Policy paper

Changes to release and sentencing policy governing serious and dangerous offenders: Equalities Impact Assessment

Updated 2 August 2023

Purpose of this document

This document has been prepared to assist the Secretary of State for Justice in complying with the Public Sector Equality Duty in relation to the following measures in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts (PCSC) Bill (now Act) and to assist Parliament in its scrutiny of these measures:

a) amend the proportion of the sentence that is served in custody by certain offenders given a standard determinate sentence (SDS) of 4 to 7 years’ imprisonment;

b) amend the proportion of the sentence that is served in custody prior to consideration for Parole Board release by offenders given a Sentence for Offenders of Particular Concern (SOPC);

c) amend the way that discretionary life sentence tariffs are calculated to base the tariff length on what the two-thirds point of an equivalent determinate sentence would be, rather than basing it on the half-way point;

d) expand the criteria for whole life orders (WLOs) so that it will be the sentencing starting point for offenders who commit the premeditated murder of a child as proposed in the Sentencing White Paper 2020;

e) enable the court to impose a whole life order (WLO) for offenders aged 18 or over but under 21 (when the offence was committed) in extremely exceptional circumstances;

f) make a number of technical changes to the legislation around the powers of the Parole Board and the setting of release licence conditions;

g) amend the appropriate extension period for driving disqualifications where a custodial sentence is also imposed to address the change in release point; and

h) amend multi agency public protection arrangements (MAPPA) to strengthen measures with regards to terrorist and terrorist risk offenders.

i) introduce a provision that imposes a life sentence in all cases of the unlawful act manslaughter of an emergency worker who is exercising their functions as such a worker by an offender who is aged 16 or above, unless the court considers there are exceptional circumstances that justify the imposition of a different sentence.

j) create mandatory annual referrals for offenders sentenced to imprisonment for public protection where the qualifying period has expired, for the Parole Board to consider whether their licence should be terminated.

This analysis supports the Secretary of State in fulfilling his duty under the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) by having due regard to the equality impact of implementing the proposed provisions.

This document assesses the potential equalities benefits and risks that have been identified in relation to each policy change. It considers the justification for the changes, any necessary mitigating actions which have been proposed to reduce the likelihood of the risks and includes an assessment of any equalities benefits.

Ministry of Justice and the Public Sector Equality Duty

Under the Equality Act 2010^{[footnote 1]}, when exercising its functions, the MoJ has an ongoing legal duty (PSED) to pay due regard to the need to:

• eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation and other prohibited conduct under the Equality Act 2010;
• advance equality of opportunity between different groups of persons who share a protected characteristic and those who do not; and
• foster good relations between different groups.

We also recognise that the MoJ, as a service provider, has a duty to make reasonable adjustments for disabled people.

Having due regard to the PSED needs to be considered in light of the nine protected characteristics:

• Race
• Sexual Orientation
• Marriage/Civil Partnership
• Gender (sex)
• Religion or Belief
• Gender Reassignment
• Disability
• Age
• Pregnancy/Maternity

Policy A: Move of automatic release point from halfway to two-thirds for certain offenders sentenced to a standard determinate sentence of between 4 and 7 years

Policy summary

Section 244(3) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (the 2003 Act) provides that almost all offenders serving an SDS of less than 7 years are automatically released from custody at the halfway point of their sentence and serve the remaining half of the sentence on licence in the community. The only current exception to this is terrorist offenders, who are subject to discretionary release by the Parole Board between the two-thirds and end point of their sentence.

The Release of Prisoners (Alteration of Relevant Proportion of Sentence) Order 2020 changed by statutory instrument the automatic release point from halfway to two-thirds of their sentence for offenders who are:

a) convicted of a specified offence listed in Parts 1 and 2 of Schedule 15 of the 2003 Act for which the maximum penalty is life; and

b) sentenced to an SDS of 7 years or more.

This change applied prospectively to offenders sentenced on or after 1 April 2020. Those not convicted of a specified offence listed in Parts 1 and 2 of Schedule 15 of the 2003 Act for which the maximum penalty is life but who are given an SDS of 7 years or more will still be automatically released halfway through their sentence, as will those sentenced prior to 1 April 2020.

This policy seeks to change the automatic release point from halfway to two-thirds of the sentence for those convicted of offences specified in Table D of Annex A of this document who are given an SDS of 4 years or more and less than 7 years. These offences are sexual and violent offences found in Parts 1 and 2 of Schedule 15 of the 2003 Act for which the maximum penalty is life.

This change will apply to the same cohort of sexual offenders who are required to serve two thirds of the sentence in prison if given an SDS of 7 years or more. This means that anyone who receives an SDS of 4 years or more for any sexual offence for which the maximum penalty is life imprisonment, including rape, assault by penetration and child sexual offences, will be required to serve two thirds of the sentence in prison. The change will also apply to those offenders who are given an SDS of 4 to 7 years for the most serious violent offences for which the maximum penalty is life – those convicted of manslaughter, soliciting murder, attempted murder, and wounding/causing grievous bodily harm with intent– bringing the release policy governing these offenders in line with that governing those who receive an SDS of 7 years or more for these same offences.

The offences specified in Table D of Annex A have been chosen because they are deemed to have the highest impact on victims. The nature and seriousness of these offences is such that the offender should serve longer in custody where given a sentence of 4 years or more.

The objective of this change is to ensure the most serious violent and sexual offenders given a longer SDS spend two-thirds of their sentence in custody. It brings their point of release into line with that for those serving extended determinate sentences (EDS). The EDS is for serious offenders deemed dangerous by the court and their release from the two-thirds point is at the discretion of the Parole Board. However, those not deemed dangerous can still be convicted of very serious offences – the very same offences for which an EDS is available – and removing this inconsistency in the more serious cases seeks to better protect the public and improve confidence in the administration of justice.

This policy will only apply to adults (aged 18 and over) given an SDS for the offences noted in Table D of Annex A and would not be applied retrospectively – i.e. to those already serving such a sentence on the date any subsequent legislation relating to this policy is implemented. Provisions in the Act that alter release for offenders who are children can be found in the Equality Statement for provisions relating to Under 18s. Data in this equality statement uses those sentenced in 2019.

