Commons Sense

House of Commons · Ministers' Questions

High Street Crime

Tuesday 3 June 2025 · 3 questions

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

Read the full transcript on Parliament.uk

At a glance

Answered 1 Partly answered 2 Not answered 0

Key points

  • Ministerial responses indicate that 60% of people given short custodial sentences reoffend within a year.
  • The Lord Chancellor supports the use of ancillary orders such as travel bans to prevent offenders from entering specific areas like high streets.
  • The Lord Chancellor defended the 28-day period for appealing unduly lenient sentences, stating it is necessary for the Attorney General to have sufficient time to consider such referrals.

Topics (select to filter)

Questions & Answers

Q1 Stuart Anderson Con South Shropshire
Crime & Law Enforcement Justice & Courts
Context

High street crime is increasing and residents expect strong action, including proportionate sentencing. Short-term prison sentences are being considered for removal.

Question

South Shropshire residents would expect high street crime to be dealt with, and proportionate sentencing and appropriate deterrents. How will removing short-term prison sentences achieve any of that?

Answer from Shabana Mahmood (The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice)

The hon. Member should know that 60% of all people who are given a short custodial sentence go on to reoffend within the year, so clearly the system that we have does not work. We cannot simply sit back and keep doing things that we know result in increased reoffending in communities that we all want to protect. We have to look at interventions that will make a difference. Tough community punishment produces better reductions in reoffending than short sentences. We will consult Members across the House as we prepare our Bill in the coming weeks to make sure that we have a strong package of unpaid work and other measures designed to toughen up community punishment.

Partly answered

Not addressed: Did not directly address how removing short-term prison sentences will specifically deter high street crime.

How: Hedging Language

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)

Get updates like this by email
Q2 Shaun Davies Lab Telford
Justice & Courts
Context

Ancillary orders, such as bans from shops and high streets, are part of the answer to high street crime. The police need to apply for these orders in court.

Question

Does the Lord Chancellor agree that when it comes to sentencing, ancillary orders, including those banning offenders from shops and high streets, are part of the answer? We need the police, together with the Crown Prosecution Service, to apply for them, and when an offender appears in court, we need the courts to issue those orders when sentencing.

Answer from Shabana Mahmood (The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice)

My hon. Friend raises an important point. He is right that so-called ancillary orders, often referred to as travel bans, bans from seeing football and bans on the ability to go to particular areas, are an important part of the package of measures that the Gauke review has recommended. We have accepted those in principle and I look forward to working with my hon. Friend and other colleagues as we draw up our package of proposals for the upcoming sentencing Bill.

Answered
Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)

Get updates like this by email
Q3 Kieran Mullan Con Bexhill and Battle
Justice & Courts
Context

Victims of crime have only 28 days to appeal unduly lenient sentences, while criminals can appeal indefinitely. Campaigners Katie Brett and Ayse Hussein from Justice for Victims are seeking more time.

Question

Whatever the sentence or offence, victims and families deserve a meaningful and fair route to appeal sentences that are unduly lenient. Twenty-eight days for people who have experienced deep trauma, when criminals get an unlimited time to appeal, is not meaningful or fair. Can the Lord Chancellor explain to campaigners such as Katie Brett and Ayse Hussein from Justice for Victims why she is not willing to give them more time?

Answer from Shabana Mahmood (The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice)

If the shadow Minister ever did any homework, he would know that it is always the Attorney General who has to agree and sign off on unduly lenient sentencing referrals. Our proposals are there to make sure that the Attorney General always has a full 28-day period to consider and make rulings that often help victims. He will also know that the Law Commission is looking at that work.

Partly answered

Not addressed: Did not provide clear reasons for not extending the timeframe; instead defended current arrangements.

How: Deflection

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)

Get updates like this by email