Written questions by O'Brien.

How many people were convicted of murdering a police officer by year of conviction for the period 2020-2024.

The Ministry of Justice publishes data on convictions for a wide range of offences, including murder in the Outcomes by Offences data tool, that can be downloaded from the Criminal Justice Statistics landing page here: Criminal justice statistics - GOV.UK.It is not possible to identify individual characteristics of murder victims, including their profession. This information may be held in court records but to examine individual court records would be of disproportionate costs.

How many people were a) convicted for child sexual offences and b) did not receive an immediate custodial sentence, by year of conviction and number of previous occasions the offender has been convicted for child sexual offences for the period 2020-2024.

The data requested are provided in the attached excel tables. The tables include data covering the period 2020 – 2024 on:- The number of offenders who were convicted of a child sex offence who did not receive an immediate custodial sentence by number of previous occasions where the offender was convicted of a child sex offence.- The number of offenders who were convicted of an indictable offence but did not receive an immediate custodial sentence, by the number of previous convictions (between 7-10 previous convictions).- The number of offenders who were convicted of a theft offence who did not receive immediate custody, by number of previous convictions (between 3-10 previous convictions).- The number of offenders convicted of theft from a shop who did not receive an immediate custodial sentence by number of previous convictions for the same offence.As set out in previous responses, 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.

With reference to his Answers of 2 February 2026 to Question 109197, 109198, 109199 and 109200, if he will publish the number of people who were (a) convicted of and (b) did not receive an immediate custodial sentence for a (i) robbery, (ii) burglary, (iii) theft and (iv) sexual offence by year of conviction and individual number of previous conviction for that offence up to a maximum of six convictions, rather than grouping previous convictions.

The breakdown requested for PQ 109197, PQ 109198 and PQ 109199 was provided in PQ response 111800. The data for PQ 109200 is provided in the attached excel table. The table includes 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 previous responses, 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.

How many people who were a) convicted for theft and b) did not receive an immediate custodial sentence were foreign nationals, by year of conviction.

The Ministry of Justice publishes data on convictions and sentences for a wide range of offences, including theft 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, data held centrally does not include if the defendant is a foreign national. This information may be held in the court records but to examine individual court records would be of disproportionate costs.

In the last 12 months, how many individuals convicted of (a) a violent offence and (b) homicide had a recorded history of detention under the Mental Health Act 1983.

The Ministry of Justice does not hold the information requested. While the Ministry of Justice holds data on convictions, our data relating to the Mental Health Act 1983 covers only individuals detained as restricted [Criminal Justice] patients and does not capture any prior detention under the Act. NHS England is responsible for information relating to detentions under the Mental Health Act 1983. Any relevant information is therefore held separately by different Departments and is not linked. As a result, we are unable to provide a breakdown of individuals convicted of violent offences or homicide who have a prior history of Mental Health Act detention.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

How many unique offenders were convicted for an indictable offence and did not receive immediate custody in 2024 with i) zero, ii) 1-2, iii) 3-6, iv) 7-10, v) 11-14, vi) 15-25, vii) 26-35, viii) 36-45, ix) 46 - 60, x) 61-75 and xi) 76 or more previous convictions.

The information requested is provided in the attached excel table. The table includes data covering 2024 on the number of offenders who received a conviction but not an immediate custodial sentence split by number of previous convictions. This data is not routinely published or held in an assessable 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.

How many people were convicted or cautioned for an indictable offence did not receive an immediate custodial sentence and had a) one, b) two, c) three, d) four and e) five or more prior convictions for violence against the person in each of the past 5 years.

The information requested is provided in the attached excel table. This table includes data covering the period 2020 – 2024 on:The number of offenders who were a) convicted and b) cautioned for an indictable offence who did not receive an immediate custodial sentence by number of previous indictable convictions for specified offences, andThe number of offenders who were convicted or cautioned for an indictable offence who did not receive an immediate custodial sentence by number of previous indictable convictions for specified offences.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.

How many people who were (a) convicted and (b) cautioned for an indictable offence did not receive an immediate custodial sentence and had (i) one, (ii) two, (iii) three, (iv) four and (iv) five or more prior convictions for a violent offence in each of the last five years.

The information requested is provided in the attached excel table. This table includes data covering the period 2020 – 2024 on:The number of offenders who were a) convicted and b) cautioned for an indictable offence who did not receive an immediate custodial sentence by number of previous indictable convictions for specified offences, andThe number of offenders who were convicted or cautioned for an indictable offence who did not receive an immediate custodial sentence by number of previous indictable convictions for specified offences.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.

How many people were convicted or cautioned for an indictable offence did not receive an immediate custodial sentence and had a) one, b) two, c) three, d) four and e) five or more prior convictions for burglary in each of the past 5 years.

