Asked by: Al Pinkerton (Liberal Democrat - Surrey Heath)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment has been made of the adequacy of funding available to support victims of domestic abuse and their children while engaged in family court proceedings.
Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
This Government recognises the significant impact of domestic abuse on children and adult victims involved in family court proceedings, which is why we are committed to reforms that improve multi-agency working and provide better support.
Central to these reforms is the expansion of the Pathfinder model which seeks to improve outcomes for children and families involved in private family law proceedings, including those who have experienced domestic abuse. The voice of the child is amplified through a Child Impact Report which assesses the child’s experiences and needs, ensuring these are heard and communicated to the court.
Under the Pathfinder model, victims of domestic abuse are also offered specialist support from an Independent Domestic Violence Adviser. The model currently operates in 10 court areas, backed by £13 million investment in the current financial year.
Asked by: Al Pinkerton (Liberal Democrat - Surrey Heath)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment has been made of the potential contribution of family court processes, including repeated proceedings and contact litigation, to ongoing harm for victims of domestic abuse and their children.
Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
This Government recognises the impact that family court proceedings have on children and adult survivors of domestic abuse, which is why we are prioritising strong safeguarding and specialist support for those navigating the system.
The Government acknowledges that repeated court hearings can retraumatise adult and child victims of domestic abuse. The Pathfinder pilot was launched in Dorset and North Wales in February 2022 and has now been expanded to 10 court areas in England and Wales, which accounts for around a quarter of private law proceedings in England and Wales. Further expansion will be announced in due course. The Pathfinder model improves coordination between the family court and agencies, including local authorities and the police, particularly in cases involving domestic abuse. This approach reduces the number of cases returning to court, protecting children and families from further trauma.
By introducing a Child Impact Report early in the process and having a more investigative process, judges are enabled to assess risks thoroughly and make more sustainable orders. This child-centred, trauma-informed approach improves early risk identification, strengthens multiagency collaboration, and helps ensure that children’s voices are heard and that the psychological impact of contact arrangements is fully considered by the court.
This Government has taken steps to ensure that family court procedures more effectively identify and prevent patterns of coercive or controlling behaviour. Practice Direction 12 J has been amended to require courts to assess patterns of behaviour rather than isolated incidents, to modernise terminology, and to strengthen safeguards for vulnerable parties. Alongside this, section 91(14) orders, also referred to as “barring orders”, may be issued by the family court where further applications would put a child or adult, such as a victim of domestic abuse, at risk of harm, particularly where proceedings could be a form of continuing domestic abuse. Courts can issue a s91(14) order of their own motion or on application. Where such an order is in place, the court is required to consider whether circumstances have materially changed before granting permission to make a new application.
The Government welcomes the publication of the Domestic Abuse Commissioner’s report “Everyday Business: Addressing domestic abuse and continuing harm through a family court review and reporting mechanism.” We are carefully considering the recommendations made in the report and will publish a full response shortly.
Asked by: Al Pinkerton (Liberal Democrat - Surrey Heath)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps are being taken to help ensure that family court procedures prevent patterns of coercive or controlling behaviour following relationship breakdown.
Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
This Government recognises the impact that family court proceedings have on children and adult survivors of domestic abuse, which is why we are prioritising strong safeguarding and specialist support for those navigating the system.
The Government acknowledges that repeated court hearings can retraumatise adult and child victims of domestic abuse. The Pathfinder pilot was launched in Dorset and North Wales in February 2022 and has now been expanded to 10 court areas in England and Wales, which accounts for around a quarter of private law proceedings in England and Wales. Further expansion will be announced in due course. The Pathfinder model improves coordination between the family court and agencies, including local authorities and the police, particularly in cases involving domestic abuse. This approach reduces the number of cases returning to court, protecting children and families from further trauma.
By introducing a Child Impact Report early in the process and having a more investigative process, judges are enabled to assess risks thoroughly and make more sustainable orders. This child-centred, trauma-informed approach improves early risk identification, strengthens multiagency collaboration, and helps ensure that children’s voices are heard and that the psychological impact of contact arrangements is fully considered by the court.
This Government has taken steps to ensure that family court procedures more effectively identify and prevent patterns of coercive or controlling behaviour. Practice Direction 12 J has been amended to require courts to assess patterns of behaviour rather than isolated incidents, to modernise terminology, and to strengthen safeguards for vulnerable parties. Alongside this, section 91(14) orders, also referred to as “barring orders”, may be issued by the family court where further applications would put a child or adult, such as a victim of domestic abuse, at risk of harm, particularly where proceedings could be a form of continuing domestic abuse. Courts can issue a s91(14) order of their own motion or on application. Where such an order is in place, the court is required to consider whether circumstances have materially changed before granting permission to make a new application.
The Government welcomes the publication of the Domestic Abuse Commissioner’s report “Everyday Business: Addressing domestic abuse and continuing harm through a family court review and reporting mechanism.” We are carefully considering the recommendations made in the report and will publish a full response shortly.
Asked by: Baroness Berridge (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the results of the two-tiered test of enhanced support for jurors in Crown Courts centres that was announced in May 2024.
Answered by Baroness Levitt - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
Jury service is an important civic duty. Whilst many people find it worthwhile, we recognise that some trials can be challenging.
The “Enhanced Support for Jurors” pilot concluded in March 2025 and is currently being evaluated. The results will help inform longer-term support for jurors, including in cases involving serious violence or sexual offending.
If a juror is left distressed by any aspect of their service, they are encouraged to seek specialist support through their GP or the NHS 111 helpline, which includes a dedicated mental health option.
Asked by: Baroness Berridge (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the psychological and mental health impact on jurors of sitting on serious cases of physical or sexual violence.
Answered by Baroness Levitt - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
Jury service is an important civic duty. Whilst many people find it worthwhile, we recognise that some trials can be challenging.
The “Enhanced Support for Jurors” pilot concluded in March 2025 and is currently being evaluated. The results will help inform longer-term support for jurors, including in cases involving serious violence or sexual offending.
If a juror is left distressed by any aspect of their service, they are encouraged to seek specialist support through their GP or the NHS 111 helpline, which includes a dedicated mental health option.
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: 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 Duncan-Jordan (Labour - Poole)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, when he will recommend the Isle of Man Constitution Bill 2023 for Royal Assent.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
The UK Government has yet to receive the Isle of Man Constitution Bill 2023 from Tynwald.
The time required to scrutinise Crown Dependency legislation prior to Royal Assent varies depending on its complexity and any legal or constitutional questions that arise, including where clarification is needed from Law Officers in the Islands. Any decision on whether a Crown Dependency law can be recommended for Royal Assent will depend on the outcome of that process and as such, it would not be appropriate to speculate on the timing or outcome of the scrutiny in respect of the Isle of Man’s Constitution Bill in advance of its receipt.