In making this change, the Government will also enshrine in primary legislation the Release of Prisoners (Alteration of Relevant Proportion of Sentence) Order 2020. There will be no impact on offenders who are affected by the Order. An Equality Statement was published alongside the Order.^{[footnote 2]}

Sources of information

The main source of information used for this analysis is data on Criminal Justice System (CJS) outcomes (specifically sentencing) by age, sex and ethnicity in the annual Criminal Justice System Statistics Quarterly (CJSQ), which is published every May.^{[footnote 3]}

We have also consulted:

Ethnicity and the Criminal Justice System 2020;^{[footnote 4]}

Statistics on Women and the Criminal Justice System 2019;^{[footnote 5]}’^{[footnote 6]}

Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) Offender Equalities Annual Report 2020 to 2021;^{[footnote 7]}

Homicide in England and Wales: year ending March 2020;^{[footnote 8]}

Sexual Offences in England and Wales: year ending March 2017;^{[footnote 9]} and

The Nature of Violent Crime in England and Wales: year ending March 2020.^{[footnote 10]}

Availability of data

Detailed data about sentenced prisoners in the affected cohort is widely available for three of the nine protected characteristics – age, sex and ethnicity. We have used this data for our equality analysis. Although there are some data available on those serving sentences of imprisonment by other protected characteristics (see Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) Offender Equalities 2020/21 report^{[footnote 11]}) this does not allow us to compare the cohort of prisoners who will be affected by this change as we cannot match offenders by these characteristics to sentence length. We have not presented data where they are not available at sufficient quality and with sufficient coverage to be meaningful. Data is presented where known, therefore where sex, ethnicity or age are not stated or unknown they are omitted from analysis.

The published Custodial Sentence Length Breakdowns within Criminal Justice Statistics are banded as ‘up to and including 7 years’, which means that ‘7 years inclusive’ is included in the affected cohort for the purpose of an equalities analysis. This will overlap slightly with the Equalities Statement from the previous policy, which includes 7 years exactly but for 2018 data.^{[footnote 12]}

Protected characteristics

The proposed change will have a direct impact on those offenders who are:

a) convicted of any sexual or certain violent offences listed in Schedule 15 (Parts 1 and 2) of the 2003 Act for which the maximum penalty is life (as specified in Table D of Annex A); and

b) sentenced to an SDS of 4 years and over but less than 7 years.

These offenders will spend 17% more of their sentence in custody, with the equivalent reduction in the time spent under probation supervision on licence in the community. In our view, the shorter period of probation supervision should not affect rehabilitation adversely as the period of supervision will remain at least one year and offenders can begin their rehabilitation towards the end of the custodial period. The change will also affect the offenders’ families including spouses and civil partners as well as children, but data on the impact on marriage/civil partnership is unavailable.

The attached data show the number of offenders who would be affected by this change when applied to 2020 sentencing statistics, broken down by sex, ethnicity and age, and are based on the number of people sentenced to an SDS in 2020.^{[footnote 13]} There were 633 adult offenders overall sentenced to an SDS of 4-7 years in 2020 for the offences listed in scope (Table D of Annex A), representing 14% of all SDS given for this sentence length. For the purposes of this analysis, we have compared those sentenced to an SDS of 4-7 years in 2020 for a relevant offence with individuals who would receive an SDS with a conditional release date at 50% of their custodial sentence and not affected by the policy – i.e. those convicted of such an offence but receiving less than 4 years and those convicted of other offences who receive 4-7 year sentences. Those sentenced to an SDS of 7 years or more for the offences in scope would have already been covered in the previous Release of Prisoners (Alteration of Relevant Proportion of Sentence) Order 2020, for offences carrying a maximum sentence of life in prison, which include all offences found in Table D of Annex A as well as showing offences not in scope as a comparator group.^{[footnote 14]}

Table 1: Breakdown of the affected group (SDS 4-7 years and for Offences in Scope) with comparator groups.

SDS Sentence Length	Offences not in Scope	Offences in Scope	Total
SDS under 4 years	53,622	477	54,099
SDS 4-7 years	4,012	591	4,603
SDS 7+ years	Not included in analysis
Total	57,634	1,068	58,702

The data suggests that some characteristics may be overrepresented in the offender population affected by this change, while other characteristics are represented in similar proportions in the ‘affected group’ (as described at paragraph 18) and in the ‘comparator group’ (all those serving an SDS of between 4 and 7 years). Specifically:

Sex

There is a slightly higher proportion of males in the affected group. Of the 621 offenders sentenced to an SDS of 4-7 years in 2020 for offences in Table D of Annex A, 95% were male and 5% female, compared to 92% males not in scope of the policy and 7% females. This sex breakdown is consistent across the Criminal Justice System, and reflects the different offences generally committed by males and females, and therefore the longer custodial sentence lengths that they receive.

Age

There are different sentencing regimes in place for adults and children and this Equality Statement refers only to changes to release for those aged 18+. Analysis for changes to release affecting children can be found in Under 18s Equality Statement, to reflect the different purpose and focus of the youth justice system.

Younger people (18-24) appear to be overrepresented. According to 2020 data, the proportion of 18-24-year-olds who would be affected by this policy was 30%, compared to 18% not affected. This reflects the fact that wounding/grievous bodily harm with intent is more likely to have been committed by 18-24-year-olds than any other age group. The proportion of 25-29 year olds affected by this policy is the same as the proportion among those out of scope at 19%.For 30-39-year-olds, the proportion of those in scope is 29% compared with 35% of those not in scope, and 11% of those in scope are aged 40-49 compared to 19% of those not in scope. The proportion of those aged over 50 affected by this policy was slightly higher at 11%, compared to 9% of those who would not be affected. The change may have a greater impact on older prisoners over time since the policy relates to offenders spending a greater proportion of their sentence in custody and the pool of older offenders in prison is likely to grow as a result.

Ethnicity

Where ethnicity was known, the proportion of White offenders in the unaffected group (80%) decreases to 78% for the affected group who would be in scope of the change. This is due to a slight increase in the proportion of Black (10% compared to 9%) ethnic groups. The proportion of Asian offenders was similar in the unaffected group (6%) and the affected group (5%). The proportion of Mixed offenders was higher in the affected group (5%) than in the unaffected group (3%). The proportion of Chinese and Other in scope of the policy (1%) was slightly lower than those not, though numbers are very small and should be interpreted with caution.