The information requested is provided in the attached excel table. This table includes data covering the period 2020 – 2024 on:The number of offenders who were a) convicted and b) cautioned for an indictable offence who did not receive an immediate custodial sentence by number of previous indictable convictions for specified offences, andThe number of offenders who were convicted or cautioned for an indictable offence who did not receive an immediate custodial sentence by number of previous indictable convictions for specified offences.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.

How many people were convicted or cautioned for an indictable offence did not receive an immediate custodial sentence and had a) one, b) two, c) three, d) four and e) five or more prior convictions for theft or robbery in each of the past 5 years.

The information requested is provided in the attached excel table. This table includes data covering the period 2020 – 2024 on:The number of offenders who were a) convicted and b) cautioned for an indictable offence who did not receive an immediate custodial sentence by number of previous indictable convictions for specified offences, andThe number of offenders who were convicted or cautioned for an indictable offence who did not receive an immediate custodial sentence by number of previous indictable convictions for specified offences.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.

What the total cost was of (a) settlement agreements and (b) special severance payments made to departing staff in his Department in the last year.

For the last financial year, the total cost to the Ministry of Justice of payments associated with settlement agreements is set out in Annual Report and Accounts. Where relevant, this includes special severance payments that have associated settlement agreements.

What the average number of working days lost to sickness absence per full-time equivalent member of staff was in (a) his Department and (b) its executive agencies in the last year; and how many formal performance warnings were issued to staff whose absence exceeded departmental triggers.

The Ministry of Justice annual report and accounts include information on the average number of working lost across the Department including its executive agencies. The report is available here with the relevant information on page 141 - Ministry of Justice annual report and accounts: 2024 to 2025 - GOV.UK. The Ministry of Justice does not issue performance warnings to employees whose sickness absence exceeds departmental trigger points. Under the supporting attendance policy, sickness absence is managed through a separate attendance management process.

How many and what proportion of staff in his Department were promoted (a) in-grade and (b) to a higher grade in the last year broken down by (i) performance marking in the previous year and (ii) grade.

Number and Rate of Promotions for Ministry of Justice (excluding HMPPS) employees by Grade between 1 April 2024 and 31 March 2025Previous Grade of EmployeeAverage Staff in PostNumber of PromotionsRate of Promotions per 100 StaffSenior Civil Servant26041.5G7/G63,483992.8HEO/SEO7,7505407EO4,5672786.1AA/AO11,3033793.4 Caveats1. Promotions relate to staff moving to a more senior grade through an internal process where the move is made on a permanent basis.2. Information on in-grade promotions and performance rankings is not available within the centrally held HR administrative system and so this information has not been provided.3. Promotions have been assigned to a grade based on the grade the individual was promoted from, rather than their new final grade. Where grades have been grouped together, the total represents all individuals from either grade who were promoted within the financial year. I.e. G7/G6 will represent all individuals who were promoted from a G7 grade and all individuals who were promoted from a G6 grade.4. Average Staff in Post is based on the total on-strength headcount of individuals at this grade at the end of each month in the 12-month period of interest5. Rate of promotions represents the total number of promotions that occurred in the year per 100 average staff in post Data on the number and proportion of promotions in HMPPS by grade for 24/25 can be found in the HM Prison & Probation Service Staff Equalities Report: 2024-2025 in Table 4b. HM Prison & Probation Service Staff Equalities Report: 2024-2025 - GOV.UK It is not possible to provide the requested data on ‘in-grade promotion’ as this definition does not exist within the Department. It is not possible to provide the data requested broken down by performance marking because the Ministry of Justice uses a rolling cycle of regular performance management conversations – there is no set reporting year or end of year markings. Since 2019, the flexible Performance Management Framework in the Civil Service has enabled Departments to adopt a Performance Management approach to best suit their organisational and cultural needs. There is no common performance rating across Government, and there is no common definition of ‘performance year’.Data on the number and proportion of promotions in HMPPS by grade for 24/25 can be found in the HM Prison & Probation Service Staff Equalities Report: 2024-2025 in Table 4b. HM Prison & Probation Service Staff Equalities Report: 2024-2025 - GOV.UK It is not possible to provide the requested data on ‘in-grade promotion’ as this definition does not exist within the Department. It is not possible to provide the data requested broken down by performance marking because the Ministry of Justice uses a rolling cycle of regular performance management conversations – there is no set reporting year or end of year markings. Since 2019, the flexible Performance Management Framework in the Civil Service has enabled Departments to adopt a Performance Management approach to best suit their organisational and cultural needs. There is no common performance rating across Government, and there is no common definition of ‘performance year’.

How many and what proportion of staff in each grade in his Department were rated in the top performance category in the last year.

The Ministry of Justice operates a continuous performance management approach based on a rolling cycle of regular performance conversations between line managers and staff members. As such, the Department does not hold the data requested.