Since 28 February 2020, 601 claims for damages have been brought against government departments, excluding the Department for Health and Social Care, in litigation conducted by the Government Legal Department (GLD).

GLD conducts most, but not all, litigation on behalf of government departments. For example, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs normally conducts its own litigation.

GLD is unable to give the amount of damages sought in each case because that information is not always available at the early stage of the case and whether such information is available could not be ascertained without examining every case file and thus incurring disproportionate costs.

In response to the current unprecedented situation, the Government has announced that risk-assessed prisoners who are within two months of their release date will be temporarily released from jail.

Prisoner releases are being phased over time to ensure stringent risk assessments can be carried out and that the required support for offenders is in place. No prisoner will be released without housing and health support being in place.

If an individual does not have identified accommodation to be released to, then probation services will investigate options for securing temporary accommodation.

To facilitate this process, we are working with several public, private and voluntary sector providers to secure a range of accommodation options.

We are not able to release the requested information. This is because the number of prisoners, within our transgender data collection, who have reported they are declared male on their birth certificate who self-identify as female and are located on female prison wings, is five or fewer[1]. Low numbers are suppressed to prevent disclosure in accordance with the Data Protection Act, 1998. This applies to values of five or fewer or other values which would allow values of five or fewer to be derived by subtraction. This is to prevent the identification of individuals. For this reason, we are also not able to release information on the number of assaults that have been committed, as the number of perpetrators of such crimes would be low and could also lead to the identification of individuals.

The Ministry of Justice is fully mindful of the need to manage risk and to balance the rights of all prisoners in the women’s estate. We are committed to ensuring that transgender offenders are treated fairly, lawfully and decently, with their rights and safety properly respected. Regardless of where a transgender individual is being held, we expect that they will be respected and addressed in the gender with which they identify.

[1] Details of the number of transgender prisoners were provided by Equalities Representatives in public and private prisons in England and Wales, between 26 March 2019 and 24 April 2019. Transgender prisoners were defined as those individuals known within prison to be currently living in, or are presenting in, a gender different to their sex assigned at birth and who have had a case conference (as defined by PSI 17/2016 The Care and Management of Transgender Offenders). The prison population is dynamic and as such the number of transgender prisoners currently in prison may now differ from the number at the time data was collected

We are not able to release the requested information. This is because the number of prisoners, within our transgender data collection, who have reported they are declared male on their birth certificate who self-identify as female and are located on female prison wings, is five or fewer[1]. Low numbers are suppressed to prevent disclosure in accordance with the Data Protection Act, 1998. This applies to values of five or fewer or other values which would allow values of five or fewer to be derived by subtraction. This is to prevent the identification of individuals. For this reason, we are also not able to release information on the number of assaults that have been committed, as the number of perpetrators of such crimes would be low and could also lead to the identification of individuals.

The Ministry of Justice is fully mindful of the need to manage risk and to balance the rights of all prisoners in the women’s estate. We are committed to ensuring that transgender offenders are treated fairly, lawfully and decently, with their rights and safety properly respected. Regardless of where a transgender individual is being held, we expect that they will be respected and addressed in the gender with which they identify.

[1] Details of the number of transgender prisoners were provided by Equalities Representatives in public and private prisons in England and Wales, between 26 March 2019 and 24 April 2019. Transgender prisoners were defined as those individuals known within prison to be currently living in, or are presenting in, a gender different to their sex assigned at birth and who have had a case conference (as defined by PSI 17/2016 The Care and Management of Transgender Offenders). The prison population is dynamic and as such the number of transgender prisoners currently in prison may now differ from the number at the time data was collected

The decision to prosecute UK citizens who fought in Syria is taken independently of Government by the CPS with the permission of the Attorney General as the guardian of the public interest where required by statute. The public interest in prosecuting these cases is considered on a case by case basis taking account of the factors set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors and the surrounding circumstances. There is no policy of prosecuting those who fought against ISIL forces and not prosecuting those who fought against UK-backed forces.

The DPP has regular meetings with the Attorney General about the work of the Crown Prosecution Service. The CPS makes its prosecution decisions independently. The DPP is required to seek the AG’s permission before she gives her consent to the prosecution of certain offences under terrorism legislation. The AG makes those decision in line with the Protocol between the Attorney General and the Prosecuting Departments, that is ‘independently of government, applying well established prosecution principles of evidential sufficiency and public interest.’

The performance of the DPP is reviewed on a regular basis and the Attorney General has regular meetings with the DPP about the work of the Crown Prosecution Service. The Crown Prosecution Service is also regularly inspected by HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate which includes looking at performance within each area and on a national level for thematic reports.

The Crown Prosecution Service does not currently intend to change the wording recommended by Sir Richard Henriques for public announcements of decisions not to charge an individual, namely that “the case failed to meet the evidential test”.

The Crown Prosecution Service has no immediate plans to change the wording of the evidential stage of the full Code test.

All members of the Parole Board, including psychologist members, are subject to quality assurance processes. Members are assessed as part of their accreditation to make decisions and there is on-going, routine quality assurance thereafter.

Cases where there has been a serious further offence within three years of a Parole Board decision to release are reviewed by the Board’s Review Committee and any learning that is identified is used to inform future policy, guidance and training.

The Parole Board also has a Standards Committee that focuses on developing and promoting high standards of practice across the whole of the Board.