Other protected characteristics

Data on other protected characteristics by sentence length and type is unavailable, however the below gives a brief overview of available data on protected characteristics within the CJS. No conclusions should be made about the impact of this policy on them, as we are unable to make a reasonable assessment. Although we do not currently have reliable data on these other protected characteristics, we are considering ways to improve the data collection for offenders in scope of the policy.

Disability

We are not able to identify by this protected characteristic those affected by this policy. However, we do not consider that these proposals are likely to result in any discrimination for people with disabilities. Our proposals recognise that it remains important to continue to make reasonable adjustments for disabled offenders, defendants, victims, witnesses and courts and tribunals users to make sure appropriate support is given to enable rehabilitation and fair access to justice, as well as support for our staff.

Religion or belief

At the end of June 2021, 45% of the prison population self-reported to be of a Christian faith, a decrease of 13 percentage points since June 2002.^{[footnote 15]} The proportion of Muslim prisoners increased over the same period by 10 percentage points to 18%. However, we are not able to identify by this protected characteristic those affected by this policy.

Marriage/Civil partnership

We are not able to identify by this protected characteristic the cohort of offenders affected by this policy.

Sexual orientation

At the end of March 2021, 97% of prisoners in England and Wales who declared a sexual orientation reported that they were heterosexual,^{[footnote 16]} slightly higher than that of the UK general population in which 94% identified as heterosexual in 2019.^{[footnote 17]} However, we are not able to identify by this protected characteristic those affected by this policy.

Pregnancy/maternity

We are not able to identify by this protected characteristic those affected by this policy. We will continue to ensure the provision of Mother and Baby Units in prisons, and support within community settings.

Victims

The change will also affect the victims, and the families of the victims, of these offenders in particular, and the public in general, in that they will feel protected for longer from the risks presented by the offender and will be more likely to consider that the punishment better reflects the harm they have suffered. It will also increase the confidence of victims and the public in the administration of justice.

We are not able to identify by protected characteristics the victims of the specific cohort of offenders affected by this change.

Equality considerations

Direct discrimination

Direct discrimination occurs when a policy would result in people being treated less favourably because of a protected characteristic. Our assessment is that these changes are not directly discriminatory within the meaning of the 2010 Act, as they apply in the same way to all individuals regardless of their protected characteristics. It is the nature of the offence and the seriousness of their offending, reflected in the sentence they receive, that determines whether the changes apply. No offender will be treated less favourably in relation to any protected characteristic.

Indirect discrimination

Indirect discrimination occurs when a policy applies equally to all individuals but would put those sharing a protected characteristic at a particular disadvantage compared to those who do not. Our initial assessment is that these changes are not indirectly discriminatory within the meaning of the Equality Act as explained below.

By virtue of the overrepresentation of these groups in the cohorts of offender to which these policies apply, taking the policies together we acknowledge that any adverse impacts arising from these changes will be more likely to affect male, non-White and older prisoners.

Males are substantially overrepresented in relation to the most serious sexual and violent offences and sentences, which reflects the different offences generally committed by males and females. Males are more likely than females to receive a sentence of immediate custody for indictable offences and have a higher average custodial sentence length (21.9 months compared with 13.2 months for indictable offences in 2020). Many more male offenders than female are sentenced for sexual offences, and these sentences are getting longer.^{[footnote 18]}

In general, non-White ethnic groups appear to be over-represented at most stages throughout the CJS, compared with the White ethnic group, and among non-White ethnic groups, Black and Mixed individuals are often the most over-represented, particularly among the prison population.^{[footnote 19]} Black and Asian offenders have consistently had the longest average custodial lengths since 2012.^{[footnote 20]}

Older prisoners (defined in statistics as being aged 50 and over) in custody comprised 17% of the prison population as at July 2021. They had been increasing steadily before stabilising during 2018, primarily due an increase in the proportion of sexual offenders in custody, who typically have an older age profile than the general prison population.^{[footnote 21]}

We do not, however, consider that these overrepresentations will likely result in any particular disadvantage for offenders with protected characteristics. Our assessment is that the changes described by these policy proposals is a proportionate means of achieving our aim to better protect the public by ensuring the custodial time better reflects the severity of the crime. There will also be benefits for victims of serious sexual and violent crime, plus an improvement in confidence in the administration of justice. Overall, therefore, we do not consider that these policy changes are likely to result in any unlawful indirect discrimination.

HMPPS already has measures in place which will help offenders who will spend longer in prison. Longer periods in custody can be used to work with offenders on strengthening relationships with families or significant others. Following the 2017 publication of Lord Farmer’s review into the importance of family ties for male prisoners, £6.3 million has been devolved to Governors of all public-sector prisons to deliver family engagement services. As of January 2022, the in-cell Telephony Project has also equipped 68 public-sector prisons with the technology that allows people in custody to make telephone calls from their cell, to allow more frequent family contact for offenders serving longer sentences. A further 14 public-sector prisons are in the process of being fitted with in-cell telephony.

In 2018, HMPPS issued a special Model of Operational Delivery for older prisoners, which was developed in recognition of the sizeable and growing proportion of older prisoners in the prison estate. It addresses how services and interventions may be tailored to enable all older prisoners to maintain their physical and mental wellbeing, and their independence. In addition, prisons are required to agree and sign off a Memorandum of Understanding with their local authority partners, which sets out how services will work locally together. This work has ensured that HMPPS and local authorities have engaged to ensure capability and capacity to deliver social care as defined in the Care Act 2014 at a local level.

Policy B: Ensure all offenders sentenced to a ‘SOPC’ serve two-thirds before they can be considered for Parole Board release

Policy summary

Under the original SOPC provisions in the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015, such offenders are released at Parole Board discretion between the halfway and end points of the custodial term. Due to the recent changes in legislation relating to certain terrorist offences, there is now a disparity between terrorist offenders who receive a SOPC and who can only be released, at the earliest, after having served two-thirds of their custodial term and offenders who receive a SOPC for two child sex offences (rape of a child under the age of 13 and sexual assault by penetration of a child under 13) and who continue to be eligible for release from the halfway point of their custodial term.

