Asked by: Adam Jogee (Labour - Newcastle-under-Lyme)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many serving Magistrates there are in a) Newcastle-under-Lyme and b) Staffordshire.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
Magistrates are appointed to a Local Justice Area (LJA). Newcastle-under-Lyme and Staffordshire both fall under the Staffordshire LJA, and we are unable to separate them as Magistrates are able to sit across all courts within this area. As of 01 April 2025, the number of serving magistrates in the Staffordshire Local Justice Area was 217.
Asked by: Lee Anderson (Reform UK - Ashfield)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if his Department will provide an estimate of the total cost of legal aid for foreign nationals in the last 5 years.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
This information requested is not held centrally.
Asked by: Lee Anderson (Reform UK - Ashfield)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether his Department hold data on the number of foreign nationals who have received legal aid.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
This information requested is not held centrally.
Asked by: Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Labour - Clapham and Brixton Hill)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made with the Secretary of State for the Home Department of the cost to the public purse of prosecutions brought under section 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000 in relation to members and supporters of Palestine Action, broken down by the costs to (a) the Crown Prosecution Service, (b) the HM Courts and Tribunal Service including (i) the costs of sittings and (ii) ancillary costs including training additional magistrates to hear terrorism cases and (c) counter terrorism police to attend court; and how many court sessions have been held to hear these cases.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
Between 5 July 2025 and 20 February 2026 a total of 629 defendants were received at magistrates’ courts in cases flagged as related to the Palestine Action Group. Of these, 562 have had a first hearing at a magistrates’ court, with those hearings taking place over 23 calendar days. It is not possible to identify the exact number of court sittings or to calculate the court sitting costs associated with these specific cases because multiple hearings for other offences and defendants may take place within the same court session or sitting day.
It is not possible to identify the ancillary costs to HM Courts and Tribunals Service that specifically relate to these cases. Information on costs incurred by the Crown Prosecution Service and by police forces is not held by the Ministry of Justice.
Asked by: Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Labour - Slough)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether there are mechanisms in place to prevent a company director stopping high court enforcement by resigning as a director of that company during enforcement.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
There are a number of different court procedures for enforcing High Court judgments, and the most appropriate method will depend on the circumstances of individual cases and the liability of the company and its director(s). Creditors should seek independent legal advice before deciding how to proceed.
Asked by: Ruth Jones (Labour - Newport West and Islwyn)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what conversations has she had with colleagues at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs regarding the potential impact of court delays on the a) financial health and b) kennel capacity of i) local authorities and ii) dog homes in England and Wales due to requirements to seize animals under the Animal Welfare Act 2006.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The Ministry of Justice and Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs work closely at official level, alongside other Departments and operational partners, on matters relating to animal welfare and the functioning of the justice system.
The average waiting time for section 20 hearings in the last five years is set out in the table below. Listing is a judicial function administered by HMCTS on judicial direction. The Ministry of Justice recognises that delays in court proceedings can have wider operational and financial impacts on partner organisations, including local authorities and animal welfare providers, and continues to focus on reducing court backlogs through its court reform programme, which is why on 25 February 2026, the Deputy Prime Minister announced the Courts and Tribunals Bill, aiming to deliver faster, fairer justice for all. These reforms are designed to progress cases more quickly through the criminal courts.
Magistrates Court: Average wait time for Section 20 hearing under the Animal Welfare Act 2006
2021 | 83 Days |
2022 | 53 Days |
2023 | 89 Days |
2024 | 74 Days |
2025 | 82 Days |
Asked by: Ruth Jones (Labour - Newport West and Islwyn)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps is he taking to accelerate the scheduling of Section 20 hearings for animals seized under the Animal Welfare Act 2006.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The Ministry of Justice and Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs work closely at official level, alongside other Departments and operational partners, on matters relating to animal welfare and the functioning of the justice system.
