Asked by: Paul Kohler (Liberal Democrat - Wimbledon)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what the average length of time was from charge to completion in court for rape cases in England and Wales in each year since 2016.
Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
The Ministry of Justice publishes figures for Crown Court timeliness on a quarterly basis in the ‘End-to-end timeliness tool (Crown Court)’. This includes time taken from charge to completion for rape cases: Criminal court statistics quarterly: July to September 2025 - GOV.UK.
Offence group can be filtered for ‘02: Sexual offences – all rape’. Both the mean and median time from charge to completion can be found in the table, dating back to 2016.
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, 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: Jim Shannon (Democratic Unionist Party - Strangford)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many prisoners were released without accommodation in each of the last five years.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
The information requested can be found in Table 3 of the “Housed on Release from Custody Tables” in the Offender Accommodation Outcomes statistical publication at the following link: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/offender-accommodation-outcomes-update-to-march-2025.
We are committed to ensuring that robust pre-release plans are created for those leaving custody, so that accommodation needs are identified early and the right support is put in place. Dedicated Pre-Release Teams in prisons work closely with individuals to identify immediate needs, co-ordinate referrals to relevant services, and support continuity between custody and the community.
In the National Plan to End Homelessness, the Government has committed to reduce the proportion of people released homeless from prison by 50% by the end of this parliament. 50 prison-based Strategic Housing Specialists across England and Wales work with probation teams and Local Authorities to enable a multi-agency approach to securing housing before release, including by establishing pre-release accommodation panels with appropriate local authorities. We are also investing in integrating digital community accommodation services to make it easier to identify and match individuals to the right housing-related support at the right time.
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 for a sexual offence and (b) did not receive an immediate custodial sentence, by year of conviction and number of previous occasions the offender has been convicted for sexual offences.
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.
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.
Sentencing in individual cases is a matter for the independent judiciary. 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, in line with any relevant sentencing guidelines, developed by the Sentencing Council for England and Wales.
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 for burglary and b) did not receive an immediate custodial sentence, by year of conviction and number of previous occasions the offender has been convicted for burglary.
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.
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.
Sentencing in individual cases is a matter for the independent judiciary. 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, in line with any relevant sentencing guidelines, developed by the Sentencing Council for England and Wales.
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 for robbery and b) did not receive an immediate custodial sentence, by year of conviction and number of previous occasions the offender has been convicted for robbery.
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.
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.
Sentencing in individual cases is a matter for the independent judiciary. 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, in line with any relevant sentencing guidelines, developed by the Sentencing Council for England and Wales.
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 and (b) did not receive an immediate custodial sentence, by year of conviction and number of previous occasions the offender has been convicted for theft.
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.
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.
Sentencing in individual cases is a matter for the independent judiciary. 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, in line with any relevant sentencing guidelines, developed by the Sentencing Council for England and Wales.
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 for a violence against the person offence and b) did not receive an immediate custodial sentence, by year of conviction and number of previous occassions the offender has been convicted for a violence against the person offence.
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.
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.
Sentencing in individual cases is a matter for the independent judiciary. 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, in line with any relevant sentencing guidelines, developed by the Sentencing Council for England and Wales.
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: James McMurdock (Independent - South Basildon and East Thurrock)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to his Department's research entitled Alcohol monitoring on licence: process and interim impact evaluation, published 30 October 2025, what assessment his Department have made of the adequacy of alcohol monitoring readings from people on Alcohol Monitoring Licence orders whose tags were later removed due to potentially incorrect fittings.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
Alcohol monitoring on licence was introduced in Wales in 2021 and England in 2022 and enables probation to include an additional licence condition banning or restricting the consumption of alcohol, where a criminogenic need related to alcohol misuse is identified as an increase to risk. The alcohol monitoring on licence: process and interim impact evaluation was published on 30 October 2025: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/alcohol-monitoring-on-licence-process-and-interim-impact-evaluation. A further impact evaluation exploring reoffending will be published in due course which will measure longer-term outcomes than the existing published evaluation. The sample size is not confirmed but we expect it to be broadly similar.
The process and interim impact evaluation of Alcohol Monitoring on Licence scheme was based on a sample of the overall tagged population. The process evaluation reported some instances where tag wearers experienced pain or discomfort and had the tag changed or removed. These issues did not indicate widespread concerns about the reliability of alcohol tag readings.