Written questions by O'Brien.

With reference to his Answer of 2 February 2026 to Question 109199, how many unique offenders were convicted for a theft offence and did not receive immediate custody in 2024 with 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 previous convictions for a theft offence, broken down by individual number of previous convictions.

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.

How many people were (a) convicted of theft from a shop and (b) did not receive an immediate custodial sentence, broken down by (i) year of conviction in each of the past five years, and (ii) the number of previous occasions the offender had been convicted of theft from a shop.

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.

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.

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.

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 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 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 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 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 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.

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.

In the past twelve months, how many disciplinary cases were concluded against civil servants in (a) his Department and (b) its agencies broken down by (i) outcome and (ii) whether the primary allegation related to (A) performance and (B) conduct.

The Ministry of Justice holds all staff to high standards of professional conduct. Where behaviour falls short of those standards, appropriate action is taken in line with established policies and procedures.Number of Conduct and Discipline cases in the Ministry of Justice broken down by agency and outcome (1st April 2024 to 31st March 2025) Not a penaltyAny other penaltyDismissalMOJ HQ010~HMPPS250939405HMCTS~5529Office of the Public Guardian~10~Legal Aid Agency0~0CICA0~0MoJ Overall2661017442 The central ePM case management system cannot identify the main allegation in a case or distinguish whether each allegation concerns performance or conduct. Its categorisation structure does not allow disciplinary data to be separated into conduct versus performance cases. Additionally, poor performance issues are handled through a separate policy and system, which is not included in the disciplinary case data. Caveats1. The above table is created from Conduct and Discipline records held in the ePM case management system. This only includes formal disciplinary actions and will exclude any local disciplinary actions taken.2. Due to differences in the data matching processes, very slightly different methodologies have been used to calculate the figures for HMPPS compared to the non-HMPPS agencies.3. This information only includes cases that concluded between 1st April 2024 and 31st March 2025 where the case had a known and recorded outcome and where the agency of the individual could be determined.4. Cases can have multiple outcomes, and therefore the highest level penalty has been used to determine the outcome in the table. If the outcome was appealed, the outcome of the appeal has been taken as the final outcome of the case. The 'Dismissal' category includes summary dismissals and 'Any other penalty' includes both disciplinary action and financial penalties.5. Within the centrally held ePM case management system, it is not possible to determine the primary allegation made against the individual or whether each allegation is specifically related to performance or conduct.6. This data is based on the latest information available as at the end of June 2025. Further data regarding the 2024 - 2025 financial year may be received in future data provisions and therefore these figures may be subject to change.7. For some cases, information is incomplete and we have conducted data cleaning to improve data quality where possible. We are in the process of improving the ePM data pipeline. Figures may change slightly in the future as data quality improves.~ denotes values of 2 or fewer, suppressed for reasons of data protection, or values suppressed for reasons of secondary suppression to prevent disclosure in cases where totals would reveal suppressed values8. The case categorisations on the system does not allow the breakdown of figures into conduct and performance groups. There is a separate poor performance policy and case management system which is separate to the disciplinary cases presented in the table

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.