Asked by: Freddie van Mierlo (Liberal Democrat - Henley and Thame)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, which (a) professional bodies and (b) legal organisations his Department consulted prior to the publication of proposals to restrict jury trials; and what alternative measures his Department has considered to reduce the Crown Court backlog.
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, engaged with many external bodies and organisations with invaluable expertise of our Criminal Justice System including criminal legal organisations, charities, academics, and members of the judiciary. A full list is at Annex C of Part 1 of his report.
When considering Sir Brian’s recommendations and developing our proposals, I have engaged regularly with stakeholders and relevant sectors including but not limited to 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, Kingston, Southwark, Telford, Birmingham etc) and similar international jurisdictions. For example, I met judges and visited courts in Canada, which uses types of judge-only trial.
We welcome the recommendations made in Part 1 of Sir Brian’s Review, which provided the blueprint for reform. Sir Brian’s recommendations were ambitious, but he also recognised that the Government might need to take his recommendations further to address the scale of the challenge we are facing. We have three levers for restoring stability and confidence in the criminal courts system – investment, modernisation, and structural reform. Pursuing any one of these levers in isolation would not be enough to meet projected demand into the courts, let alone address the rising caseload. The Government has already invested heavily in the system – in record sitting days, court buildings and technology, and in legal professionals. On 4 February 2026, Sir Brian published Part 2 of his Independent Review of the Criminal Courts, which makes recommendations to improve the efficiency of the criminal courts. We will urgently consider the proposals set out, alongside Sir Brian’s remaining recommendations from Part 1, and respond to them in due course.
Asked by: Zöe Franklin (Liberal Democrat - Guildford)
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 safeguarding practices on requiring parents to seek retrospective court remedies.
Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
This Government is committed to protecting children from harm. The Children Act 1989 sets out specific duties for local authorities to provide services to children in their area if they are in need and to undertake enquiries if they believe a child has suffered or is likely to suffer significant harm.
Under Section 46 of the Children Act 1989, police may only facilitate a change in a child’s place of residence despite the refusal of a parent with parental responsibility if a child is at immediate risk of significant harm, by exercising Police Protection Powers. In this case, police may only remove a child or keep a child in a safe place for a maximum 72 hours before requiring a court authorisation to sustain the separation from their parent with parental responsibility.
There are already clear expectations that the local authority brings the matter before the family court within the 72-hour time limit, ensuring judicial oversight of continued change in a child’s place of residence.
Under Section 20 of the Children Act 1989, local authorities can also change a child’s place of residence with the consent of all people that hold parental responsibility for that child.
Whether an application is made prior to or after a child's change of residence, the Government recognises that involvement in family court proceedings, including when children are moved for safeguarding purposes, can be a distressing experience for the families involved. That is why the Department for Education has funded research, conducted by Birkbeck university, into the experiences of parents, children and special guardians involved in public law family court proceedings, as well as a policy and literature review of advice and information materials available to parties. The report setting out their findings and recommendations can be found here: https://eprints.bbk.ac.uk/id/eprint/56714/.
The Government welcomes this report and takes the experiences of children and families in the family court system seriously.
Asked by: Zöe Franklin (Liberal Democrat - Guildford)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether he has considered introducing a requirement for automatic judicial oversight within a fixed timeframe where state bodies facilitate a significant change in a child’s living arrangements as part of safeguarding practice.
Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
This Government is committed to protecting children from harm. The Children Act 1989 sets out specific duties for local authorities to provide services to children in their area if they are in need and to undertake enquiries if they believe a child has suffered or is likely to suffer significant harm.
Under Section 46 of the Children Act 1989, police may only facilitate a change in a child’s place of residence despite the refusal of a parent with parental responsibility if a child is at immediate risk of significant harm, by exercising Police Protection Powers. In this case, police may only remove a child or keep a child in a safe place for a maximum 72 hours before requiring a court authorisation to sustain the separation from their parent with parental responsibility.
There are already clear expectations that the local authority brings the matter before the family court within the 72-hour time limit, ensuring judicial oversight of continued change in a child’s place of residence.
Under Section 20 of the Children Act 1989, local authorities can also change a child’s place of residence with the consent of all people that hold parental responsibility for that child.
Whether an application is made prior to or after a child's change of residence, the Government recognises that involvement in family court proceedings, including when children are moved for safeguarding purposes, can be a distressing experience for the families involved. That is why the Department for Education has funded research, conducted by Birkbeck university, into the experiences of parents, children and special guardians involved in public law family court proceedings, as well as a policy and literature review of advice and information materials available to parties. The report setting out their findings and recommendations can be found here: https://eprints.bbk.ac.uk/id/eprint/56714/.
The Government welcomes this report and takes the experiences of children and families in the family court system seriously.
Asked by: Zöe Franklin (Liberal Democrat - Guildford)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether national guidance permits (a) police forces and (b) local authority Children’s Services to facilitate a material change in a child’s place of residence without prior court authorisation where one parent with parental responsibility has refused consent.
Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
This Government is committed to protecting children from harm. The Children Act 1989 sets out specific duties for local authorities to provide services to children in their area if they are in need and to undertake enquiries if they believe a child has suffered or is likely to suffer significant harm.
Under Section 46 of the Children Act 1989, police may only facilitate a change in a child’s place of residence despite the refusal of a parent with parental responsibility if a child is at immediate risk of significant harm, by exercising Police Protection Powers. In this case, police may only remove a child or keep a child in a safe place for a maximum 72 hours before requiring a court authorisation to sustain the separation from their parent with parental responsibility.
There are already clear expectations that the local authority brings the matter before the family court within the 72-hour time limit, ensuring judicial oversight of continued change in a child’s place of residence.
Under Section 20 of the Children Act 1989, local authorities can also change a child’s place of residence with the consent of all people that hold parental responsibility for that child.
Whether an application is made prior to or after a child's change of residence, the Government recognises that involvement in family court proceedings, including when children are moved for safeguarding purposes, can be a distressing experience for the families involved. That is why the Department for Education has funded research, conducted by Birkbeck university, into the experiences of parents, children and special guardians involved in public law family court proceedings, as well as a policy and literature review of advice and information materials available to parties. The report setting out their findings and recommendations can be found here: https://eprints.bbk.ac.uk/id/eprint/56714/.
The Government welcomes this report and takes the experiences of children and families in the family court system seriously.
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.