Written questions by Snowden.

What the most recent figures are for reoffending rates within 12 months of release.

The latest quarterly reoffending statistics (October to December 2023 cohort) show that, among adults released from custody, 41.1% reoffended within 12 months—down from 48.8% for the same quarter in 2013. We are committed to tackling the root causes of reoffending by investing in a range of interventions and services which address offenders’ underlying criminogenic needs and support their rehabilitation journey. This includes access to education & employment opportunities, stable accommodation, and substance misuse treatment.

What assessment his Department has made of the effectiveness of probation services in preventing reoffending.

Probation services play a vital role in reducing reoffending, with a range of evidence to support this including:For a matched group of offenders, custodial sentences of less than 12 months had reoffending rates 4 percentage points higher than those on community or suspended sentences.Offenders with one or no previous convictions, the one-year re-offending rate is 14 to 17 percentage points lower for offenders on licence than similar offenders not on licence.An international meta-analysis also found that the average reoffending rate for offenders supervised by officers trained in Core Correctional Practices (CCP) was 36%, compared with an average reoffending rate of 50% for offenders supervised by officers lacking the CCP training.The Impact Evaluation of the Acquisitive Crime Electronic Monitoring Project found reoffending by burglars, robbers and thieves reduced by around 20%, when their movements were tracked by electronic monitoring.Finally, curfew tags and radio frequency electronic monitoring, used as part of community sentences, reduced reoffending by around 20%. Probation supports rehabilitation through close monitoring and management of offenders’ risk, supporting access to treatment, education, and employment, and through specialised programmes and services, including:Commissioned Rehabilitative Services (CRS) are specialist interventions delivered in partnership with private, voluntary and community organisations to support individuals under probation supervision, or on license following release from custody. They address key rehabilitative needs that, if unmet, increase the risk of reoffending and are designed to complement and improve access to mainstream services such as housing, healthcare, and local authority support.Multi-agency programmes such as Intensive Supervision Courts and Integrated Offender Management, that address the underlying causes of offending and promote positive change. Internationally, there is strong evidence that problem-solving courts, such as Intensive Supervision Courts, reduce reoffending. Evidence drawn from several countries shows a 33 percent fall in arrests from these courts compared to standard sentences.

If he will make an assessment of the potential merits of extending the period of time within which a victims' family can appeal a sentence.

Through the Unduly Lenient Sentence Scheme, a victims’ family (and members of the public) can request that the Attorney General refers a sentence to the Court of Appeal for review. Parliament intended the Unduly Lenient Sentence Scheme to be an exceptional power, and any expansion of the scheme must be carefully considered. While we understand calls for expansion, it is important for both victims and offenders that there is finality in sentencing.The Law Commission is undertaking a review of the law governing criminal appeals. They launched a public consultation which invited views on a range of reforms to criminal appeals, including the Unduly Lenient Sentence Scheme. They are now reviewing those responses and expect to publish their findings and recommendations in 2026.The Government will carefully and holistically consider the Law Commission review’s final recommendations.

Pursuant to the Answer of 22 September 2025 to Question 73115 on HM Courts and Tribunals Service: Data Protection, whether (a) financial penalties and (b) contract management actions were taken against any delivery partner.

We have no central record of any financial penalties against any supplier/delivery partner in relation to this issue.Contract management actions are undertaken as standard; HMCTS and the Ministry of Justice engage suppliers via frameworks managed by the Crown Commercial Service and did so over the course of the HMCTS Reform Programme (for example on the Digital Outcome and Specialists and G Cloud frameworks). These frameworks are designed to enable Government Departments to procure digital and technology services in a compliant, flexible, and value-for-money manner. Both frameworks operate under pre-approved terms and conditions that set clear expectations for supplier performance, financial management, and contract governance, providing Departments with consistent mechanisms to manage delivery risk and ensure accountability across multiple suppliers.

Pursuant to the Answer of 22 September 2025 to Question 73118 on Social Security and Child Support Tribunal: ICT, whether any (a) personal and (b) sensitive information was exposed.

No personal or sensitive information was exposed as a result of the IT system bug referenced.

