Asked by: Marie Rimmer (Labour - St Helens South and Whiston)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what is the determined method by which unauthorised access was gained to the Legal Aid Agency's online digital systems during the April 2025 data breach.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
We take the security of people’s personal data extremely seriously.
Firstly, to ensure transparency about the cyber- attack and that we reached as many potentially impacted individuals as possible, the Ministry of Justice published a notice shortly after it became aware of the criminal cyber-attack at 08:15 on 19 May on GOV.UK
The notice provided information about the cyber-attack and directed concerned members of the public to the National Cyber Security Centre’s webpage, which contained information on how to protect against the impact of a data breach.
The Legal Aid Agency (LAA) also set up dedicated Customer Services support via a telephone line and email for providers and clients who had concerns regarding the data breach. We did not write to all clients, to all the addresses that we had, because some of those addresses would no longer be current, and that would potentially create another data breach in itself.
The published statement referred to above sets out information about who may have been impacted and the nature of the information which may have been accessed. As far as we are aware, no data has been shared or put out in the public domain. An injunction has been put in place to prohibit sharing of this data. Anyone who does so could be sent to prison. If it is identified that a specific individual is at risk, action will be taken to try to contact them.
In the interests of security, we cannot confirm the method by which unauthorised access was gained to the LAA’s online digital systems or details about specific steps taken or measures implemented to protect LAA systems against any future cyber-attacks.
Security of the new systems has been paramount as we have rebuilt the LAA’s digital systems following the attack. The compromised digital portal has been replaced by a new, secure single sign-in tool for LAA online services (SiLAS). SiLAS has been designed and built in line with UK government and industry best practice for secure development. Security has been included from the ground up, including multi factor authentication, with independent testing activities to validate that the appropriate security controls are in place.
A dedicated team will monitor and update the service to ensure it evolves to remain resilient to emerging threats and is supported by a security operations capability. While no system can be entirely risk free, we are confident that we have taken the right steps to protect the service and its users.
Responsibility for disaster recovery planning for digital systems lies with Justice Digital rather than the LAA. Prior to the cyber- attack there was no digital disaster recovery plan in place. However, had we had a fully funded disaster recovery system, any immediate restoration would have simply restored the systems without resolving the vulnerabilities that enabled the cyber- attack to occur. Justice Digital now have a new Service Owner structure in place where clear Service Standards will be defined and monitored. This will include digital disaster recovery plans for each digital product.
Prior to the cyber- attack the LAA had in place prepared business continuity plans for business-critical processes and services to ensure that access to justice could be maintained in the event of a system outage. These plans were tried and tested, and we were confident that the measures would be effective for our initial response. These measures gave us sufficient time to design and implement longer term measures to meet the specific needs of the incident that were introduced in June 2025.
At every stage, we have acted to protect public access to justice and to support providers in delivering legal aid. We have achieved this without affecting court backlogs or police station activity.
Our business continuity planning was effective in maintaining access to justice from the outset of the attack and the need to have longer term options in place is one of the lessons that we have taken from this incident.
A formal lessons learned approach will systematically analyse lessons from the Ministry of Justice’s and LAA’s preparation for and response to the cyber-attack. This work will cover pre-incident risk management and the response to the incident itself. This will inform future resilience planning, governance improvement and risk mitigation strategies across the Ministry of Justice and its agencies.
Asked by: Shaun Davies (Labour - Telford)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of his Department's progress towards its target of increasing prison capacity.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
This Government inherited a prison system in collapse. We have taken decisive action to put prison capacity on a sustainable footing and end the cycle of repeated crises.
We have committed to the largest expansion of the estate since the Victorians, investing £7 billion in building prison places between 2024/25 and 2029/30. We are on track to deliver 14,000 new prison places by 2031 with c. 2,900 delivered already under this Government.
On top of this, we have introduced landmark sentencing reforms to end our prisons crisis – and deliver punishment that cuts crime. On 2 September we introduced the Sentencing Bill to take forward most of the recommendations made by David Gauke’s Independent Sentencing Review, as well as the measures that go further to manage offenders in the community. The House of Lords committee stage was concluded on 3 December.
Asked by: Vikki Slade (Liberal Democrat - Mid Dorset and North Poole)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if he will make it his policy to review the status of people held on remand in custody for more than six months to determine whether they should be considered for conditional release.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
The decision to remand an individual in custody or to grant bail is solely a matter for the independent judiciary acting in accordance with the Bail Act 1976. With limited exceptions, the Bail Act creates a presumption in favour of bail for defendants involved in criminal proceedings. This recognises that a person should not be deprived of his/her liberty unless that is necessary for the protection of the public or the delivery of justice.
There is a well-established process that enables remanded prisoners to apply to the court for bail, and we have expanded the Bail Information Service over the last year to provide more support.
Asked by: Helen Maguire (Liberal Democrat - Epsom and Ewell)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if he will introduce the prioritisation of cases involving rape and sexual offences in the court lists.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
Decisions on listing are a matter for the independent judiciary, which already prioritises cases involving vulnerable complainants and witnesses, including those relating to sexual offences. These cases are listed at the earliest opportunity.
