Corporate report

Annual report and accounts 2024-25: Accountability (HTML)

Updated 11 November 2025

Corporate governance report

The purpose of the corporate governance report is to explain the composition and organisation of the department’s governance structures and how these arrangements have supported the achievement of its objectives during the financial year 2024 to 2025.

Directors’ report

The table below sets out names and titles of all ministers and members of the Departmental Board who have had responsibility for the department during the financial year.

Departmental Board, Audit and Risk Assurance Committee, and Nominations Committee member attendance from 1 April 2024 to 31 March 2025

Meetings attended per member of those eligible to attend

	Departmental Board	Audit and Risk Assurance Committee	Nominations Committee[footnote 1]
Ministers[footnote 2]
The Rt Hon Shabana Mahmood, Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (from 5 July 2024)	2/2	-	-
Lord James Timpson OBE, Minister of State for Justice (from 5 July 2024)	2/2	-	-
Heidi Alexander MP, Minister of State for Justice (from 8 July 2024 to 28 November 2024)	0/1	-	-
Alex Davies-Jones MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Justice (from 9 July 2024)	2/2	-	-
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Justice (from 9 July 2024)	2/2	-	-
Sir Nic Dakin MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Justice (from 23 July 2024)	1/2	-	-
Sarah Sackman KC MP, Minister of State for Justice (from 2 December 2024)	1/1	-	-
The Rt Hon Alex Chalk KC MP, Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (from 21 April 2023 to 5 July 2024)	0/0	-	-
Lord Christopher Bellamy KC, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Justice (from 7 June 2022 to 5 July 2024)	0/0	-	-
Mike Freer MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Justice (from 20 September 2022 to 5 July 2024)	0/0	-	-
Laura Farris MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Justice (from 13 November 2023 to 5 July 2024)[footnote 3]	0/0	-	-
Gareth Bacon MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Justice (from 13 November 2023 to 5 July 2024)	0/0	-	-
The Rt Hon Edward Argar MP, Minister of State for Justice (from 27 October 2022 to 5 July 2024)	0/0	-	-
Executive management
Dame Antonia Romeo DCB, Permanent Secretary[footnote 4]	2/2	4/8	1/1
Amy Rees, Chief Executive, HMPPS	2/2	-	-
Nick Goodwin, Chief Executive, HMCTS	2/2	-	-
Jerome Glass, Director General, Policy Group – Courts and Access to Justice[footnote 5]	1/2	-	-
James McEwen, Chief Operating Officer	2/2	6/8	-
Ross Gribbin, Director General, Policy Group – Prisons, Offenders and International Justice (from 16 November 2023)	2/2	-	-
Megan Lee-Devlin, Director General, Service Delivery Transformation (from 28 March 2024 to 16 March 2025)	1/1	-	-
Amy Holmes, Interim Director General, Service Delivery Transformation (from 17 March 2025)	1/1	-	-
Richard Price, Director General, Performance, Strategy and Analysis (to 31 October 2024)	0/0	-	-
Non-executive or independent members
Mark Rawlinson, Lead Non-Executive Member	2/2	-	1/1
Paul Smith, Non-Executive Member and Chair of Audit and Risk Assurance Committee	2/2	8/8	-
Mark Beaton, Non-Executive Member	2/2	-	-
Jennifer Rademaker, Non-Executive Member (from 21 August 2023)	2/2	2/3	1/1
Jonathan Spence, Non-Executive Member (from 21 August 2023)	1/2	8/8	-
Andrew Robb, Non-Executive Member (from 21 August 2023)	2/2	-	-
Nicky Wilden, Independent Member of Audit and Risk Assurance Committee	-	6/8	-
Jonathan Flory, Independent Member of Audit and Risk Assurance Committee (from 19 May 2024)	-	7/8	-
Alison Bexfield, Independent Member of Audit and Risk Assurance Committee (to 31 October 2024)	-	3/6	-
Heather Savory, Independent Member of Audit and Risk Assurance Committee (to 19 May 2024)	-	0/0	-

Managing conflicts of interest

Members of the department’s governance forums are asked to declare any interest that could give rise to a conflict of interest. Declarations are documented alongside any agreed actions to manage the risk of conflicts of interest.

