Written questions by Snowden.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Whether she will have discussions with the Solicitors Regulation Authority on standards of ethical behaviour of (a) solicitors’ and (b) barristers’ during (i) police interviews and (ii) court proceedings.

The legal profession and regulation of the profession in England and Wales operates independently of government. This framework is set out in the Legal Services Act 2007. Regulation of the sector is carried out by independent regulators, overseen by the Legal Services Board (LSB). The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) is responsible for regulating the professional conduct of solicitors and law firms in England and Wales, while the Bar Standards Board (BSB) regulates barristers.An independent legal services sector is a pillar of the rule of law. Accordingly, it would not be appropriate for ministers or their officials to seek to influence how individual solicitors or barristers are regulated.Nevertheless, while ministers do not play any role in individual disciplinary matters, the Ministry of Justice maintains regular dialogue with the legal regulators in respect of their statutory functions. This ensures that regulatory independence is respected while also supporting the wider objective of protecting consumers and maintaining public confidence in the justice system.Solicitors advising clients during police interviews or throughout court proceedings are bound by professional duties, as set out in the SRA’s Code of Conduct. Barristers are bound by the BSB Handbook, which requires them to act with honesty, integrity, and independence. Both regulators have powers to investigate allegations of professional misconduct and to take disciplinary action where necessary. For solicitors, this includes sanctions such as fines or referral to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, which can suspend or strike a solicitor off the roll. The BSB can refer cases of professional misconduct to the independent Bar Tribunals and Adjudication Service, whose Disciplinary Tribunal has powers to impose sanctions, including suspension or disbarment.

How many prisoners failed drugs tests in each of the last 12 months.

The information requested could only be obtained at disproportionate cost. Data on the total number of random mandatory drug tests carried out is published as part of the HMPPS Annual Digest. The most recently released version confirms that in the 12 months to March 2025, there were 53,341 random mandatory drug tests, however, the data is currently not sufficient to robustly estimate the percentage positive. The Digest can be accessed via the following link: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/hmpps-annual-digest-april-2024-to-march-2025. Statistics regarding needs, rather than use, are included in the 'Identified offender needs, custody and community, 31 October 2024'. This shows the level of drug misuse need amongst the prison population. It can be accessed via the following link: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/identified-offender-needs-custody-and-community-31-october-2024/identified-needs-of-offenders-custody-and-community-31-october-2024. We conduct targeted drug testing in custody to help keep people safe and identify individuals who may benefit from a treatment referral, or inform disciplinary action. To drive down demand for drugs and support recovery, there are also 85 prisons with Incentivised Substance Free Living Units. These provide a dedicated, supportive environment for any prisoner who wants to live drug-free in prison. To bring together this rehabilitative and security focused approach to tackling drug use, 54 Drug Strategy Leads in key prisons are working to ensure that local drug strategies are effectively implemented.

If she will make an assessment of the potential merits of automatically transferring prisoners in open prisons who fail drugs tests to Category C prisons.

Prisoners held in open conditions can be re-categorised to higher security conditions at any time if their risk increases, if there is a material change in circumstances that impacts security risk, or information (including existing information not considered before) is identified that indicates that the prisoner cannot safely be managed in the current security conditions. The purpose of categorisation is to ensure that those sentenced to custody are assigned the lowest security category appropriate to managing their risk.

What the average length of time spent by prisoners in open prisons was in the last (a) 12 months, (b) three years and (c) five years.

Prisoners may be accommodated in more than one open prison during the course of a sentence. The data that would need to be collated to calculate the average length of time in open conditions is not held centrally and could not be obtained without incurring disproportionate cost.

What meetings her Department has had with (a) prison officers, (b) prison officers' unions and (c) other representative bodies of prison staff to discuss assaults in open prisons in the last 12 months.

We have maintained regular and structured engagement with staff and their recognised trade union representatives on this matter. All prison governors in the open estate routinely hold local staff engagement forums, providing frontline officers with the opportunity to raise concerns or share feedback. His Majesty’s Prison & Probation Service (HMPPS) ensures that the safety statistics, which are published, reviewed, and discussed quarterly with recognised trade unions, including the POA. These meetings form part of HMPPS’s formal engagement and allow unions to raise concerns on safety matters. There are also more frequent open-estate trade union stocktakes to provide additional engagement opportunities on this issue, and other matters of concern to members. HMPPS headquarters officials meet every two weeks with governors of open prisons, and convene quarterly forums specifically focused on open prison operations, where safety is a standing agenda item. These engagements reflect our continuing commitment to transparency, collaboration, and continuous improvement in custodial safety.