How many private prosecutions were brought before magistrates’ courts and Crown Courts in each of the past ten years.

Private prosecutions are brought before the same courts in England and Wales as prosecutions commenced by criminal justice agencies. The prioritisation of cases in the criminal court caseload is a matter for the independent judiciary. The Ministry of Justice published a consultation “on the oversight and regulation of private prosecutors in the criminal justice system”, between 6 March and 8 May 2025 and will set out next steps shortly.The Ministry of Justice holds management information on private prosecutions brought before the magistrates’ courts and this is shown in the table below. The definition of private prosecutions is detailed in the Department’s consultation referenced above.Table One: Defendants dealt with in private prosecutions at the magistrates’ courts in England and Wales, annually 2014 – 2024Year Quarter Defendants dealt with in private prosecutions Proportion of total defendants dealt with at the magistrates’ courts 2015All397,93226%2016All400,64727%2017All384,03727%2018All401,76729%2019All408,61129%2020All180,05718%2021All167,31215%2022All235,04219%2023All326,39926%2024All352,27627% Information on private prosecutions at the Crown Court cannot be produced robustly within costs.Notes We have defined a private prosecution as any that have not been led by the Police, Crown Prosecution Service, or British Transport Police. This definition means that prosecutions by organisations like the TV Licencing Authority and other government agencies are included as private prosecutions. This data includes cases completed at the magistrates' courts during the specified time period, where no further action was required by the magistrates' courts, and cases sent to the Crown Court. Data differs from data in the 2023 published ‘Consultation on the oversight and regulation of private prosecutors in the criminal justice system’ due to data refreshes since that report.

Whether the Justice Transcribe tool was developed (a) in-house or (b) in partnership with external technology providers.

Justice Transcribe is an AI-powered note-taking tool that records and transcribes conversations between probation officers and people on probation. It was developed in-house.

Whether he is taking steps to ensure that private prosecutions do not contribute to existing court backlogs.

Private prosecutions are brought before the same courts in England and Wales as prosecutions commenced by criminal justice agencies. The prioritisation of cases in the criminal court caseload is a matter for the independent judiciary. The Ministry of Justice published a consultation “on the oversight and regulation of private prosecutors in the criminal justice system”, between 6 March and 8 May 2025 and will set out next steps shortly.The Ministry of Justice holds management information on private prosecutions brought before the magistrates’ courts and this is shown in the table below. The definition of private prosecutions is detailed in the Department’s consultation referenced above.Table One: Defendants dealt with in private prosecutions at the magistrates’ courts in England and Wales, annually 2014 – 2024Year Quarter Defendants dealt with in private prosecutions Proportion of total defendants dealt with at the magistrates’ courts 2015All397,93226%2016All400,64727%2017All384,03727%2018All401,76729%2019All408,61129%2020All180,05718%2021All167,31215%2022All235,04219%2023All326,39926%2024All352,27627% Information on private prosecutions at the Crown Court cannot be produced robustly within costs.Notes We have defined a private prosecution as any that have not been led by the Police, Crown Prosecution Service, or British Transport Police. This definition means that prosecutions by organisations like the TV Licencing Authority and other government agencies are included as private prosecutions. This data includes cases completed at the magistrates' courts during the specified time period, where no further action was required by the magistrates' courts, and cases sent to the Crown Court. Data differs from data in the 2023 published ‘Consultation on the oversight and regulation of private prosecutors in the criminal justice system’ due to data refreshes since that report.

How many whistleblowing reports relating to HM Courts & Tribunals Service's digital systems have been received in each of the past five years.

There have been two whistleblowing reports over the last five years (reported 2024-25) that relate to HM Courts & Tribunals Service’s digital systems.

What steps he is taking to ensure that reforms to judicial review do not adversely impact access to justice for local communities challenging Government decisions on infrastructure projects.