The civil justice system provides an individual with a route to pursue a legal claim and potential damages against other parties. However, it would not be appropriate for the Government to intervene directly in private law proceedings.

Where the release of a prisoner is at the discretion of the Parole Board, the panel must apply the statutory release test which requires the Board to be ‘satisfied that it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public that a prisoner should be confined’.

Parole panels comprise one or more members according to the needs and complexity of the case. Some, but not all, Parole Board panels include a psychologist member of the Parole Board.

At an oral hearing, the parole panel will hear evidence and witnesses may include a prison psychologist and/or an independent psychologist.

Psychologist members of the Parole Board do not undertake psychological assessment of prisoners nor do they give evidence to the parole panel. They sit in the same capacity as other members of the panel to assess the risk of serious harm to the public. The panel must determine whether the public would be at risk of further serious violent or sexual offending if the prisoner were to be released. Psychologist members have professional knowledge of psychology to assist the panel in considering the psychological assessment that forms part of the broad range of evidence before the panel.

Where the release of a prisoner is at the discretion of the Parole Board, the panel must apply the statutory release test which requires the Board to be ‘satisfied that it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public that a prisoner should be confined’.

Parole panels comprise one or more members according to the needs and complexity of the case. Some, but not all, Parole Board panels include a psychologist member of the Parole Board.

At an oral hearing, the parole panel will hear evidence and witnesses may include a prison psychologist and/or an independent psychologist.

Psychologist members of the Parole Board do not undertake psychological assessment of prisoners nor do they give evidence to the parole panel. They sit in the same capacity as other members of the panel to assess the risk of serious harm to the public. The panel must determine whether the public would be at risk of further serious violent or sexual offending if the prisoner were to be released. Psychologist members have professional knowledge of psychology to assist the panel in considering the psychological assessment that forms part of the broad range of evidence before the panel.

The Code for Crown Prosecutors (the Code) sets out the general principles Crown prosecutors must follow when they make decisions on cases.

The full Code test has two stages. Crown prosecutors must be satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction against each suspect or defendant on each charge. If the case does pass the evidential stage, Crown prosecutors must proceed to the second stage and decide if a prosecution is needed in the public interest.

The Crown Prosecution Service has adopted the wording recommended in the 2016 report of Sir Richard Henriques for public announcements of decisions not to charge an individual, namely that “the case failed to meet the evidential test”. That terminology is not a comment on the strength or weakness of the evidence in any particular case.

The test applied by prosecutors continues to be that set out in the Code.

On 9 July the Government announced the action it is taking to tackle the apparent increase in claims for gastric illness by holidaymakers.

It is for individual regulators including the Solicitors Regulation Authority and the Claims Management Regulation Unit to take disciplinary action where rules of conduct have been broken. Regulators can and do refer cases to the police for investigation where they believe that a criminal offence may have been committed.

The government has not yet issued a consultation on making legal services regulators independent from their representative bodies, and will respond to the Competition and Markets Authority’s report and recommendations shortly.

The final report of the Insurance Fraud Task Force (January 2016) included a recommendation that the government should consider strengthening the enforcement powers of the Solicitors Regulation Authority. We are reviewing the position on this and considering what further action may be appropriate.

The government has not yet issued a consultation on making legal services regulators independent from their representative bodies, and will respond to the Competition and Markets Authority’s report and recommendations shortly.

The final report of the Insurance Fraud Task Force (January 2016) included a recommendation that the government should consider strengthening the enforcement powers of the Solicitors Regulation Authority. We are reviewing the position on this and considering what further action may be appropriate.

The government has not yet issued a consultation on making legal services regulators independent from their representative bodies, and will respond to the Competition and Markets Authority’s report and recommendations shortly.

The final report of the Insurance Fraud Task Force (January 2016) included a recommendation that the government should consider strengthening the enforcement powers of the Solicitors Regulation Authority. We are reviewing the position on this and considering what further action may be appropriate.

The government has not yet issued a consultation on making legal services regulators independent from their representative bodies, and will respond to the Competition and Markets Authority’s report and recommendations shortly.

The final report of the Insurance Fraud Task Force (January 2016) included a recommendation that the government should consider strengthening the enforcement powers of the Solicitors Regulation Authority. We are reviewing the position on this and considering what further action may be appropriate.

The government has not yet issued a consultation on making legal services regulators independent from their representative bodies, and will respond to the Competition and Markets Authority’s report and recommendations shortly.

The final report of the Insurance Fraud Task Force (January 2016) included a recommendation that the government should consider strengthening the enforcement powers of the Solicitors Regulation Authority. We are reviewing the position on this and considering what further action may be appropriate.

The UK’s world leading legal services industry is based on the talent and professionalism of those who work within it.

The legal profession in England and Wales is independent from government, as are the bodies that regulate it. The Law Society is the body with statutory authority to regulate solicitors. It is required to ensure the independence of its regulatory function, which is delivered through the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority.

It would be for the police to investigate any allegations of criminal conduct. If the police consider, after investigation, that there is a case to answer they will place the matter before the Crown Prosecution Service for action.

Where an issue of public concern needs investigating, the Minister may cause an inquiry to be held under the Inquiries Act 2005. There are no current plans to set up an inquiry into the ethics of lawyers.