We intend to amend the release point of the SOPC sentence to require that all SOPC offenders must serve two-thirds of their custodial term before they become eligible to be considered for release by the Parole Board. If not released by the Board, they will continue to serve the entirety of the custodial term as now, followed by a mandatory 12-month period on licence.

Availability of data

We are not able to identify by protected characteristic the cohort of offenders affected by this policy.

Equality considerations

We do not think there will be any disproportionate effects of this proposal. SOPCs are given to a relatively small number of offenders and this change will only apply to those receiving a SOPC for two specified (serious) child sex offences. The vast majority of such offenders are male. However, the change to SOPCs is necessary to achieve consistency with other parts of the sentencing framework and we believe that any disproportionate effect on male offenders is therefore justified in the circumstances.

Policy C: Amend the way that discretionary life sentence tariffs are calculated

Policy summary

A discretionary life sentence can be given for offences which carry a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, including offences such as robbery, rape or manslaughter. The court may impose a discretionary life sentence where it is justified by the seriousness of the offence and, in the court’s opinion, the offender poses a significant risk to the public of serious harm by committing further specified offences. A discretionary life sentence can also be given where an offender has committed a second serious or violent offence (the so-called ‘two strikes’ provision).

On sentencing, the judge will set a minimum term that the offender must serve in prison, known as the tariff. Although judges have discretion in this area and can set a longer minimum term if they think a particular case warrants it, the standard approach to setting the tariff is for the sentencing judge to decide what the notional determinate sentence would be for the offence committed. The tariff is then calculated to be half of that notional determinate sentence, taking into account the release provision which requires SDS prisoners to be released automatically at the halfway point in their sentence.

We propose to change the standard approach to calculating discretionary life sentence tariffs so the tariff length is based on two thirds of an equivalent determinate sentence, rather than half of such a sentence.

Availability of data

We are not able to identify by protected characteristic the cohort of offenders affected by this policy.

Equality considerations

We have considered whether there are any disproportionate effects of this proposal. Although the majority of those receiving discretionary life sentences are male, we again believe that the change to the way tariffs for these sentences are calculated is necessary to achieve consistency with other parts of the sentencing framework and that any disproportionate effect on male offenders is justified in the circumstances.

Policy D: Ensure Whole Life Orders are the sentencing starting point for premeditated murder of a child

Policy summary

When handing down a (mandatory) Life sentence in cases of murder, it is for the sentencing judge to determine how long the offender must spend in prison having regard to the relevant guidance. Currently, the imposition of a whole life order (WLO) is the appropriate starting point, in sentencing terms, for the following:

• Murder of two or more persons involving a substantial degree of premeditation or planning, abduction of the victim or sexual or sadistic conduct;
• Murder of a child involving the abduction of a child or sexual or sadistic motivation;
• Murder of a police or prison officer in the course of his or her duty;
• Murder done for purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause; or
• Murder by an offender previously convicted of murder.

The Government proposes to legislate to expand this list of circumstances so that a WLO will be the sentencing starting point for offenders who commit the premeditated murder of a child. We believe that it is only right that such offenders who commit the most serious offence against those who are the most vulnerable in society should potentially receive the highest possible punishment.

Availability of data

We are not able to identify by protected characteristic the cohort of offenders affected by this policy.

Equality considerations

In expanding Schedule 21 of the 2003 Act to include that a WLO is the sentencing starting point for offenders who commit the premeditated murder of a child, we have considered the possible disproportionate impacts of the proposal. There is a possibility that the policy may disproportionately affect female offenders as women are more likely to meet the new criteria for killing one or more of their own children. Our proposal will operate within the existing Schedule 21 framework so that judges have the discretion to depart from this and impose a high minimum tariff where appropriate. Where women are found to have killed their own child or children, The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) may bring a charge of infanticide or manslaughter rather than murder. Such offences do not have a whole life order as a starting point and are not affected by these proposals.

Policy E: Imposing Whole life orders on 18-20 year olds in exceptional circumstances

Policy summary

This policy will make it possible for judges to impose whole life orders on offenders aged 18 to 20 in exceptional and serious circumstances. Currently, whole life orders may only be imposed on offenders aged 21 and over when the offence was committed. The policy involves amending provisions in the Sentencing Act 2020, which deals with whole life orders, so that, although it will remain the case that such sentences cannot ordinarily be imposed on offenders below the age of 21, judges will have the option of imposing them in particularly rare and serious cases.

Availability of data

We are not able to identify by protected characteristic the cohort of offenders affected by this policy.

Equality considerations

The policy is likely only to apply to an extremely small group of offenders – those aged 18 to 20 and whose offending is regarded as exceptional even by the existing criteria that governs whole life orders for offenders aged 21 and over. There is a possibility that the policy may disproportionately affect male offenders from the relevant age group as male offenders are more likely to commit extremely serious offences (including murder) than female offenders. However, such an effect is justified as this change is considered necessary as a matter of public interest so that judges may impose whole life orders in extremely rare cases.

Policy F: Technical changes to the legislation around the powers of the Parole Board and the setting of release licence conditions

Policy summary

This Act presents an opportunity for the Secretary of State to fix a number of gaps and omissions in the current legislation, and to reflect current operational practices. These include:

• New powers for the Parole Board to set aside its own decisions if they appear unlawful or fundamentally flawed, and to allow the Secretary of State to ask the Parole Board to re-open a decision if significant new information comes to light;
• Clarification of the circumstances in which either the Parole Board or HMPPS (on behalf of the Secretary of State) are responsible for setting or varying licence conditions;
• Amendments to remove the requirement for a further annual parole review for recalled prisoners where they have 13 months or less left to serve;
• Create an exemption to prevent the need to refer determinate sentence recalled prisoners to the Parole Board every 12 months where another sentence prevents release;
• Amendments to remove the requirement for the Parole Board to either direct ‘immediate’ release or, where applicable, release on a fixed date for recalled prisoners. The amended provision will allow them to direct release in the same way as all other parole cases, without the need to differentiate between immediate or a fixed date;
• Repeal of ‘Recall Adjudicator’ uncommenced provisions (in sections 8 and 9 of and Schedule 3 to the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015) and amendments to enable commencement of the policy in section 10 of the 2015 Act (power to change test for release).