The ability to challenge the lawfulness of Government decisions and those of other public bodies is fundamental to the rule of law. The Government remains committed to this principle.Under the changes being taken forward in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill to Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIP) judicial reviews, only claimants whose cases are deemed ‘totally without merit’ at the oral permission stage in the High Court will be prevented from appealing to the Court of Appeal. In other cases, the claimant can appeal the refusal of permission.The Government is also working with the judiciary to take forward a number of other procedural changes to speed up the process for NSIP judicial reviews, such as target timescales, to ensure such cases are dealt with promptly. This can benefit all parties, including claimants.These reforms are about ensuring cases move through the courts more quickly and efficiently, not about limiting the ability for the public to challenge decisions.

Pursuant to the Answer of 22 September 2025 to Question 73120 on HM Courts and Tribunals Service: Data Protection, how many people whose cases may have been affected have (a) been identified and (b) been notified and (c) have yet to be contacted.

His Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) has expanded its checks using new digital tools to analyse the full period affected – covering around 700,000 cases – to determine whether any were impacted and to what extent. Based on the first phase of this additional assurance work, which reviewed a sample of 455 potentially affected cases, one has been found to be missing a document where the judge has confirmed it could have affected the case outcome. The parties involved have been contacted directly and offered the opportunity to request that the decision be set aside and the case reheard. As the assurance work continues, HMCTS will contact any additional parties whose case outcomes may have been affected.The CEO of HMCTS will write to the Justice Select Committee once the assurance process concludes, setting out the total number of affected cases, parties contacted, and outcome of any follow-up action.The Department remains committed to transparency and to safeguarding the integrity of judicial decision-making. Since the response provided on 22 September 2025, the Ministry of Justice has been conducting an internal assessment of the HMCTS Core Case Data issue.

Pursuant to the Answer of 22 September 2025 to Question 73118 on Social Security and Child Support Tribunal: ICT, whether her Department has undertaken retrospective sampling of closed cases to assess for undetected outcome-affecting errors arising from the IT failure.

His Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) has expanded its checks using new digital tools to analyse the full period affected – covering around 700,000 cases – to determine whether any were impacted and to what extent. Based on the first phase of this additional assurance work, which reviewed a sample of 455 potentially affected cases, one has been found to be missing a document where the judge has confirmed it could have affected the case outcome. The parties involved have been contacted directly and offered the opportunity to request that the decision be set aside and the case reheard. As the assurance work continues, HMCTS will contact any additional parties whose case outcomes may have been affected.The CEO of HMCTS will write to the Justice Select Committee once the assurance process concludes, setting out the total number of affected cases, parties contacted, and outcome of any follow-up action.The Department remains committed to transparency and to safeguarding the integrity of judicial decision-making. Since the response provided on 22 September 2025, the Ministry of Justice has been conducting an internal assessment of the HMCTS Core Case Data issue.

Pursuant to the Answer of 22 September 2025 to Question 73115 on HM Courts and Tribunals Service: Data Protection, whether her Department will commission an independent review to verify that there has been no impact on case outcomes to date.

His Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) has expanded its checks using new digital tools to analyse the full period affected – covering around 700,000 cases – to determine whether any were impacted and to what extent. Based on the first phase of this additional assurance work, which reviewed a sample of 455 potentially affected cases, one has been found to be missing a document where the judge has confirmed it could have affected the case outcome. The parties involved have been contacted directly and offered the opportunity to request that the decision be set aside and the case reheard. As the assurance work continues, HMCTS will contact any additional parties whose case outcomes may have been affected.The CEO of HMCTS will write to the Justice Select Committee once the assurance process concludes, setting out the total number of affected cases, parties contacted, and outcome of any follow-up action.The Department remains committed to transparency and to safeguarding the integrity of judicial decision-making. Since the response provided on 22 September 2025, the Ministry of Justice has been conducting an internal assessment of the HMCTS Core Case Data issue.

Whether his Department has made an estimate of the number of people convicted of causing death by dangerous driving who have been charged with subsequent motoring offences.

The Ministry of Justice publishes data on prosecutions for a wide range of offences, including death by dangerous driving in the Outcomes by Offences data tool, that can be downloaded from the Criminal Justice Statistics landing page here: Criminal Justice System statistics quarterly: December 2024 - GOV.UK.It is not possible to identify those convicted of dangerous driving who go on to be charged with a subsequent motoring offence without exceeding the disproportionate cost limit. This is because we would need to examine the court records for all those convicted of dangerous driving.

