Written questions by McMurdock.

What evidence his Department has that culturally sensitive and anti‑racist youth justice programmes funded by the Youth Justice Board deliver sustained, long‑term reductions in reoffending beyond initial pilot phases.

The Youth Justice Board (YJB) is funding a ‘pathfinder’ pilot project in the West Midlands to better understand why interventions are achieving better outcomes for White children than for Black and Mixed heritage children. It was established in 2024 and its total cost is estimated at £750,000 over four years. The YJB has not yet provided the Ministry of Justice with evidence about the project’s early impact – the project is due to run until spring 2027 and be evaluated subsequently.The factors contributing to custodial remand outcomes are complex and multi-layered. Outcomes for children of different ethnic backgrounds show disparities. The YJB’s 2021 report ‘Ethnic Disproportionality Remand and Sentencing in the Youth Justice System’ outlines these in more detail. The report found that even after controlling for demographic and offence-related factors, children of Mixed ethnicity and Black children remained more likely to receive a custodial remand than White children. The Ministry of Justice recognises that remand outcomes reflect a combination of factors across the system, including assessments provided to the court and judicial discretion.All local authorities are required by the YJB’s Data Recording Requirements to submit data that includes consistent and accurate recording of ethnicity data, with quality regularly monitored. The YJB Data Recording Requirements require all YOTs to submit mandatory case level and summary level data to the YJB. This includes the requirements that:All YOTs need to accurately record the ethnicity of all children they are supervising and supporting. Ethnicity is self-identified by the child.YOTs must use the Government harmonised classifications for ethnicity so as to ensure consistency and comparability.

What assessment he has made of the extent to which judicial decision‑making, rather than youth justice practitioner assessments, accounts for disparities in custodial remand outcomes for children of different ethnic backgrounds.

The Youth Justice Board (YJB) is funding a ‘pathfinder’ pilot project in the West Midlands to better understand why interventions are achieving better outcomes for White children than for Black and Mixed heritage children. It was established in 2024 and its total cost is estimated at £750,000 over four years. The YJB has not yet provided the Ministry of Justice with evidence about the project’s early impact – the project is due to run until spring 2027 and be evaluated subsequently.The factors contributing to custodial remand outcomes are complex and multi-layered. Outcomes for children of different ethnic backgrounds show disparities. The YJB’s 2021 report ‘Ethnic Disproportionality Remand and Sentencing in the Youth Justice System’ outlines these in more detail. The report found that even after controlling for demographic and offence-related factors, children of Mixed ethnicity and Black children remained more likely to receive a custodial remand than White children. The Ministry of Justice recognises that remand outcomes reflect a combination of factors across the system, including assessments provided to the court and judicial discretion.All local authorities are required by the YJB’s Data Recording Requirements to submit data that includes consistent and accurate recording of ethnicity data, with quality regularly monitored. The YJB Data Recording Requirements require all YOTs to submit mandatory case level and summary level data to the YJB. This includes the requirements that:All YOTs need to accurately record the ethnicity of all children they are supervising and supporting. Ethnicity is self-identified by the child.YOTs must use the Government harmonised classifications for ethnicity so as to ensure consistency and comparability.

How many times sentencing courts have departed from sentencing guidelines on the basis of the interests of justice in each of the last three years.

The data necessary to answer these questions is not held centrally by the Ministry of Justice.

Whether departures from sentencing guidelines on the grounds of the interests of justice are recorded in sentencing data.

The data necessary to answer these questions is not held centrally by the Ministry of Justice.

With reference to the judgment in R (on the application of PACCAR Inc and others) v Competition Appeal Tribunal and others [2023] UKSC 28 as of 26 July 2023, what recent assessment his Department has made of the potential impact of the judgment on the UK’s position as a global centre for dispute resolution and on the wider legal services sector.

The Government recognisessthat the PACCAR judgment introduced significant uncertainty about whether Litigation Funding Agreements remain valid and brought to light concerns about the regulatory regime that applies to them.That is why, on 17 December 2025, we announced our intention to introduce legislation to mitigate the effects of the PACCAR judgment and bring in proportionate regulation of litigation funding agreements. Third-party litigation funding plays a critical role in access to justice and in maintaining the attractiveness of England and Wales as a jurisdiction and we are committed to ensuring it works fairly for all. We will outline next steps in due course.

In what proportion of trials juries reached a not guilty verdict in each year since 2020.

The Ministry of Justice publishes data on the volume and sentencing outcomes of cases heard at the magistrates’ court for triable either way offences and indictable offences (i.e., trials without a jury), in the Magistrates’ Court data tool, that can be downloaded from the Criminal Justice Statistics landing page here: Criminal justice statistics quarterly - GOV.UK.The volume and sentencing outcomes of cases heard at the Crown Court is available in the Crown Court data tool by offence type. This includes the number of cases which are convicted and acquitted.