The record allocation of sitting days this financial year will mean more rape and other sexual offence cases can be heard – delivering swifter justice for victims of such crimes. We also commissioned Sir Brian’s Independent Review of the Criminal Courts and have announced a package of reforms designed to improve timeliness in the Crown Court and speed up justice for all victims, including victims of rape.
Asked by: Rachel Gilmour (Liberal Democrat - Tiverton and Minehead)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if he has made an assessment of the potential impact of the removal of the right of appeal escalatory route from the Family Court judges to the High Court on judicial oversight accountability.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The Government has no plans to remove any rights of appeal route from family court judges to the High Court, nor has it made an assessment of the potential impact of such a change on judicial oversight and accountability.
Asked by: Karl Turner (Labour - Kingston upon Hull East)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many and what proportion of serving magistrates are under the age of 40.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The breakdown of magistrates in post by age bands is provided in table 3.6 of the annual official Diversity of the Judiciary statistics (https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/diversity-of-the-judiciary-2025-statistics).
Asked by: Karl Turner (Labour - Kingston upon Hull East)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what estimate his Department has made of the duration of hearings required to determine whether an offence is likely to attract a custodial sentence of three years or more.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
Criminal cases will continue to start in the magistrates’ court and will be sent to the Crown Court by magistrates where the seriousness or complexity of the case means it is more suitable for trial on indictment.
Post reforms, to determine whether a triable either-way case is eligible for trial in the Crown Court Bench Division, a Crown Court judge will assess whether the case is likely to attract a custodial sentence of three years or less. The process for allocations in the Crown Court will be similar to the existing approach used in the magistrates’ courts. We have full confidence in our judiciary to apply the Sentencing Guidelines appropriately when deciding the mode of trial. Eligibility for the Crown Court Bench Division will be assessed at the first opportunity a defendant has to enter a plea – normally the plea and trial preparation hearing where the judge will consider mode of trial among other case management factors to ensure the case is ready for trial.
Asked by: Karl Turner (Labour - Kingston upon Hull East)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, which (a) court and (b) judicial body will determine whether an offence is likely to attract a custodial sentence of three years or more for the purposes of allocating the mode of trial.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
Criminal cases will continue to start in the magistrates’ court and will be sent to the Crown Court by magistrates where the seriousness or complexity of the case means it is more suitable for trial on indictment.
Post reforms, to determine whether a triable either-way case is eligible for trial in the Crown Court Bench Division, a Crown Court judge will assess whether the case is likely to attract a custodial sentence of three years or less. The process for allocations in the Crown Court will be similar to the existing approach used in the magistrates’ courts. We have full confidence in our judiciary to apply the Sentencing Guidelines appropriately when deciding the mode of trial. Eligibility for the Crown Court Bench Division will be assessed at the first opportunity a defendant has to enter a plea – normally the plea and trial preparation hearing where the judge will consider mode of trial among other case management factors to ensure the case is ready for trial.
Asked by: Dan Aldridge (Labour - Weston-super-Mare)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether he will take steps to ensure that individuals seeking a divorce are automatically eligible for legal aid in cases where evidence demonstrates that a child of the family has been subjected to abuse.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
This Government recognises that legal aid – a vital part of the justice system – supports the ability of individuals to access publicly funded legal assistance to uphold their legal rights.
Legal aid is available for private family proceedings, such as divorce and financial remedy proceedings, if an adult is a victim of domestic abuse or at risk of being abused. Funding is subject to providing the required evidence of domestic abuse and passing the means and merits tests. The Government recognises that abuse may include behaviour directed at a third party, for example the victim’s child, to influence the victim. In May 2025, we amended the legislation to explicitly reflect this definition of domestic abuse; it now reflects the definition of domestic abuse from the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, and it clarifies that behaviour, violence or abuse between individuals may consist of or include behaviour, violence or abuse directed at another individual.
Legal aid is available for individuals for some private family orders, such as child arrangement orders or prohibited steps orders, if the child who is the subject of the order is a victim of child abuse or at risk of abuse. This is subject to providing evidence of child abuse and passing the means and merits tests.
The Government monitors legal aid provision and is carefully considering the criteria that govern financial eligibility for legal aid.
Where an issue falls outside the scope of legal aid, eligible individuals may be able to obtain Exceptional Case Funding where they can show that, without the provision of legal aid, there is a risk that their human rights may be breached.
Asked by: Abtisam Mohamed (Labour - Sheffield Central)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the availability of free or pro-bono legal support for leaseholders involved in disputes with property management agents or freeholders.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
There are a range of options available for leaseholders involved in disputes with property management agents or freeholders. Advice organisations, such as Citizens Advice and Shelter, may be able to provide advice or signpost to further support, and leaseholders may be able to get support from organisations that specialise in leasehold issues, such as the Leasehold Advisory Service. Alternatively, ombudsman services may be able to provide support with resolving a dispute. Leaseholders may choose to seek pro bono advice via organisations such as LawWorks or Advocate.