If he will take steps to ensure that victims are (a) informed and (b) consulted about offenders who partake in chemical suppression programmes.

Medication to Manage Problematic Sexual Arousal (MMPSA) is a pharmaceutical intervention for offenders with ongoing clinical needs who may continue to pose a risk of harm to others because their sexual offending behaviour is driven by obsessive thoughts about sex and display compulsive sexual behaviour. As MMPSA is a medication prescribed by clinicians according to the health needs of individuals, it would be inappropriate to share personal medical information on treatment with victims in accordance with medical confidentiality. Eligible victims, including those of serious sexual offences, are supported through the Victim Contact Scheme where Victim Liaison Officers will offer tailored guidance, keep victims informed where appropriate, and help them navigate the parole process. Victims are entitled to measures such as being able to request a summary of a Parole Boards decision, and request additional conditions to an offender’s license in relation to themselves. These services are designed to ensure victims feel heard and supported, while also helping to maintain trust in the system.

How many prisons in the North West the expanded pilot for the use of medication to manage problematic sexual arousal for sex offenders will operate in; what criteria he will use to select those prisons; and how many offenders will participate.

As the Deputy Prime Minister announced on 16 September, the innovative feasibility pilot of Medication to Manage Problematic Sexual Arousal for sex offenders will be expanded to two new regions – the North West and North East of England. This will extend the service across to twenty prisons in three regions, up from the current four in the South West pilot.Work is underway to establish these pilot services, which will include utilising learnings from the South West, to inform the appropriate prisons to begin the rollout in the North West. This will be based on relevant factors such as prison population composition and existing treatment pathways in place. This will allow us to expand the number of offenders eligible to receive this intervention, subject to clinical need, and determine which specific prisons will be part of the rollout.

When his Department will provide protective body armour to all prison officers working in (a) long‑term and (b) high‑security prisons.

His Majesty's Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) has committed to delivering the Deputy Prime Minister's pledge to equip up to 10,000 staff with protective body armour (PBA). The provision of custom-made body armour to prison officers in the long-term and high-security estate (LTHSE) represents a significant undertaking. Our priority is to ensure we continue to provide the most appropriate and effective protective equipment, as swiftly as possible. We are currently preparing for further procurement and delivery into the long-term high security estate. This work is progressing at pace, and we expect to begin rollout across the estate during 2026.

What steps he is taking to (a) codify and (b) simplify the law of contempt of court in England and Wales in light of the Law Commission’s recommendations.

The Law Commission review into the law of contempt of court in England and Wales is ongoing. The Commission will report with proposals for reform to clarify the law in this area and improve its consistency, coherence, and effectiveness. The first report is expected to be published in November 2025 and the second in 2026.The Government will carefully consider any recommendations proposed by the Law Commission following the publication of these reports.

If he will make an assessment of the potential merits of reviewing the threshold for reopening cases under the exception to the double jeopardy rule introduced by the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

The Government recognises the fundamental importance of the rule against double jeopardy, as well as the need, in exceptional cases, to correct serious miscarriages of justice. The Criminal Justice Act 2003 permits a retrial only in cases involving the most serious offences, and only where new and compelling evidence becomes available. Such retrials require an application from the Director of Public Prosecutions and approval from the Court of Appeal, ensuring that any retrial serves the interests of justice. This framework is used very rarely and is designed to maintain an appropriate balance between the principles of finality and fairness. The Government keeps the law under review but has no current plans to lower or otherwise revise this high threshold.

How many (a) prosecutions and (b) convictions there have been for using (i) ghost and (ii) cloned licence plates in each of the last five years.

The Ministry of Justice publishes data on prosecutions and convictions for a wide range of offences, including offences relating to motor vehicle licence, trade licence, registration mark, trade plate and registration book offences (except forgery and deception offences) (MOT) in the Outcomes by Offences data tool, that can be downloaded from the Criminal Justice Statistics landing page here: Criminal justice statistics - GOV.UK.However, it is not possible to identify specifically offences relating to ghost or clone licensing. This information may be held in court records but to examine individual court records would be of disproportionate costs.