Asked by: Mary Kelly Foy (Labour - City of Durham)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps his Department is taking to ensure swift justice for victims of violence against women and girls.
Answered by Laura Farris - Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Ministry of Justice) (jointly with Home Office)
The Government is taking concerted action to ensure swift justice for victims of VAWG.
This includes delivering the end-to-end Rape Review Action Plan to improve the justice system’s response to adult rape, which has seen Crown Court receipts more than double since 2019.
The Department has also been increasing capacity in the Crown Court, including delivering over 107,000 additional sitting days in Crown Courts; opening two permanent ‘super courtrooms’ in Manchester and Loughborough; increasing criminal legal aid spending by £141 million per year; investing over £220 million for essential modernisation and repair work of court buildings; and investing further in judicial recruitment and retention.
Further to this, we are doing more than ever to ensure victims receive the support they need, including quadrupling funding for victim and witness support services by 2024/25, up from £41 million in 2009/10.
Asked by: Liam Byrne (Labour - Birmingham, Hodge Hill)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
To ask the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, whether his Department has previously established a country-specific cell similar to the International Humanitarian Law Compliance Assessment Process Cell.
Answered by Andrew Mitchell - Minister of State (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Minister for Development)
The International Humanitarian Law (IHL) Cell's approach to assessment of IHL compliance by Israel is informed by a methodology adopted by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office following a request by the Campaign Against Arms Trade in 2017 for a judicial review of export licensing decisions for Saudi Arabia during the conflict in Yemen.
I refer the honourable member for Hodge Hill to the then Secretary of State for International Trade's statement of 7 July 2020 following the High Court judgment on military export licences to Saudi Arabia [Volume 678:Column 32-34WS].
Asked by: Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the remarks by Lord Sharpe of Epsom on 29 February (HL Deb col 1190) where he stated that "there are legal proceedings" concerning the decision "not to proceed with some of the recommendations" contained in the Windrush Lessons Learned Review by Wendy Williams, what is the nature of those proceedings.
Answered by Lord Sharpe of Epsom - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Home Office)
The “legal proceedings” refer to a Judicial Review, brought by three claimants, to challenge the decision, made in December 2022, of the former Secretary of State for the Home Department to not implement three of the Windrush Lessons Learned recommendations. The three policy recommendations are: recommendation 3, run reconciliation events; recommendation 9, introduce a Migrants’ Commissioner; and recommendation 10, review the remit and role of the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration.
Asked by: Barry Sheerman (Labour (Co-op) - Huddersfield)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps he is taking to ensure the adequacy of coroners' inquests.
Answered by Mike Freer - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
The coroner’s statutory duty, through the investigation and inquest process, is to establish who has died, and when, where and how they died. Coroners are independent judicial office holders and the way in which they conduct their investigations and inquests is a matter for them. However, the Government and the Chief Coroner are clear that the bereaved should be placed at the heart of this process.
The office of the Chief Coroner was introduced in 2013 to provide judicial leadership, guidance and support to coroners and to promote consistency of standards and practice. In addition, the Chief Coroner is required to provide an annual report to the Lord Chancellor which, amongst other issues, assesses the consistency of standards between coroner areas.
The Government continues to identify and implement measures to promote consistency of standards in coroner services – for example, through the programme of coroner area mergers, and by means of a suite of provisions in the Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022 to streamline coronial processes.
We also accepted a number of recommendations made by the Justice Committee following its 2021 Inquiry into the Coroner Service, and undertook to give further consideration to others. The Committee’s current follow up Inquiry will, amongst other issues, consider progress against those recommendations.
Asked by: Drew Hendry (Scottish National Party - Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what assessment his Department has made of the impact of the lack of an appeals process for Visitor Visa's on tourism numbers coming to the UK.
Answered by Tom Pursglove - Minister of State (Minister for Legal Migration and Delivery)
The department has not conducted an assessment of tourism numbers and appeals. When appeals for family visitors were abolished in 2013, the assessment was that the quicker and more cost-effective remedy for those refused was a fresh application, with judicial review available where necessary. These options are open to tourists, who therefore have no reason to be deterred by the lack of an appeal. In 2023, the number of visitor visas issued was up by 40% on 2022.
In 2014, the immigration appeals system was reserved for cases raising issues of fundamental rights, and in those rare cases where a visit engages human rights an appeal is still available.
Asked by: Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat - Orkney and Shetland)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment his Department has made of the implications for his policies of the High Court judgement on the Law Society’s judicial review against the Ministry of Justice, [2024] EWHC 155 (Admin), handed down on 31 January 2024.
Answered by Mike Freer - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
I refer the right honourable Member to the answer I gave on 20 February to Question 14863
Asked by: Baroness Randerson (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they intend to review the processes of the single justice procedure as used by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency; and whether such organisations using this procedure are obliged to take into account all evidence submitted in mitigation before proceeding with an individual case.