Any significant interest held by management, where there is a link with the department, is included in Note 27 on related party transactions. The list of ministers’ interests can be found at: www.gov.uk/government/publications/list-of-ministers-interests.

Our executive and non-executive register of interest can be found at: www.gov.uk/government/publications/ministry-of-justice-register-of-board-members-interests.

Personal data-related incidents

MoJ handles millions of records containing personal data and takes all data incidents seriously. The following table provides a summary report of personal data-related incidents reported to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) in the financial year. MoJ has seen a 37% reduction in the number of reportable incidents in comparison to the previous financial year.

The cyber attack detected in LAA in April 2025 was reported to the ICO by LAA. LAA’s investigation into the attack has shown that systems were breached from December 2024 with data being exfiltrated from January 2025. The cyber attack will be formally recorded as an incident in the annual report and accounts for the financial year 2025 to 2026.

All staff are required to undertake mandatory data protection training on joining the department and yearly afterwards. Security measures are implemented effectively in line with the government’s security policy framework and the Security Functional Standard. Adherence is monitored through a network of trained security and data protection practitioners.

Personal data incidents reported to the ICO

Table 1 – Personal data incidents reported to the ICO

Date incident reported	Nature of incident	Nature of data involved	Number of people potentially affected	Notification status
17 June 2024	An observations book was left unattended in a wing office	Name, personal identifiers, intelligence information	1	Case closed by the ICO with no further action (18 July 2024)
5 August 2024	A letter was left visible to offenders in a wing office	Name and offence details	1	Case closed by the ICO with no further action (14 August 2024)
23 September 2024	Confidential address of an applicant in a private family law case disclosed to case party	Name and address	2	Case closed by the ICO with no further action (16 August 2024)
15 November 2024	Personal details of data subject disclosed to the offender	Name, address and contact details	4	Case closed by the ICO with no further action (19 November 2024)
20 February 2025	Court list disclosed on public website	Name and offence details	15	Case closed by the ICO with no further action (24 February 2025)

MoJ continues to monitor and assess its personal data risks to identify and address any weaknesses and ensure continuous improvements. For further information see Information security.

Complaints to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) addresses complaints made by members of the public, brought to its attention by MPs, where there has been alleged maladministration by government departments and other bodies in their jurisdiction. The department’s performance for the financial year is shown below. The PHSO’s annual analysis of the complaints it has received for each government department can be found at: www.ombudsman.org.uk

Number of complaints accepted for investigation	Number of completed investigations	Investigations upheld or partly upheld		Investigations not upheld		Investigations resolved without a finding or discontinued
		Number	%	Number	%	Number	%
15	9	5	56%	4	44%	0	0%
			Complied with		Not complied with		Total
The number of Ombudsman recommendations			5		0		5

The completed PHSO investigations refer to complaints made in relation to HMCTS, OPG, HMP Birmingham and the probation service. Further details can be found in those bodies’ annual reports and accounts. Where complaints are upheld or partly upheld, we review the case to ensure any learning is identified and improvements made.

Statement of Accounting Officer’s responsibilities

Under the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000, HM Treasury has directed MoJ to prepare, for each financial year, consolidated resource accounts. These must set out the resources acquired, held or disposed of by the department during the year, and the uses to which those resources have been put. The scope of the accounts must cover the department, including its executive agencies, and those of its sponsored arm’s length public bodies that are designated by order made under the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000 by Statutory Instrument 2024 No. 295. These public bodies are together known as the ‘departmental group’, consisting of the department and sponsored bodies listed at Note 29 to the accounts. The accounts are prepared on an accruals basis and must give a true and fair view of the state of affairs of the department and the departmental group and of the income and expenditure, Statement of Financial Position, and cash flows of the departmental group for the financial year.

In preparing the accounts, the Accounting Officer of the department is required to comply with the requirements of the Government Financial Reporting Manual and in particular to:

• observe the Accounts Direction issued by HM Treasury, including the relevant accounting and disclosure requirements, and apply suitable accounting policies on a consistent basis

• ensure that the department has appropriate and reliable systems and procedures in place to carry out the consolidation process

• make judgements and estimates on a reasonable basis, including those judgements involved in consolidating the accounting information provided by non-departmental and other arm’s length bodies

• state whether applicable accounting standards as set out in the Government Financial Reporting Manual have been followed, and disclose and explain any material departures in the accounts

• prepare the accounts on a going concern basis

• confirm that the annual report and accounts as a whole is fair, balanced and understandable and take personal responsibility for the annual report and accounts and the judgements required for determining that it is fair, balanced and understandable

HM Treasury has appointed me as the Permanent Secretary and Principal Accounting Officer of MoJ.