In what proportion of trials without a jury was a not guilty verdict given in each year since 2020.

The Ministry of Justice publishes data on the volume and sentencing outcomes of cases heard at the magistrates’ court for triable either way offences and indictable offences (i.e., trials without a jury), in the Magistrates’ Court data tool, that can be downloaded from the Criminal Justice Statistics landing page here: Criminal justice statistics quarterly - GOV.UK.The volume and sentencing outcomes of cases heard at the Crown Court is available in the Crown Court data tool by offence type. This includes the number of cases which are convicted and acquitted.

With reference to the judgment in R (on the application of PACCAR Inc and others) v Competition Appeal Tribunal and others [2023] UKSC 28 as of 26 July 2023, what recent assessment his Department has made of the potential impact of the judgment on the stability and functioning of the litigation funding sector.

The Government recognisessthat the PACCAR judgment introduced significant uncertainty about whether Litigation Funding Agreements remain valid and brought to light concerns about the regulatory regime that applies to them.That is why, on 17 December 2025, we announced our intention to introduce legislation to mitigate the effects of the PACCAR judgment and bring in proportionate regulation of litigation funding agreements. Third-party litigation funding plays a critical role in access to justice and in maintaining the attractiveness of England and Wales as a jurisdiction and we are committed to ensuring it works fairly for all. We will outline next steps in due course.

What assessment he has made of the adequacy of AI-generated transcripts in criminal proceedings; and how errors will be a) identified, b) challenged and c) corrected.

HMCTS recognises the significant potential for AI transcription to drive productivity across the courts and tribunals. As such, HMCTS is piloting how automated transcription (using AI) could be used across all courts and tribunals, including criminal courts. This work is one of 15 AI Exemplar projects across Government.At the start of 2025, HMCTS completed testing of how AI Transcription could be used to enhance efficiency in the Immigration and Asylum Chamber. This work evidenced strong accuracy, and potential efficiency gains achievable through AI-enabled transcription.In line with HMCTS Responsible AI principles, any work to scale the provision of AI-generated transcripts across the courts and tribunals will establish robust processes for how errors will be a) identified, b) challenged and c) corrected.

Pursuant to the Answer of 23 December 2025 to Question 100768, whether AI-generated transcripts will have the same evidential status as human-produced transcripts for the purposes of a) appeals and b) judicial review.

HMCTS recognises the significant potential for AI transcription to drive greater efficiency and opportunities for expanding open justice across the courts and tribunals. As such, HMCTS is piloting how automated transcription (using AI) could assist judges in preparing and writing decisions in the Immigration and Asylum Chamber. This work is one of 15 AI Exemplar projects across government.In line with HMCTS Responsible AI principles, any work to scale the provision of AI-generated transcripts across the courts and tribunals would need to ensure appropriate human manual review processes and define the evidential status of AI-generated transcripts. In other words, AI transcripts are reviewed by humans to ensure fairness and accuracy.

How many foreign nationals currently serving custodial sentences for sexual offences are held in prisons in England and Wales.

A breakdown of Foreign National Offenders (FNOs) by offence group is published in the Annual prison population statistics and the most recent publication can be found here: prison-population-2025.ods. Please see Table_1_A_26, which shows the breakdown as of 30 June 2025.As these statistics are published annually, we are not able to provide a more recent breakdown.Between 1 November 2024 and 31 October 2025, we removed over 2,700 FNOs under the Early Removal Scheme, that is more than the number removed over the same period in the 2024, and a significant 74% increase compared to the same period in 2023. It will free up much-needed space in our prisons.

How many foreign national sex offenders have been convicted in each year since 2020.

The Ministry of Justice publishes information on convictions and sentencing information for sexual offences in the Outcomes by Offence data tool, that can be downloaded from the Criminal Justice Statistics landing page here: Criminal justice statistics quarterly - GOV.UK.However, it is not possibly to identify whether the offender was a foreign national. This information may be held in court records but to examine individual court records would incur disproportionate costs.

How many foreign nationals convicted of sexual offences have been convicted of (a) a further sexual offence and (b) other violent offences after release from custody in the UK in each year since 2020.

The Ministry of Justice publishes information on convictions and sentencing information for sexual offences in the Outcomes by Offence data tool, that can be downloaded from the Criminal Justice Statistics landing page here: Criminal justice statistics quarterly - GOV.UK.However, it is not possibly to identify whether the offender was a foreign national. This information may be held in court records but to examine individual court records would incur disproportionate costs.

How many foreign nationals who were convicted of sexual offences were given suspended custodial sentences in each year since 2020.

The Ministry of Justice publishes information on convictions and sentencing information for sexual offences in the Outcomes by Offence data tool, that can be downloaded from the Criminal Justice Statistics landing page here: Criminal justice statistics quarterly - GOV.UK.However, it is not possibly to identify whether the offender was a foreign national. This information may be held in court records but to examine individual court records would incur disproportionate costs.

