Commons Sense

House of Commons · Ministerial Statement

Court Reporting Data

10 February 2026 · 12 other contributors

Opened by Sarah Sackman Lab Finchley and Golders Green

Justice & CourtsStandards & Ethics

Summarised by AI from the official record, so it can contain mistakes.

Read the full transcript on Parliament.uk

At a glance

Sarah Sackman raised concerns about court reporting data in the House of Commons. A government minister responded. Other MPs also contributed.

Key points

  • Sarah Sackman, Courts Minister, expressed commitment to transparency in the justice system.
  • A pilot project initiated in 2020 by HMCTS with Courtsdesk aimed to make court data more accessible and user-friendly for journalists.
  • Courtsdesk breached their agreement by sharing private and sensitive information with a third-party AI company, leading the Government to cease the agreement.

How the debate unfolded

MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said.

Government Statement

Sarah Sackman

Sarah Sackman, as Courts Minister, expressed her commitment to transparency in the justice system. She highlighted a pilot project initiated in 2020 by HMCTS with Courtsdesk to make court data more accessible and user-friendly for journalists. However, she revealed that Courtsdesk had breached their agreement by sharing private and sensitive information, including addresses and dates of birth, with a third-party AI company. As a result, the Government decided to cease the agreement with Courtsdesk and instruct them to remove all personal data from their digital platform. Sackman emphasised that this action is crucial for maintaining dignity in the justice system and protecting victims' rights. She also assured that ceasing the agreement does not affect public access to court information or journalists’ ability to report on it, but officials are working on an alternative platform with proper data protection measures.

Other contributors (12)
  • Kieran Mullan Con Bexhill and Battle

    Question

    The shadow Minister accused the Government of restricting transparency in courts by using a data breach as an excuse to cease the agreement with Courtsdesk. He questioned why they did not meet with Courtsdesk despite requests, highlighting that more than 1,500 journalists had used the platform and threatened legal action against HMCTS for deleting court lists.

    Minister reply

    Sarah Sackman clarified that there was no deletion of any court records, but rather a cessation of an agreement due to data breach by Courtsdesk. She stated that sensitive personal information, including addresses and dates of birth, had been shared with third-party AI companies in violation of the agreement. The Minister emphasised the importance of safeguarding individuals' data while maintaining open justice.

  • Andrew Slaughter Lab Hammersmith and Chiswick

    Question

    The MP acknowledged the importance of Courtsdesk as a centralised source for journalists but questioned how they could continue to access information legally. He asked when HMCTS would replace the service and whether ongoing talks with Courtsdesk were possible.

    Minister reply

    Sarah Sackman confirmed that officials are working on an alternative platform to maintain accessibility while ensuring proper data protection measures. She mentioned that a licensing arrangement is being initiated for wider availability, aiming for increased accessibility next month.

  • Jessica Brown-Fuller Lib Dem Chichester

    Question

    Asked the Minister to explain why her Department ignored letters from Courtsdesk, questioning the decision to do away with the system and emphasising the utility of Courtsdesk in providing clear and accurate information for reporters. She also asked about suspending deletion until the Information Commissioner’s Office has investigated.

    Minister reply

    The minister clarified that accredited journalists continue to have access to court information directly from individual magistrates courts and tribunal services, despite Courtsdesk's breach of its agreement with HMCTS. The timeline for a new platform is set for end-March 2026. She emphasised the need for data protection while balancing open justice requirements.

  • Neil Shastri-Hurst Con Solihull West and Shirley

    Question

    Asked when the MOJ first became aware of issues related to Courtsdesk and when it reported those issues to the ICO.

    Minister reply

    The minister stated that the report to the ICO has not yet been made, but she raised the matter with her data officer. The advice was that it did not meet the threshold for an ICO referral, although the matter is being reviewed again.

  • Julian Lewis Con New Forest East

    Question

    Asked about investigations into how much personal information has been released and who may be at risk due to an AI machine having access to people's private home addresses.

    Minister reply

    The minister acknowledged the concern over 700 individual cases shared with an AI company, seeking further understanding of additional data sharing. She emphasised the seriousness of the breach and the need for stricter guardrails.

  • Tessa Munt Lib Dem Wells and Mendip Hills

    Question

    Asked if there was a clause in the contract that prevented release of personal and sensitive data, suggesting the company is in breach of its agreement.

    Minister reply

    The minister confirmed that the original agreement prohibited further sharing with additional parties. Courtsdesk breached this by sharing information with an AI company, which she considers irresponsible.

  • Julian Smith Con Skipton and Ripon

    Question

    Asked about dispute resolution efforts and what will be new in the next procurement process.

    Minister reply

    The minister explained difficulties with dispute resolution due to litigation threats, emphasising the need for a more formal agreement to prevent breaches. She outlined plans for licensing different parties through tendering and strengthening licence agreements.

  • Rupert Lowe Ind Great Yarmouth

    Question

    Asked about private prosecutions against those who failed in addressing rape gang inquiries, questioning the deletion of court records.

    Minister reply

    The minister clarified that only magistrates court lists and outcomes are being deleted by Courtsdesk, not court transcripts or other data. She emphasised that such data remains intact and accessible through usual channels.

  • Katie Lam Con Weald of Kent

    Question

    For decades, victims, survivors, campaigners, whistleblowers and journalists have fought to force the British state to reveal the whole truth about the rape and grooming scandal. The data held by Courtsdesk could be invaluable in uncovering the truth. How can the Minister ask victims, survivors and any of us who care about the truth to rely on that, especially in the context of the most disgusting cover-up in our nation’s history?

    Minister reply

    I share the hon. Lady’s concern regarding the victims, whom we so often fail to centre in our discussions in this House. As a Government, we have demonstrated time and again our commitment to open justice. The data shared with Courtsdesk was listing data and, in some cases, the outcomes of those cases. We continue to make that information available to journalists in the same way as before 2020.

  • Lincoln Jopp Con Spelthorne

    Question

    The Minister complains that it is currently the wild west out there, and hopes that we can somehow regulate it. Why was the Minister’s judgment not to go away and immediately question the advice that she received from her Department?

    Minister reply

    I regard the data breach of the agreement as serious, and I referred it to the data officer at the MOJ. That is the conclusion they have reached, and I have accepted their advice. We are conducting a further review in light of new information.

  • Jim Shannon DUP Strangford

    Question

    The fact that justice should be open and transparent is not negotiable. However, completely scrapping it without a viable alternative does not provide confidence in the judiciary; it does the opposite. Will the Minister reassure the House and those outside about the decision that has been taken?

    Minister reply

    I want to be really clear that the data held by Courtsdesk is not an archive of criminal court case files. Court lists, which are important, continue to be available to the public and journalists. Enhanced listing remains open to journalists, ensuring transparency and open justice.

Shadow Comment

Kieran Mullan

Kieran Mullan criticised the Government for their lack of transparency, citing previous instances where they failed to release important documents or information. He argued that the Courtsdesk project had been successful, benefiting over 1,500 journalists by providing them with collated court data. Mullan accused the Minister and her officials of refusing to meet with Courtsdesk and major media organisations despite numerous requests, suggesting a deliberate attempt to obstruct transparency in courts. He questioned why they refused to engage with Courtsdesk when the system was crucial for maintaining open justice and ensuring accountability.

▸ Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy