Asked by: Kevin Hollinrake (Conservative - Thirsk and Malton)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many additional (a) judges and (b) valuers have been recruited in advance of the implementation of the rent review provisions in the Renters’ Rights Act 2025.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
Judges, salaried regional surveyors (valuers), and fee paid valuers assigned to the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) Property Chamber can hear any case type in the Chamber, including rent determinations.
The number of judges in post as of 1 April 2025 assigned to the Property Chamber is published in the 2025 Judicial Diversity Statistics: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/diversity-of-the-judiciary-2025-statistics.
2 regional surveyors and 77 valuers in post as of 1 April 2025 are assigned to the Property Chamber as their primary appointment.
We continue to work closely with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to assess the impact of the Renters’ Rights Act on the Chamber, including on judicial capacity. Recruitment was completed in 2025 for salaried and fee-paid judges of the FTT, including for the Property Chamber, and further recruitment in 2026 is planned. The independent Judicial Appointments Commission publishes data on the outcomes of these exercises once recruitment is completed: https://judicialappointments.gov.uk/completed-exercises/.
Asked by: James McMurdock (Independent - South Basildon and East Thurrock)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, pursuant to the Answer of 23 December 2025 to Question 100768, whether AI-generated transcripts will have the same evidential status as human-produced transcripts for the purposes of a) appeals and b) judicial review.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
HMCTS recognises the significant potential for AI transcription to drive greater efficiency and opportunities for expanding open justice across the courts and tribunals. As such, HMCTS is piloting how automated transcription (using AI) could assist judges in preparing and writing decisions in the Immigration and Asylum Chamber. This work is one of 15 AI Exemplar projects across government.
In line with HMCTS Responsible AI principles, any work to scale the provision of AI-generated transcripts across the courts and tribunals would need to ensure appropriate human manual review processes and define the evidential status of AI-generated transcripts. In other words, AI transcripts are reviewed by humans to ensure fairness and accuracy.
Asked by: Lee Anderson (Reform UK - Ashfield)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if he will make it his policy to reopen local magistrate courts that have been closed to help clear the court case backlog.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
50% of magistrates’ courts were closed under previous Governments between 2010 and 2020.
Estate capacity is not a limiting factor to sitting the funded days in the magistrates courts. In other words, we are investing in more court staff, legal aid and judge time so that magistrates can hear more cases - up to £450 million in additional courts funding per year. There is therefore a difference between system capacity and physical capacity of courtrooms. Running courtrooms requires not just available courtrooms, but judicial time, and sufficient numbers of legal professionals.
We continue to keep the court estate under review to ensure it meets operational priorities. Projects to boost court capacity across the country include a new Magistrate’s Court in Blackpool and an additional 18 court rooms in the City of London.
Asked by: Ellie Chowns (Green Party - North Herefordshire)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if he will make an assessment of the potential merits of setting a target for uptake of training on violence against women and girls for criminal justice practitioners.
Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
The Government is committed to improving the capability and confidence of criminal justice practitioners in responding to violence against women and girls (VAWG), and training is embedded across the criminal justice system to support this.
Training is delivered and monitored by the relevant criminal justice organisation or body. For example, probation staff receive a comprehensive national learning offer that includes mandatory and advanced modules on domestic abuse, stalking and safeguarding. CPS prosecutors receive role-appropriate training on VAWG, ensuring they have the knowledge and skills to handle these cases effectively. In the criminal courts, we have announced that we will make trauma-informed training focused on domestic and sexual abuse available to all staff employed by HMCTS.
Training for the judiciary and the Bar is delivered independently by the Judicial College and the Bar Standards Board, who set and review their own requirements. To preserve judicial independence, the statutory responsibility for judicial training rests with the Lady Chief Justice.
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.