating to gurkha pensions and their alignment to British military standards.
Answered by Louise Sandher-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Defence)
This Government holds the Gurkhas in the utmost esteem and greatly values their exceptional and lasting contribution to the United Kingdom. Their courage, loyalty, and commitment have been an integral part of the British Armed Forces for more than 200 years. The Government remains dedicated to honouring their service and ensuring they are treated with fairness and respect.
Defence has no current plans to review documentation made public following the expiry of the 20-year confidentiality period relating to Gurkha pensions and their alignment to British military standards. Defence considers the Gurkha Pension Scheme (GPS) to be a fair scheme, tailored to the historical circumstances during which it was open. The terms of the GPS have been challenged in a number of judicial reviews, including a case which went to the European Court of Human Rights and, at all levels, the courts have upheld the Government’s position that the scheme is lawful.
Gurkha service in the British Armed Forces was established under the 1947 Tripartite Agreement between Nepal, the UK, and India. The 1948 GPS was designed to support veterans retiring to Nepal, where their families lived. The Brigade of Gurkhas has been based in the United Kingdom since July 1997 and terms and conditions changed over time to reflect this new reality: Since 2006, Gurkhas have served on the same terms and conditions of service as the rest of the British Army, with certain provisions preserving the Brigade’s unique identity.
Asked by: Robert Jenrick (Reform UK - Newark)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether any offenders currently detained in (a) separation and (b) close supervision centres are challenging their detention.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
There are no ongoing judicial review challenges made with regards to separation centres and no ongoing challenges that have reached the courts with regards to close supervision centres.