The average waiting time for section 20 hearings in the last five years is set out in the table below. Listing is a judicial function administered by HMCTS on judicial direction. The Ministry of Justice recognises that delays in court proceedings can have wider operational and financial impacts on partner organisations, including local authorities and animal welfare providers, and continues to focus on reducing court backlogs through its court reform programme, which is why on 25 February 2026, the Deputy Prime Minister announced the Courts and Tribunals Bill, aiming to deliver faster, fairer justice for all. These reforms are designed to progress cases more quickly through the criminal courts.
Magistrates Court: Average wait time for Section 20 hearing under the Animal Welfare Act 2006
2021 | 83 Days |
2022 | 53 Days |
2023 | 89 Days |
2024 | 74 Days |
2025 | 82 Days |
Asked by: Ruth Jones (Labour - Newport West and Islwyn)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what the average waiting time was for a Section 20 hearing under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 in each of the last five years.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The Ministry of Justice and Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs work closely at official level, alongside other Departments and operational partners, on matters relating to animal welfare and the functioning of the justice system.
The average waiting time for section 20 hearings in the last five years is set out in the table below. Listing is a judicial function administered by HMCTS on judicial direction. The Ministry of Justice recognises that delays in court proceedings can have wider operational and financial impacts on partner organisations, including local authorities and animal welfare providers, and continues to focus on reducing court backlogs through its court reform programme, which is why on 25 February 2026, the Deputy Prime Minister announced the Courts and Tribunals Bill, aiming to deliver faster, fairer justice for all. These reforms are designed to progress cases more quickly through the criminal courts.
Magistrates Court: Average wait time for Section 20 hearing under the Animal Welfare Act 2006
2021 | 83 Days |
2022 | 53 Days |
2023 | 89 Days |
2024 | 74 Days |
2025 | 82 Days |
Asked by: Neil O'Brien (Conservative - Harborough, Oadby and Wigston)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to his Answer of 2 February 2026 to Question 109199, how many unique offenders were convicted for a theft offence and did not receive immediate custody in 2024 with 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 previous convictions for a theft offence, broken down by individual number of previous convictions.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
The data requested are provided in the attached excel tables. The tables include data covering the period 2020 – 2024 on:
- The number of offenders who were convicted of a child sex offence who did not receive an immediate custodial sentence by number of previous occasions where the offender was convicted of a child sex offence.
- The number of offenders who were convicted of an indictable offence but did not receive an immediate custodial sentence, by the number of previous convictions (between 7-10 previous convictions).
- The number of offenders who were convicted of a theft offence who did not receive immediate custody, by number of previous convictions (between 3-10 previous convictions).
- The number of offenders convicted of theft from a shop who did not receive an immediate custodial sentence by number of previous convictions for the same offence.
As set out in previous responses, this data is not regularly published or held in an easily accessible format. The information supplied has been sourced from a bespoke retrieval from the Police National Computer database.
Previous convictions are already a statutory aggravating factor, with Sentencing Guidelines being clear that sentencers must consider the nature and relevance of previous convictions, and the time elapsed since the previous convictions.
Asked by: Neil O'Brien (Conservative - Harborough, Oadby and Wigston)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many people were (a) convicted of theft from a shop and (b) did not receive an immediate custodial sentence, broken down by (i) year of conviction in each of the past five years, and (ii) the number of previous occasions the offender had been convicted of theft from a shop.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
The data requested are provided in the attached excel tables. The tables include data covering the period 2020 – 2024 on:
- The number of offenders who were convicted of a child sex offence who did not receive an immediate custodial sentence by number of previous occasions where the offender was convicted of a child sex offence.
- The number of offenders who were convicted of an indictable offence but did not receive an immediate custodial sentence, by the number of previous convictions (between 7-10 previous convictions).
- The number of offenders who were convicted of a theft offence who did not receive immediate custody, by number of previous convictions (between 3-10 previous convictions).
- The number of offenders convicted of theft from a shop who did not receive an immediate custodial sentence by number of previous convictions for the same offence.
As set out in previous responses, this data is not regularly published or held in an easily accessible format. The information supplied has been sourced from a bespoke retrieval from the Police National Computer database.
Previous convictions are already a statutory aggravating factor, with Sentencing Guidelines being clear that sentencers must consider the nature and relevance of previous convictions, and the time elapsed since the previous convictions.