What assessment he has made of the potential impact of increased trials without juries on the number of judicial review applications.

Following reforms to the criminal courts, judicial review of criminal court decisions will be available in the same circumstances as it is currently. We might expect to see an increase in the number of applications, given we expect to see more cases retained in the magistrates’ courts; however, the permission stage of a judicial review will mean that only those with proper grounds for a judicial review will progress.

What assessment he has made of the adequacy of the capacity of magistrates’ courts to handle additional triable-either-way cases.

The magistrates’ court is an effective and efficient jurisdiction – In the 12 months to September 2025 it disposed of 1,448,163 cases with an average timeliness (offence to case completion) for the most recent quarter of 191 days. The Government will ensure there are sufficient numbers of magistrates and will seek to ensure that there are sufficient magistrates’ court sitting days to meet additional demand placed on the system.An impact assessment for the criminal court reforms will be published alongside legislation in the usual way. In 2024, triable either way offences in the magistrates’ courts completed more than four times faster than in the Crown Court.The Government has already made significant additional investment in the criminal justice system – in record sitting days, court buildings and technology, and in legal professionals. We have secured record investment (up to £450 million per year for the courts system over the Spending Review period), and we are investing almost £150 million to modernise the court estate, including magistrates’ courts. Discussions about the allocation for 2025-26 between the Deputy Prime Minister and Lady Chief Justice continue and we will provide more detail in due course. Nevertheless, the Deputy Prime Minister has been clear that sitting days in the Crown Court and magistrates’ courts must continue to rise.We are also accelerating our programme to recruit more new and diverse magistrates over the coming years and we continue to recruit high levels of legal advisers to ensure courts remain resilient.

What assessment he has made of whether the discretion for courts to depart from sentencing guidelines in the interests of justice affects the (a) consistency and (b) effectiveness of sentencing outcomes.

All sentencing courts in England and Wales must follow any sentencing guidelines which are relevant to the offender’s case, unless it is in the interests of justice not to do so (by virtue of section 59 of the Sentencing Code). Whilst there is a high bar for departing from the guidelines, it is necessary, in the interests of justice, that courts retain the discretion to do so, where the individual case and circumstances warrant it. If a court departs from the guidelines, it must give reasons for doing so. As mentioned in my previous response, the Sentencing Council has a statutory duty to monitor and evaluate all definitive guidelines to assess their impact on sentencing outcomes and ensure they operate as intended. Analysis conducted by the Council between 2010 and 2015 demonstrated that the vast majority of sentences imposed for offences for which there were offence-specific guidelines were within the sentence range set out in the guidelines. The findings are presented in the Council’s annual reports for 2010/11 through 2014/15 which are available on its website. As part of its ongoing monitoring of the use of guidelines, the Council conducts quantitative and qualitative research to determine how the guidelines are being used and the effect they are having on sentencing practice. These evaluations will highlight any issues if departures from guidelines are commonplace for a particular offence(s) or aspect of sentencing.

What estimate he has made of the cost to the public purse of administering Employment Tribunal cases in which awards are subsequently not paid.

The information requested is not held centrally by HM Courts and Tribunals service.

What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of current mechanisms for enforcing Employment Tribunal awards where employers refuse to pay compensation.

The Government is committed to tackling the issue of unpaid employment tribunal awards. The civil courts in England and Wales offer several different enforcement methods that a judgment creditor may apply for to recover money or property owed on a court order or judgment. These processes are individually designed to address different financial circumstances; and collectively they aim to make it as difficult as possible for judgment debtors to avoid their responsibilities. This also includes the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (Acas) and Employment Tribunal Fast Track enforcement scheme whereby a claimant can instruct a High Court Enforcement Officer (HCEO) to act on their behalf.We recognise the challenges associated with enforcing employment awards. We are therefore strengthening enforcement options through the Employment Tribunal Penalty scheme which will move to the Fair Work Agency (FWA) once established. The proposed powers of the FWA are set out in the Employment Rights Bill and we are committed to ensuring that it has the appropriate resources to discharge its responsibilities. The FWA will work closely with HMRC, the Insolvency Service and other relevant enforcement bodies to do this as effectively as possible. This will include considering how to use existing powers to tackle misuse of phoenix companies.

What plans he has to publish recordings made of trials heard without a jury; and what safeguards will govern the use of those recordings for (a) scrutiny and (b) appeals.

Transcription services are available for all Crown Court cases. We are exploring the potential use of AI to produce transcripts more quickly and cost effectively.As recommended by Sir Brian Leveson in his Independent Review of the Criminal Courts, the Government will introduce audio recording equipment in magistrates’ courts. This measure supports our changes to the appeals process in magistrates’ courts, to mirror the current process in the Crown Court, which will ensure that victims and witnesses are no longer required to go through the trauma of a full re-hearing.