As the Principal Accounting Officer of the department, I have appointed the chief executives or equivalents of the department’s sponsored arm’s length bodies as accounting officers of those bodies. I am responsible for ensuring that appropriate systems and controls are in place to ensure that any grants that the department makes to its sponsored bodies are applied for the purposes intended, and that such expenditure and the other income and expenditure of the sponsored bodies are properly accounted for, for the purposes of consolidation within the resource accounts. Under their terms of appointment, the accounting officers of the sponsored bodies are accountable for the use, including the regularity and propriety, of the grants received and the other income and expenditure of the sponsored bodies.

My responsibilities as Accounting Officer, including responsibility for the propriety and regularity of public finances for which I am answerable, for keeping proper records and for safeguarding the assets of the department, non-departmental body or other arm’s length body for which the Accounting Officer is responsible, are set out in Managing Public Money published by HM Treasury.

As the Principal Accounting Officer, I have taken all the steps that I ought to have taken to make myself aware of any relevant audit information and to establish that MoJ’s auditors are aware of that information. So far as I am aware, there is no relevant audit information of which the auditors are unaware.

The annual report and accounts as a whole is fair, balanced and understandable and I take personal responsibility for the annual report and accounts and the judgments required for determining that it is fair, balanced and understandable.

Accounting Officer System Statement

The Accounting Officer System Statement provides Parliament with a single statement setting out all of the accountability relationships and processes within the department, making clear who is accountable for what, from the Principal Accounting Officer down. It ensures accountability for all of the public money and other public resources which fall within the Accounting Officer’s responsibilities.

The department’s Accounting Officer System Statement is available at: www.gov.uk/government/publications/moj-accounting-officer-system-statement-2025

Governance statement

This governance statement sets out the main features of the governance, risk management and internal control frameworks for the financial year 2024 to 2025 through to the date of approval of the annual report and accounts. It sets out the current view of the most significant challenges across the department and the collective steps teams are taking to continuously improve and strengthen associated frameworks. The governance statement should be considered in conjunction with the Accounting Officer System Statement.

The department’s governance structures

MoJ maintains governance arrangements to support the delivery of departmental priorities and objectives. The governance framework:

• provides leadership and direction, including a clear vision of what the department is trying to achieve

• brings relevant capabilities, experience and insights together to provide rigorous scrutiny of the efficiency and effectiveness of performance and value for money

• promotes transparency and accountability that maintains the trust and confidence of stakeholders through clear, complete and accurate reporting on what is being achieved and to what standards

• ensures compliance with HM Treasury’s Corporate Governance Code for Central Government Departments

• ensures effective risk management in alignment with the Orange Book’s risk control framework

MoJ’s governance arrangements have been structured with the aim of ensuring we have complete, timely and insightful information flows to direct and manage the department’s delivery and allocation of resources.

Board and corporate committee information

The Departmental Board secretariat team supports delivery of the MoJ Departmental Board and its sub-committees to ensure the department is run effectively, manages risk and delivers its objectives.

MoJ committees

Departmental Board

Chair: Secretary of State

Meetings in 2024-25: 2

Purpose: The Departmental Board forms the collective strategic and operational leadership of the department. Chaired by the Secretary of State for Justice, it brings together the ministerial and Civil Service leaders with senior non-executives from outside government. It is responsible for setting strategic direction, including reviewing delivery against the business plan.

Meeting composition

19 members:

• 7 female

• 12 male

• 6 ministers

• 7 executive directors

• 6 non-executive directors

Activities in the year under review included:

• assessment of progress against the department’s missions including performance and delivery critical milestones

• monitoring of departmental strategic priorities

• consideration of the recommendations and actions from the Audit and Risk Assurance Committee

• consideration of the department’s significant risks, including prison capacity, Crown Court Case loads and digital capabilities

Audit and Risk Assurance Committee

Chair: Non-executive board member

Meetings in 2024-25: 8

Purpose: The Audit and Risk Assurance Committee supports the Departmental Board and Principal Accounting Officer in their responsibilities to ensure effective arrangements for governance, risk management and internal control are in place for the department. It does this by focusing on assurance arrangements over governance, financial reporting, and the annual report and accounts, including the evidence for and content of the governance statement. The committee reviews the comprehensiveness of assurances in meeting the Departmental Board and Accounting Officer’s assurance needs and reviewing the reliability and integrity of these assurances.

