Asked by: Gurinder Singh Josan (Labour - Smethwick)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what research he has undertaken into (a) inequalities in the criminal justice system and (b) the impact of DBS checks on those inequalities.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
Equality before the law is a fundamental principle of our criminal justice system. We are committed to working in partnership with ethnic minority communities, stakeholders and delivery partners to seize opportunities and remove barriers to racial equality across the UK and to hear people’s lived experiences.
Data First is a pioneering data-linkage, research and academic engagement programme, led by the Ministry of Justice. By making linked data across courts, prison and probation services available to accredited academic researchers, Data First continues to facilitate new research on the nature and extent of ethnic disparities in sentencing outcomes that has not been possible before.
DBS checks and the wider criminal records regime must strike a balance between safeguarding and rehabilitation, but we recognise the different ways that they can impact on an individual’s life. Sir Brian Leveson’s recent independent review of the Criminal Courts also highlighted these impacts. On 2 December 2025, the Deputy Prime Minister confirmed in a Written Ministerial Statement, that we are considering Sir Brian’s recommendation, including opportunities to simplify the regime to ensure it is clear and proportionate, particularly in relation to childhood offences.
Asked by: James Naish (Labour - Rushcliffe)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether his Department has made an assessment of the potential merits of requiring organisations to contribute to legal fees when (a) an unfair dismissal and (b) a discriminatory employment practice has occurred.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
Organisations can already be asked to contribute to the cost of legal fees where vexatious or unreasonable behaviour has occurred. The Employment Tribunals (ET) can issue cost orders where one side is ordered to pay the other’s legal costs. For unfair dismissal cases, if the tribunal decides a claimant has been unfairly dismissed, they can receive compensation. Compensation awards can be ‘basic’ (based on age, length of service and average weekly wage) and ‘compensatory’ (based on loss of earnings).
The Ministry of Justice has not carried out an assessment of the merits of introducing more widespread use of cost orders. This is because the Tribunal Procedure Committee (TPC) is responsible for making procedure rules in the ET that includes the rules regarding cost orders. The Lord Chancellor can consider impacts of the changes the TPC recommend before deciding whether to implement them.
Asked by: Gurinder Singh Josan (Labour - Smethwick)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what demographic data in relation to ethnicity, gender and age his Department holds on convictions and cautions over the last 30 years.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The Ministry of Justice holds an extract of the Police National Computer (PNC) which holds data on ethnicity, gender and age for convictions and cautions since 2000. A breakdown of this information is published annually in the First Time Entrants and Offenders History publication here: First Time Entrants and Offenders History publication
In addition, the Ministry of Justice holds data on convictions in the Court Proceedings database which includes details of gender and age from 1984. Ethnicity data is included from 2005 onwards. This information, along with a technical guide for each report containing further details around demographic information, is routinely published in Criminal justice statistics quarterly - GOV.UK Information on cautions from the PNC extract is also published within the reports.
Asked by: James Naish (Labour - Rushcliffe)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the adequacy of current notification procedures for County Court Judgments; and whether he will make an assessment of the potential merits of requiring that all notifications of impending County Court Judgments be sent by recorded and tracked delivery to ensure defendants receive proper notice of court proceedings.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The Civil Procedure Rule Committee is responsible for the rules that govern the procedure for notifying people of court proceedings, known as the rules of service. In July 2025 it consulted on changes to the service rules including to permit electronic service on parties with whom there has already been electronic communication pre-action. The work to review responses to the consultation and any subsequent Civil Procedure Rules amendments is ongoing. The consultation can be found at - Civil Procedure Rule Committee - service consultation
Asked by: Nick Timothy (Conservative - West Suffolk)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many Sharia law courts have operated in the UK in each year since 2010 and broken down by local authority area.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
There are no sharia law courts.
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: Freddie van Mierlo (Liberal Democrat - Henley and Thame)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the potential impact of trends in the number of court sitting days on the Crown Court backlog.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
We have funded 112,250 Crown Court sitting days this financial year – 5,000 more than the previous Government and a record number. The Deputy Prime Minister has made clear that sitting days will continue to increase in both the Crown and magistrates’ courts.
As our latest published projections show, demand by 2030 is forecast to be 7% higher in the Crown Court than current levels. This means the courts would need to sit 139,000 days just to keep up with demand and even that would not enable us to reduce the backlog. The system is not able to deliver that number – there are insufficient prosecutors, defence barristers and judges to keep up with the demand. As a benchmark, the Lady Chief Justice has said that the maximum the judiciary could presently sit is around 113,000 sitting days.
Therefore, even with record-breaking investment in sitting days, the Crown Court backlog will continue to grow, leaving people waiting for longer and longer for justice. That is why we are pulling every lever we have – investment, reform and efficiency – to turn the tide on the backlog and begin to deliver justice for victims.
Asked by: Freddie van Mierlo (Liberal Democrat - Henley and Thame)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether he plans to reform powers in relation to Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation cases.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The Government implemented the Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) measures in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (ECCTA) in June 2025, which provides protection against SLAPPs relating to economic crime. While this was a positive first step, we are considering all options for reform to ensure that all types of SLAPPs are addressed comprehensively.
Asked by: Lord Hayward (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government what proportion of the number of fines issued by the court system to individuals were unpaid in the last full year for which they have data, broken down by economic region if that breakdown is available.
Answered by Baroness Levitt - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) has no ability to identify the number of fines that are unpaid in the last full year by reference to available digital system reports. Nor could any such report be created and run. Instead, it would be necessary to interrogate court records manually. Accordingly, the information requested could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.
In addition to the complexities of the way digital systems operate, assessing payment outcomes over a fixed period is complicated in and of itself. For example, complexities are introduced by later account movements, including account consolidations, Transfer of Fine Orders and write offs. These processes can remove accounts as discrete records or require them to be written off and re raised on different systems, creating a risk of misattribution and double counting. As a result, activity recorded within a given period may relate to fines imposed outside that period, meaning period-based measures of payment rates or balances are inherently unreliable without full account level review.
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 Answers to Questions 109199, 109198, 109197 and 109196, if he will publish the spreadsheet with the information requested in these questions with the number of previous occasions the offender has been convicted as individual categories up to a maximum of six times rather than in groups.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
The information requested is provided in the attached excel tables. These tables include data covering the period 2020 – 2024 on:
- The number of offenders who were convicted of a specified offence but did not receive an immediate custodial sentence, by the number of previous convictions for that specified offence up to a maximum of 6.
As set out in response to questions 109196-109199, 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.