Every parliamentary written question tabled by Andrew Snowden this session, with the full answer and department. Back to the MP page.
Showing 1–20 of 91 · Ministry of Justice
Pursuant to the answer on 29 July 2026 to question 3142 on youth reoffending rates, what comparative assessment he has made of the reoffending rate for (a) short custodial sentences, (b) longer custodial sentences for children,(c) community-based sentences and (d) diversion programmes.
Awaiting answer.
What progress he has made on court digitisation; and what steps he is taking to ensure data processing is secure and accurate.
Awaiting answer.
What recent assessment has been made of trends in the level of prison overcrowding.
Awaiting answer.
What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care on mental health provision in prisons.
Awaiting answer.
How the additional £46 million investment in the Turnaround programme will be allocated across local authority areas.
Awaiting answer.
What steps he is taking to improve information-sharing between agencies involved in youth safeguarding and justice.
Awaiting answer.
What assessment he has made of the potential impact of short custodial sentences on youth reoffending rates.
Awaiting answer.
What metrics will be used to evaluate the effectiveness of early intervention programmes in preventing youth offending.
Awaiting answer.
What steps he is taking to ensure youth justice reforms adequately address violence against women and girls.
Awaiting answer.
Whether the proposed expansion of Parenting Orders will include the introduction of additional powers for courts.
Awaiting answer.
In which areas his Department plans to pilot Youth Intervention Courts.
Awaiting answer.
What assessment his Department has made of the impact of misogynistic online content on youth offending behaviour.
Awaiting answer.
What assessment he has made of the potential impact of the proposed Youth Intervention Courts on rates of youth reoffending.
Awaiting answer.
What plans he has to increase the number of specialist domestic violence courts.
Awaiting answer.
What recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the First-tier Tribunal in resolving park home disputes.
No specific assessment has been made of the effectiveness of the First-tier Tribunal Property Chamber in resolving park home disputes. However, the Ministry of Justice regularly considers the performance of tribunals more widely. Statistics are published on a quarterly basis and can be found at: htpps://www.gov.uk/government/collections/tribunals-statistics
Whether the Government has considered establishing periodic review procedures for High Court injunctions granting lifelong anonymity to offenders convicted of serious crimes committed as juveniles.
The High Court has been clear that the making of an injunction to grant lifelong anonymity to protect the identity of a now adult person convicted of a serious offence as a child, should be exceptional. In practice, such injunctions are made very rarely.The court will consider whether there is a real and immediate risk of serious physical harm or death or if the offender’s rights under the European Convention on Human Rights justify making the injunction as a necessary and proportionate step. In doing so the court will balance these factors against the right of the media and others to freedom of expression.An application can be made to the High Court to end an injunction. To be successful, it must be demonstrated that the conditions justifying the making of the injunction are no longer in place.This Government has no current plans to establish periodic review procedures for these injunctions.
What recent assessment he has made of the potential impact of mandatory disclosure of unspent criminal convictions on rates of reoffending.
We are committed to helping people with convictions overcome barriers to employment and turn away from reoffending. The criminal records regime is designed to play a role in this process, balancing the need to safeguard the public, with enabling ex-offenders to rebuild their lives. We recognise, however, that disclosure requirements can impact on an individual’s chances to reintegrate into society. That is why the Deputy Prime Minister confirmed that we are considering the recommendation made by Sir Brian Leveson in his independent review of the Criminal Courts, including opportunities to simplify the regime to ensure it is clear and proportionate, particularly in relation to childhood offences. We are also committed to reducing barriers to employment in other ways, as we know that employment reduces the chance of reoffending significantly, by up to nine percentage points in the year following release. For example, last year we launched regional Employment Councils, which for the first time bring businesses together with prisons, probation and the Department of Work and Pensions to support offenders leaving prison back into work.
What assessment they have made of the potential impact of the decision to require the deletion of the Courtsdesk archive on the principle of open justice and transparency in the justice system.
There has been no deletion of the Courtsdesk “archive”. Under the terms of the agreement between HMCTS and Courtsdesk, Courtsdesk agreed that it would not hold any court data provided to it for more than 6 months. It acted outside the terms of that agreement. The nature of the “archive” it created does not relate to court records, as has been misreported. Courtsdesk has, essentially, created a historic database of court listing information. In any event, we are taking steps, in discussion with Courtsdesk, to resolve issues where possible whilst protect personal data. I met recently with the CEO of Courtsdesk.Court records have always been, and will remain, available through formal request to the relevant court.
What steps his Department is taking to ensure timely and accurate access to magistrates court listings and registers for the public and media following the deletion of the Courtsdesk archive.
The starting point is there has been no deletion of the Courtsdesk “archive”.Magistrates’ court listing and registers data continues to be available online, by email, in courts, and over the phone.Work is underway to improve the way in which Magistrates and Crown court lists are available. First, we have launched a market engagement exercise for new providers to reuse our data under a new licensing regime (which would be open to Courtsdesk to apply for); second, in the interim, we have contacted Courtsdesk, and I have met with its CEO, with a view to potentially reestablishing their service provided they can demonstrate they will comply with our data protection requirements; third, by the end of March we will be expanding the Court and Tribunal Hearings (CaTH) service, an online portal which allows journalists and the public to access and search court-related information. By the end of March, CaTH will include Magistrates’ and Crown Court lists alongside the Civil, Family and Tribunal hearing lists already published.Court records have always been, and will remain, available through formal requests to the relevant court.
If he will set out the specific data protection concerns cited by HM Courts & Tribunals Service in its November 2025 cessation notice to Courtsdesk; and what assessment he has made of the reasons that data protection concerns could not be resolved without requiring deletion of the archive.
The concerns which led to the cessation of data sharing with Courtsdesk were based on the unauthorised sharing of HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) data with another party outside of the terms of the arrangement. Courtsdesk agreed under the terms of its pilot arrangement with HMCTS not to provide data to another company without notification to or authorisation by HMCTS. It acted outside the terms of that agreement by sharing data with a third-party AI company. The data provided to the other party without authorisation included sensitive, personally identifiable information of individuals involved in criminal cases, such as their full name, address and date of birth.HMCTS takes seriously its responsibility to handle data safely to protect those people whose data it holds, and this left termination of the arrangement as the most appropriate course of action.There has been no deletion of the archiveThe Ministry of Justice is doing three things: first, we have launched a market engagement exercise for new providers to reuse our data under a new licensing regime (which would be open to Courtsdesk to apply for); second, in the interim, we have contacted Courtsdesk, and I have recently met with its CEO, with a view to potentially reestablishing their service provided they can demonstrate they will comply with our data protection requirements; third, by the end of March we will be expanding the Court and Tribunal Hearings (CaTH) service, an online portal which allows journalists and the public to access and search court-related information. By the end of March, CaTH will include Magistrates’ and Crown Court lists alongside the Civil, Family and Tribunal hearing lists already published.