These measures will not deliver significant changes to the existing parole process but are required to bring clarity and improve its operational efficiency and performance. The new powers for the Parole Board and the Secretary of State described in the first bullet point are enshrining into legislation a longstanding process of ‘re-referral’, where fundamentally flawed decisions could be re-opened, that was supported by caselaw but not reflected in legislation. Other provisions on this list will fill gaps in the legislation where explicit provision is required to reflect how the parole process and release following recall operates in practice. The repeal of the recall adjudicator provisions will have no impact because those provisions have never been enacted and are no longer required.

Availability of data

We do not have any data on the impact of the new measures listed above but the Parole Board published diversity data in its 2020/21 annual review and accounts^{[footnote 22]} and these do not reveal any particular biases in the existing system. For example, mixed race prisoners were most likely to be released by the Parole Board (62.6% against an average of 54.3% across all cases). White prisoners were slightly more likely to receive a negative decision than both black or mixed race prisoners (33.7%, 32.1% and 30.4% respectively). Release rates by gender show that female prisoners are more likely than males to be released (66.2% versus 54.3%).

The Parole Board have also taken steps to improve the diversity of their membership and their 2020/21 Annual Review and Accounts shows that of the 274 Parole Board members who made declarations, 164 (60%) were female, 47 (17%) were from a BAME background and 33 (12%) had a disability.

Equality considerations

We have considered whether there will be any disproportionate impacts from this proposal. The changes we have proposed are predominantly technical in nature and will not fundamentally alter the current parole process or how the system operates, which already shows no evidence of bias in the data that is available. We recognise that prisoners with certain protected characteristics are overrepresented in the prison population in England and Wales but we do not think that any prisoner will be disadvantaged due to a protected characteristic as a result of this proposal.

Policy G: Amendments to the appropriate extension period for driving disqualifications where a custodial sentence is also imposed to address the change in release point

Policy summary

The relevant legislative provisions governing driver disqualifications, as included in the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 and the Sentencing Act 2020 function by setting out a discretionary disqualification period and an appropriate extension period. The discretionary disqualification is the length of ban that would have been imposed were no custodial sentence being served, and its length is at the court’s discretion. The extension period is fixed in legislation, for example for those serving an SDS, is described as ‘half the custodial sentence imposed’.

As a consequence of recent changes to release policy for offenders in England and Wales (and, for terrorist offenders, in Scotland as well) we are seeking to amend the legislation to update the appropriate extension period to a driving disqualification when imposed with a custodial sentence, where the release provision of the custodial sentence has changed. The intent being that the extension period length accurately correlates with the new release points for these offenders.

These changes will be retrospective in nature, dependent on when the change in release took effect, so that any offender who’s release point was altered by the recent legislative changes will have their appropriate extension period recast to reflect their new release point. It is the Government’s position that these measures are compliant with Article 7 as they do not increase the substantive penalty imposed by the Court, but instead alter the administration of the sentence.

Without this change in legislation, part of the driving disqualification will be subsumed by the time the offender spends in custody – i.e. less of the driving ban will be experienced by the offender upon release than should be.

Availability of data

We are not able to identify by protected characteristic the cohort of offenders affected by this policy.

Equality considerations

We do not think there will be any disproportionate effects of this proposal as this change only seeks to ensure that the existing legislation functions as intended and makes no substantive change to the policy.

Policy H: Changes to MAPPA provisions

Policy summary

Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) are the set of arrangements through which the Police, Probation and Prison Services work together with other agencies to manage the risks posed by violent, sexual or in this case, terrorist offenders under supervision in the community in order to protect the public.

As part of the Government’s response to the terror attack at Fishmongers’ Hall in 2019, the Lord Chancellor and Home Secretary asked Jonathan Hall QC, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, to review the effectiveness of MAPPA when it comes to managing terrorist offenders and other offenders who may pose a terrorist risk.

Jonathan Hall found that MAPPA is a well-established process and did not conclude that wholesale change is necessary. He made a number of recommendations on how the management of terrorists can be improved through changes to legislation.

The government accepted these recommendations and is proposing to legislate to:

a) Ensure that specified terrorist and terrorist-connected offenders automatically fall under MAPPA, putting this on a mandatory statutory footing.

b) Provide a clear discretionary route for those who are assessed as posing a terrorist risk, whether or not their index offence is for terrorism, so that they may be MAPPA managed.

c) Clarify the lawful basis on which agencies and individuals can share information under MAPPA

d) Create an express statutory power for those agencies or individuals who are not Duty to Cooperate agencies to share information under MAPPA if they are contributing to the management of an offender’s risk

Identification of risk

One of the measures proposed in this Act will provide a new discretionary route for those assessed as posing a risk of involvement in terrorist related activity, so that they may be MAPPA managed, regardless of the offence for which they have been convicted.

All offenders under Probation Supervision are assessed using a structured risk assessment tool, the Offender Assessment System (OASys). It combines the best of actuarial methods of prediction with structured professional judgement to provide standardised assessments of offenders’ risks and needs, helping to link these risks and needs to individualised sentence plans and risk management plans. In addition to OASys, specially trained practitioners may use other structured risk management tools designed to assist in formulating management plans within OASys for extremist offenders. Assessments are informed by information from a range of sources including the offender, prosecution evidence and information from partner agencies.

Practitioners are required to review risk assessments and management plans on a regular basis to ensure that they are effective in mitigating risks and meeting the offending related needs of the individuals under supervision.

Offenders under the age of 18 are managed by multi disciplinary Youth Offending Teams based within Local authorities. They are assessed using a system called AssetPlus. AssetPlus is an assessment and planning interventions framework developed by the Youth Justice Board (YJB). AssetPlus has been designed to provide a holistic end-to-end assessment and intervention plan, allowing one record to follow a child or young person throughout their time in the youth justice system.

