Asked by: Ben Obese-Jecty (Conservative - Huntingdon)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, by what date will the formal investigation into the abscondment of Daniel Boakye be completed.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
The formal investigation into the circumstances surrounding the escape from custody is due to be completed by 20 March.
Reports of internal investigations of this nature are not normally published.
Asked by: Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Labour - Slough)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if he will ask a) HM Prison and Probation Service and b) HMP Wandsworth, to respond to the coroner's Prevention of Future Death report following the death of Daniel Beckford.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
The Director General of Operations for HM Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) responded to the coroner’s Prevention of Future Deaths report following the inquest into the death of Daniel Beckford on 8 January 2025. This response addressed the matters of concern raised in the report and a separate response from the prison was not considered necessary. For reasons that are not clear, whilst it is dated 11 June 2024, the report was not received by HMPPS until November 2024, and the response was then provided promptly.
Asked by: Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Labour - Slough)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if he will ask a) HM Prison and Probation Service and b) HMP Wandsworth, to respond to the coroner's Prevention of Future Death report following the death of Yuri Hatton.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
The Director General of Operations for HM Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) responded to the coroner’s Prevention of Future Deaths report following the inquest into the death on 20 January 2025. This response addressed the matters of concern raised in the report and a separate response from the prison was not considered necessary. For reasons that are not clear, whilst it is dated 11 June 2024, the report was not received by HMPPS until November 2024, and the response was then provided promptly.
Asked by: Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Labour - Slough)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, pursuant to the Answer of 28 October 2025 to Question 84672, whether his Department was asked to respond to the Prevention of Future Death report of Stephen Sleaford in its own capacity and separately from the response by HM Prison and Probation Service.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
The Prevention of Future Deaths report following the death of Stephen Sleaford was addressed to the Lord Chancellor and the Minister of State for Prisons. The Director General of Operations for HM Prison and Probation Service responded on their behalf because the matters of concern raised in the report were of an operational nature.
No separate response from the Ministry of Justice is considered necessary.
Asked by: Andrew Snowden (Conservative - Fylde)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether the Government has considered establishing periodic review procedures for High Court injunctions granting lifelong anonymity to offenders convicted of serious crimes committed as juveniles.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
The High Court has been clear that the making of an injunction to grant lifelong anonymity to protect the identity of a now adult person convicted of a serious offence as a child, should be exceptional. In practice, such injunctions are made very rarely.
The court will consider whether there is a real and immediate risk of serious physical harm or death or if the offender’s rights under the European Convention on Human Rights justify making the injunction as a necessary and proportionate step. In doing so the court will balance these factors against the right of the media and others to freedom of expression.
An application can be made to the High Court to end an injunction. To be successful, it must be demonstrated that the conditions justifying the making of the injunction are no longer in place.
This Government has no current plans to establish periodic review procedures for these injunctions.
Asked by: Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Labour - Slough)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to page 92 of the Strategic Defence Review, how many meetings officials from their Department have attended on the national conversation on defence and security; which directorate in their Department is responsible for the departmental contribution to that national conversation; and what the job title is of the official responsible.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
Officials from the Ministry of Justice regularly attend meetings to discuss matters of national security, defence and resilience as well as the associated public communications required to deliver these lines of efforts. The conversation on National Defence was a recommendation in the 2025 Strategic Defence Review (SDR), which the Government accepted. The Ministry of Defence is the lead department for delivering the SDR, with support from the Cabinet Office, and particularly from the National Security Secretariat.
As set out in the Strategic Defence Review, the national conversation will be a multi-year, cross-departmental effort designed to deliver on the whole-of-society approach to national security and defence allowing Government, the private sector and public to play their part in strengthening the UK’s resilience to any potential future shocks. This work addresses the risks and threats the UK faces, including those below and above the threshold of an armed attack.
The Ministry of Justice is actively supporting this work and regularly fields senior officials from across the Department, including the Permanent Secretary, to cross-government meetings on a range of issues, including national security, resilience and defence.
Asked by: Connor Rand (Labour - Altrincham and Sale West)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the potential implications for his policies of the findings in the China Strategic Risks Institute report entitled The PRC’s Extraterritorial Legal Architecture, published in January 2026, regarding the risks of China's civil judgments being enforced in the UK against the public interest.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
Decisions about recognition of foreign judgments are made by the UK’s independent judiciary, with safeguards against recognition and enforcement being available.
There are various grounds on which a judge may refuse to recognise or enforce a foreign judgment, including for example where the foreign court acted without jurisdiction, the proceedings involved a breach of natural justice, or recognition would be contrary to public policy.
The Government engages regularly with the judiciary and stakeholders about the operation of frameworks for recognition and enforcement.
Asked by: Connor Rand (Labour - Altrincham and Sale West)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps he is taking to help prevent the principle of judicial comity from being used by the People’s Republic of China to conduct transnational repression against diaspora groups through UK civil courts.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
Decisions about recognition of foreign judgments are made by the UK’s independent judiciary, with safeguards against recognition and enforcement being available.
There are various grounds on which a judge may refuse to recognise or enforce a foreign judgment, including for example where the foreign court acted without jurisdiction, the proceedings involved a breach of natural justice, or recognition would be contrary to public policy.
The Government engages regularly with the judiciary and stakeholders about the operation of frameworks for recognition and enforcement.
Asked by: Connor Rand (Labour - Altrincham and Sale West)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if he will review the assumption of judicial independence used to recognize civil judgments from Hong Kong, in light of the National Security Law and other developments.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
Decisions about recognition of foreign judgments are made by the UK’s independent judiciary, with safeguards against recognition and enforcement being available.
There are various grounds on which a judge may refuse to recognise or enforce a foreign judgment, including for example where the foreign court acted without jurisdiction, the proceedings involved a breach of natural justice, or recognition would be contrary to public policy.
The Government engages regularly with the judiciary and stakeholders about the operation of frameworks for recognition and enforcement.
Asked by: Lord Bishop of Gloucester (Bishops - Bishops)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government what plans they have to commission a study into the impact and consequences of the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018, as recommended in the Independent Sentencing Review 2025, published on 22 May 2025.
Answered by Lord Timpson - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The Independent Sentencing Review (ISR) published its findings on 22 May 2025, and the previous Lord Chancellor welcomed the recommendations and accepted the majority of them in principle. The Sentencing Act takes forward many of the ISR recommendations and it received royal assent on 22 January, and the first tranche of measures will come into effect on 22 March. We are continuing to consider how we take forward the ISR's recommendations that do not require legislation.