Answered by Lord Bellamy - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
The Single Justice Procedure (SJP) is used by a number of approved prosecutors, including the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA). It is a more proportionate way of dealing with straightforward, uncontested, summary-only non-imprisonable offences. The prosecuting body cannot choose this route for any case which falls outside of these criteria. SJP also cannot be used in cases where a defendant pleads not guilty.
If entering a guilty plea online or submitting by post, defendants have the option to enter mitigating circumstances alongside their plea, to be considered by the magistrate dealing with their case. Guilty pleas and any entered mitigation are available on the system for the prosecutor to review as soon as the plea is received online or scanned into the system if received by post, however, prosecutors are not required to view this. For any case in the magistrates’ court, there is currently no system functionality to refer all guilty plea cases to the prosecutor before it is referred to a magistrate and there is no legal requirement to do so. This means that, in practice, prosecutors may not see the mitigation.
Prosecutorial review of mitigation has never been an aspect of the process for dealing with written guilty pleas; it is not specific to SJP. The system that applied before SJP was that the written guilty plea was sent to court and read out in court. The prosecutor would therefore only hear the mitigation if they chose to attend court. Having prosecutors review mitigation has never been an aspect of the process for dealing with written guilty pleas.
The mitigation provided is considered by the magistrate dealing with the case, who is supported by a legal adviser. The mitigation provided sometimes suggests that the prosecution may not be in the public interest; a magistrate can then adjourn the case and ask the prosecutor to review the mitigation provided. Whether the case is referred to the prosecutor to review is a judicial decision. The mitigation provided by defendants is considered by magistrates in the same manner whether the case goes through SJP or is held in open court.
At present, the Government has no plans to amend the SJP process.
Asked by: Jim Shannon (Democratic Unionist Party - Strangford)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what the total cost to the public purse was for legal fees relating to the Shamima Begum case.
Answered by Mike Freer - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
Please note that legal aid is not paid directly to the individual in receipt of legal aid. Legal aid is paid to legal representatives to ensure access to justice.
The scope of immigration and asylum matters covered by legal aid are set out at Schedule 1 to Part 1 of the Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012.
In civil legal aid cases an applicant must satisfy both a merits and strict financial eligibility test to qualify for legal aid (unless a specific exemption applies). If they do not satisfy these tests, then legal aid will not be made available to them. Applicants who meet the relevant financial eligibility thresholds may still be required to pay a significant contribution towards the costs of their case. The eligibility criteria are kept under review as the case progresses and legal aid may be withdrawn where they are no longer satisfied.
As at the time of writing, a total of £246,097.34 has been paid to legal aid providers in connection with representing Shamima Begum. A breakdown of these costs can be found in the table below:
Case Type | Matter/Proceeding | Start Date | End Date | Solicitors | Barristers | Total Costs |
Civil rep - Immigration | Special Immigration Appeals Commission - Asylum | 15/04/2019 | - | £0.00 | £238,000.34 | £238,000.34 |
Civil rep - Public Law | Action for Judicial Review - Pub Law | 23/08/2021 | - | £8,097.00 | £0.00 | £8,097.00 |
Total |
|
|
| £8,097.00 | £238,000.34 | £246,097.34 |
The costs include VAT and disbursements where applicable. Disbursements are expenses incurred which although paid by the Legal Aid Agency directly to legal aid providers, are then paid to other parties involved in the case.
Asked by: Lord Dodds of Duncairn (Democratic Unionist Party - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the implications for asylum applications in Northern Ireland of the decision in the application for judicial review by Aman Angesom [2023] NIKB 102 of 18 October 2023.
Answered by Lord Sharpe of Epsom - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Home Office)
This judgment found in favour of the SSHD in respect of our policy to disperse asylum seekers on section 95 support under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, from Northern Ireland to Scotland. Where individuals in asylum accommodation are relocated, their asylum claims will continue to be processed in line with legislation and policies in place, irrespective of place of residence in the UK.
Asked by: Richard Drax (Conservative - South Dorset)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what assessment his Department has made of the potential impact of claimed conversions to Christianity by people resident on the barge in Portland Port on their asylum applications.
Answered by Tom Pursglove - Minister of State (Minister for Legal Migration and Delivery)
All asylum and human rights claims, including those based on religion or belief, and regardless of where or how a person might be accommodated while in the UK, are carefully considered on their individual merits in accordance with our international obligations.
Detailed Home Office policy guidance provides a framework for considering asylum claims, including those based on religious conversion, and all caseworkers receive extensive training before making such decisions.
Those found not to need protection are refused, and the decision can be subject to legal challenge, where appropriate, either via appeal to the independent courts, or through a judicial review, depending on the decision in question. Once appeal rights are exhausted, they are liable for removal and enforcement action is pursued where necessary.