Availability of data

There is no MAPPA data available by protected characteristics. However, as these changes will primarily affect those convicted of terrorist or terrorist-connected offences, we have included the most recent available data related to terrorism arrests and convictions. The table below provides a summary of the current equalities data for England, Wales and Scotland as published on 9 December 2021 in the Home Office “Operation of police powers under the Terrorism Act 2000” statistical bulletin to year ending December 2020^{[footnote 23]}, which collects data from Police (National Counter-Terrorism Police Operations Centre), HMPPS (England and Wales) and Scottish Prison Service. While proportions are high for some protected characteristics, numbers are small so care should be taken when interpreting the results.

Protected characteristics

Race/Ethnicity

The Home Office statistical bulletin published in December 2021 of the Operation of police powers under terrorism legislation shows that in the year ending September 2021 there were 188 arrests for terrorism and terrorism-related activity. Of those arrested, 54% were White ethnic appearance, 4% were Black, 26% were Asian, and 16% were identified as Other.^{[footnote 24]}

In the same year, 47 people were charged with terrorism-related offences. Of these, 64% were White, 4% were Black, 26% were Asian, and 6% were Other.

15 individuals were convicted of terrorism-related offences. Of these, 8 were White, none were Black, 6 were Asian, and less than 5 were Other.^{[footnote 25]}

Religion/belief & non-belief

Of the 218 persons in custody for terrorism-related offences as at 30 September 2021, the self-declared religion is as follows: 13% Christian, 70% Muslim, 3% were Other Religious Group, and 12% were of No Religion. There were less than 5 persons in custody who declared their religion as Buddhist (1%).There were no persons in custody for terror-related offences as self-declared Hindu, Jewish or Sikh.^{[footnote 26]}

Disability

Statistics relating to the disability of individuals arrested, charged, or convicted of terrorism or terrorism-related offences are not gathered.

Sex

Of the 188 arrests for terrorism and terrorism-related activity in the year ending September 2021 92% were male, 8% were female. In the same year, 47 people were charged for terrorism-related activity; 91% were male, 9% were female. Of the 15 individuals convicted, all 15 were male.^{[footnote 27]}

Gender reassignment

Statistics relating to gender identity of individuals arrested, charged, or convicted of terrorism or terrorism-related offences are not gathered.

Sexual orientation

Statistics relating to the sexual orientation of individuals arrested, charged, or convicted of terrorism or terrorism-related offences are not gathered.

Age

Of the 188 arrests for terrorism and terrorism-related activity in the year ending September 2021, 13% were of individuals aged under 18, 9% were 18-20, 9% were 21-24, 18% were 25-29, 51% were 30 or over, and 0% were not known. Of the 47 individuals charged, 6 (13%) were under 18, less than 5 (8%) were 18-20, 6 (13%) were 21-24, 13 (28%) were 25-29, 18(38%) were 30 or above.

Of the 15 individuals of those charged that year who were convicted before the end of the year, three (20%) were under 18, one (7%) was 18-20, two (13%) were 21-24, 6 (40%) were 25-29, and 3 (20%) were 30 or over.^{[footnote 28]}

Pregnancy and maternity

Statistics relating to pregnancy or maternity of individuals arrested, charged, or convicted of terrorism or terrorism-related offences are not gathered.

Equality considerations

In making the above changes to MAPPA, we have considered the possible disproportionate impacts of the proposals.

We do not believe that there are any disproportionate effects for the proposal of automatic referrals of terrorist and terrorist-connected offenders to MAPPA. This provision applies to all members of the public who are convicted of a relevant terrorism or terrorism-connected offence. There is therefore no direct or indirect discrimination within the meaning of the Equality Act as the law applies equally to all offenders charged and convicted of these offences and will apply to all relevant terrorist offenders, regardless of ethnicity, religion or otherwise.

Those who are assessed to pose a terrorist risk but have not committed a qualifying offence will be eligible for MAPPA management on a discretionary basis. There is therefore potential for unconscious bias in the determination of MAPPA management. To guard against this possibility, we will ensure that:

a) decisions regarding discretionary MAPPA management are based on information from a range of sources and are supported by all relevant partners;

b) the MAPPA documentation asks specific questions about diversity considerations and serves as a reminder to panels to address these issues;

c) the NPS National Security Division will review the data relating to discretionary cases annually to ensure that offenders are not being referred in to MAPPA on disproportionate grounds.

d) Staff applying such discretion will receive appropriate training and the assessments used will be subject to regular quality assurance procedures

Policy I: Introducing a provision that imposes Life sentences for offenders aged 16 or over who are convicted of the Unlawful Act Manslaughter of an emergency worker who was exercising their functions as such a worker, unless there are exceptional circumstances that justify the imposition of a different sentence

Policy summary

Currently, the maximum penalty for manslaughter is life imprisonment. This is handed down at the discretion of the Court and will depend on all the circumstances of the case. This policy will insert provisions into the Sentencing Act 2020 which will have the effect of requiring the Court to impose life sentences on offenders aged 16 or over who are convicted of the Unlawful Act Manslaughter of emergency workers acting in exercise of their functions as such a worker, unless the Court is of the opinion that there are exceptional circumstances which relate to the offence or the offender and justify the imposition of an alternative sentence. Judges will retain their existing discretion with regards to the minimum term of the life sentence.

The purpose of this policy is to ensure that the sentence reflects the severity of the crime. It is widely recognised that our emergency services put their lives on the line to protect us, and the great societal harm that is caused when an emergency worker is killed should be reflected in the law. That is what this measure intends to achieve.

Availability of data

There is a lack of data surrounding unlawful act manslaughter generally, and the unlawful act manslaughter of emergency workers specifically. The only data recorded is for ‘manslaughter’, and due to the range of offences under this title, it would be misleading to use this data as a basis for the potential impact of this measure. We are therefore not able to identify by protected characteristic the cohort of offenders who will be affected by this policy.

Equality considerations

As explained above, there is a lack of data on convictions for Unlawful Act Manslaughter generally and convictions for unlawful act manslaughter where the victim was an emergency worker specifically. As a result, there is no data on which to reliably analyse what, if any, disproportionate impacts this policy may have on offenders with protected characteristics.

However, it is important to remember that this policy is expected to apply to an extremely small group of offenders, due to the specificity of the circumstances in which the new sentencing provisions apply. Our assessment is that any potential disproportionate impact is a proportionate means of achieving our aim of ensuring that the penalty for the offence in the circumstances set out in the provision better reflect the severity of the crime.

Policy J: Create mandatory annual referrals for offenders sentenced to imprisonment for public protection where the qualifying period has expired, for the Parole Board to consider whether their licence should be terminated

IPP offenders are entitled to make an application to the Parole Board to have their licence terminated once 10 years has elapsed from their first release from prison. The Parole Board will only direct that the licence should cease to have effect if it is ‘satisfied that it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public that the licence should remain in force’. If the Parole Board determines that the licence is no longer necessary, the individual will no longer be subject to the terms of the licence or any supervision under it and cannot be recalled to prison under IPP arrangements.

The Secretary of State has made it his policy to seek to refer every eligible offender to the Parole Board for licence termination. Currently, the Secretary of State applies to the Parole Board on the behalf of eligible offenders, though the Secretary of State must first obtain permission from the offender prior to making the application. This amendment requires the Secretary of State to refer the offender to the Parole Board for licence termination without the need for the Secretary of State to seek prior permission from the offender before doing so. This will better enable the Secretary of State to make applications on behalf of offenders where their permission may be difficult to obtain. It also clarifies that the Secretary of State must refer offenders to the Parole Board if they are in custody following recall under the IPP licence. If so, the Parole Board must instead determine if it is necessary for the protection of the public that, when released, the offender remains under the IPP licence.

Availability of data

Data about IPP offenders is published regularly and we are able to identify protected characteristics in relation to sex, age and race. IPP offenders are overwhelmingly men; as at 30 September 2021, there were 1,661 unreleased IPP prisoners and 1,357 recalled IPP prisoners in prisons. 1,642 (99%) of the unreleased IPP population are men and 19 (1%) are women. 1,334 (98%) of the recalled IPP population are men and 23 (2%) are women.

As at 30 June 2021, around two-thirds (64%) of unreleased IPP prisoners were aged between 30 and 49. There were no unreleased IPPs aged under 25.

As at 30 June 2021, more than three-quarters (77%) of the unreleased IPP population were white, with offenders from a black / black British background accounting for 13%.

Equality considerations

We have considered the possible disproportionate impacts of the proposal. With regards to the protected characteristics we have identified in that paragraph above, any disproportionate impact from this amendment will likely be in relation to sex (men), age (those between 30-49) or white offenders. However, we believe such an impact is justified in the context of the overall change. It should also be noted that this will be a positive impact (as the change itself will facilitate the end of the IPP licence for eligible offenders and will therefore reduce the burden on individuals in terms of compliance with restrictions on liberty).

Equality considerations applicable to all policies

Discrimination arising from disability and duty to make reasonable adjustments

In so far as these changes extend to disabled offenders, we believe that the policies are proportionate, having regard to their aims. It would not be reasonable to make an adjustment for disabled offenders so that they are out of scope of the proposals, but it remains important to continue to make reasonable adjustments for disabled offenders to ensure appropriate support is given. We do not consider that any adjustments are required for disabled people over and above the ones already in place in prisons.

Harassment and victimisation

We do not consider there to be a risk of harassment or victimisation within the meaning of the Equality Act as a result of these changes.

Advancing equality of opportunity

We have had regard to this aspect of the equality duty but do not consider that these changes will affect the advancement of equality of opportunity, although there will be positive impacts for victims which may affect certain groups more.

Fostering good relations

Our assessment is that these changes are unlikely to impact on fostering good relations between groups with different protected characteristics.

Continuing analysis

The equality duty is an ongoing duty and we will draw on any data that could provide evidence on the impact of these changes to inform any future review of how the policies works for all affected offenders, including those with protected characteristics who are currently overrepresented in affected groups.

Annex A

The following data has been extracted from the Criminal Justice Statistics Sentencing Tool

It provides data on the sex, ethnicity and age of adults given a standard determinate sentence (SDS) up to 2020. It shows those given sentences of 4 years or more and those given sentences under 4 years, in each case further identifying those convicted of an offence in Table D.

The Ministry of Justice publishes data on sentencing through quarterly CJS statistics publications. 60,214 adult offenders were recorded as receiving an SDS in 2020.

The following tables indicate the number and proportion of offenders (by the protected characteristics described) who would be affected by the new policy, compared to those who would be unaffected, removing those who would have been covered by the previous policy covering SDS of 7+ years.

Every effort is made to ensure that the figures presented are accurate and complete. However, it is important to note that these data have been extracted from large administrative data systems generated by the courts and police forces. As a consequence, care should be taken to ensure data collection processes and their inevitable limitations are taken into account when those data are used.

Data are given on a principal offence basis. When a defendant has been found guilty of two or more offences it is the offence for which the heaviest penalty is imposed. Where the same disposal is imposed for two or more offences, the offence selected is the offence for which the statutory maximum penalty is the most severe. Data are given on a principal disposal basis – i.e. reporting the most severe sentence for the principal offence.

Table A – Sex

Sex	In Scope	Not in Scope	Total
Males Number	562	53,497	54,059
Males %	95%	92%
Females Number	29	4,281	4,310
Females %	5%	7%

Table B – Ethnicity (where known)

Ethnicity	In Scope	Not in Scope	Total
White Number	345	30,935	31,280
White %	78%	80%
Black Number	46	3,630	3,6818
Black %	10%	9%
Asian Number	25	2,183	2,208
Asian %	6%	6%
Mixed Number	23	1,332	1,355
Mixed %	5%	3%
Chinese and Other Number	5*	631	636
Chinese and Other %	1%	2%
Total where ethnicity is known	444	38,711	39,155

*Care must be taken when interpreting small figures

Table C – Age

Age	In Scope	Not in Scope	Total
18-24 Number	176	10,603	10,779
18-24 %	30%	18%
25-29 Number	113	11,164	11,277
25-29 %	19%	19%
30-39 Number	171	20,857	21,028
30-39 %	29%	35%
40-49 Number	67	11,019	11,086
40-49 %	11%	19%
Over 50 Number	64	5,111	5,175
Over 50 %	11%	9%

Table D – List of qualifying offences

Part 1: Violent offences

No. on Sch 15	Offence	Max penalty
1	Manslaughter	Life
4	Soliciting murder(an offence under section 4 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 (c. 100))	Life
6	Wounding/causing grievous bodily harm with intent to cause grievous bodily harm (an offence under section 18 of the Offences against the Person Act)	Life
65	Attempted murder, conspiracy to commit murder, incitement to commit murder or an offence under Part 2 of the Serious Crime Act 2007 in relation to which murder is the offence (or one of the offences) which the person intended or believed would be committed.	Life

Part 2: Specified sexual offences

No. on Sch 15	Offence	Max penalty
66	Rape (An offence under section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 (c. 69)	Life
70	Intercourse with girl under 13 ( (An offence under section 5 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956)	Life
74	Incest by a man with a girl under 13 ( (An offence under section 10 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956)	Life
86	Permitting girl under thirteen to use premises for intercourse ( (An offence under section 25 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956)	Life
102	Rape ( (An offence under section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (c. 42)	Life
103	Assault by Penetration ( (An offence under section 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003)	Life
105	Causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent ( (An offence under section 4 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 where it is alleged that the activity caused involved penetration within subsection (4)(a) to (d) of that section.	Life
106	Rape of a child and other offence against children under 13 ( (An offence under section 5 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003)	Life
107	Assault of a child under 13 by penetration ( (An offence under section 6 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003)	Life
109	Causing a child under thirteen to engage in sexual activity (An offence under section 8 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 where it is alleged that an activity involving penetration within subsection (2)(a) to (d) of that section was caused	Life
123	Sexual activity with a person with a mental disorder impeding choice (An offence under section 30 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003	Life
124	Causing or inciting a person with a mental disorder impeding choice to engage in sexual activity (An offence under section 31 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003	Life
127	Inducement, threat or deception to procure sexual activity with a person with a mental disorder ( (An offence under section 34 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003)	Life
128	Causing a person with a mental disorder to engage in or agree to engage in sexual activity by inducement, threat or deception ( (An offence under section 35 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003)	Life
135	Paying for sexual services of a child (where victim is <13, penetrative) (An offence under section 47 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003	Life
145	Kidnapping or false imprisonment committed with the intention of committing a relevant sexual offence ( (An offence under section 62(3) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 where the offender commits a kidnap or false imprisonment with the intention of committing an offence under Part 3 of that Act)	Life
152A	An offence under section 2 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 (human trafficking) committed with a view to exploitation that consists of or includes behaviour within section 3(3) of that Act (sexual exploitation)	Life
153	Aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the commission of an offence specified in the preceding paragraphs of this Part of this Schedule. (2) An attempt to commit such an offence. (3) Conspiracy to commit such an offence. (4) Incitement to commit such an offence. ( (5) An offence under Part 2 of the Serious Crime Act 2007 in relation to which an offence specified in the preceding paragraphs of this Part of this Schedule is the offence (or one of the offences) which the person intended or believed would be committed	Same as substantive offence

1. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/pdfs/ukpga_20100015_en.pdf ↩

2. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/158/pdfs/uksipes_20200158_en.pdf ↩

3. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/criminal-justice-system-statistics-quarterly-december-2020 ↩

4. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/ethnicity-and-the-criminal-justice-system-statistics-2020/ethnicity-and-the-criminal-justice-system-2020 ↩

5. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/women-and-the-criminal-justice-system-2019 ↩

6. The Race and Women publications are published biennially (alternating with one another) every November, although equalities data is available every May from the CJSQ. ↩

7. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/hm-prison-and-probation-service-offender-equalities-annual-report-2020-to-2021 ↩

8. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/articles/homicideinenglandandwales/yearendingmarch2020 ↩

9. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/articles/sexualoffencesinenglandandwales/yearendingmarch2017 ↩

10. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/articles/thenatureofviolentcrimeinenglandandwales/yearendingmarch2020 ↩

11. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/hm-prison-and-probation-service-offender-equalities-annual-report-2020-to-2021 ↩

12. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/158/pdfs/uksipes_20200158_en.pdf ↩

13. Including all adults sentenced to a Standard Determinate Sentence and 18-20-year olds recorded as being sentenced to “Young Offender Institution” in the published data tools: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/895527/sentencing-tool-2020.xlsx ↩

14. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/158/pdfs/uksipes_20200158_en.pdf ↩

15. UK Prison Population Statistics, 29 October 2021 ↩

16. Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service Offender Equalities Annual Report 2020/21 ↩

17. Sexual orientation, UK: 2019 and Sexual orientation, UK: 2018 ↩

18. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/criminal-justice-system-statistics-quarterly-december-2020 ↩

19. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/ethnicity-and-the-criminal-justice-system-statistics-2020/ethnicity-and-the-criminal-justice-system-2020 ↩

20. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/criminal-justice-system-statistics-quarterly-december-2020 ↩

21. Prison Population Projections 2021-2026, November 2021 ↩

22. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1029613/Parole_Board_Annual_Report_2020-21.pdf ↩

23. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/operation-of-police-powers-under-the-terrorism-act-2000-quarterly-update-to-september-2021 ↩

24. A.11: Ethnic appearance of persons arrested, charged and convicted after a charge as recorded by police at time of arrest, for terrorism-related activity https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/operation-of-police-powers-under-the-terrorism-act-2000-quarterly-update-to-december-2020 ↩

25. Care must be taken when interpreting small numbers ↩

26. A P.04: Number of persons in custody for terrorism-related offences, by self-declared religion https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/operation-of-police-powers-under-the-terrorism-act-2000-quarterly-update-to-september-2021 ↩

27. A.09: Gender of persons arrested, charged and convicted after a charge for terrorism-related offences https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/operation-of-police-powers-under-the-terrorism-act-2000-quarterly-update-to-september-2021 ↩

28. A.10: Age group of persons arrested, charged and convicted after a charge for terrorism-related offences, https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/operation-of-police-powers-under-the-terrorism-act-2000-quarterly-update-to-september-2021 ↩