Meeting composition

5 members:

• 2 female

• 3 male

• 3 non-executive directors

• 2 independent member

Activities in the year under review included:

• consideration of the Government Internal Audit Agency findings

• consideration of the work of external audit, including reviewing end-of-year accounting estimates and judgements and the controls and processes to reduce the risk of error

• consideration and challenge of the department’s approach to prison capacity, commercial risks, climate change and sustainability, digital, security and information

• reviewing the annual report and accounts and providing independent oversight and challenge on its content

• continuing oversight of public bodies and executive agencies through dedicated meetings with their Audit and Risk Assurance Committee chairs to increase openness, encourage collaboration and share information

• challenge on the department’s approach and progress to mitigate against fraud, bribery and corruption, and test of the whistleblowing process

• consideration of MoJ’s overall risk profile to ensure there is an adequate and effective risk management and assurance framework in place

• consideration of the Audit and Risk Assurance Committee effectiveness review

Nominations Committee

Chair: Permanent Secretary

Meetings in 2024-25: 1

Purpose: The Nominations Committee provides assurance on senior executive appointments within the department. This includes succession planning, talent management and pay strategy.

Meeting composition

4 members:

• 2 female

• 2 male

• 2 non-executive director

• 2 executive directors

Activities in the year under review:

The standing agenda included appraisal of directors general and discussion and advice in relation to performance assessment. The meetings considered:

• pay award recommendations

• talent strategy

• succession planning

Executive Committee

Chair: Permanent Secretary

Meetings in 2024-25: 36

Purpose: Chaired by the Permanent Secretary, the Executive Committee is the executive leadership team for the department and comprises of senior officials. It ensures that the department is fully aligned with the strategic direction set by the Secretary of State, maintains and directs the capabilities to deliver, oversees the delivery of outcomes, and prioritises and allocates financial and other resources.

Meeting composition

10 members:

• 3 female

• 7 male

• 10 executive directors

Activities in the year under review included:

• reviewing and monitoring the department’s performance against its budget and objectives, and managing the delivery of its outcomes

• examining specific risks or issues that could affect the delivery of the department’s objectives, including a quarterly review of the overall departmental risk profile

• reviewing the approach to capital spend and fiscal planning, and associated spending allocations

• reviewing the progress made against agreed diversity priorities in the department’s diversity and inclusion strategy

• assessing and monitoring the position on prison capacity and plans to manage risks and address pressures

• reviewing the department’s priorities, including long-term policy priorities

Delivery Board

Chair: Non-executive board member

Meetings in 2024-25: 5

Purpose: The Delivery Board provides assurance to the Principal Accounting Officer and the Departmental Board on the delivery of the department’s strategy, Outcome Delivery Plan and Government Major Projects Portfolio. This includes oversight and scrutiny of the activities, projects and programmes that drive agreed outcomes, ensuring that plans are well-evidenced and strategic benefits are on track to be delivered.

Meeting composition

8 members:

• 3 female

• 5 male

• 3 non-executive directors

• 3 executive directors

• 2 external officials

Activities in the year under review included:

• oversight and scrutiny of the department’s major projects and programmes, ensuring that plans are well-evidenced, that strategic benefits are on track to be delivered, and that there is a clear line of sight from objectives and activities through to defined outputs and measurable outcomes

• challenge and scrutiny of the robustness of the plans and processes for delivery and the adequacy of their management

Finance, Performance and Risk Committee

Chair: Chief Operating Officer

Meetings in 2024-25: 11

Purpose: The Finance, Performance and Risk Committee is responsible for scrutinising, challenging and supporting departmental delivery against strategic outcomes and maintains oversight of the department’s performance framework. It also oversees management of the department’s principal and secondary risks, reviews financial reporting, and monitors compliance with functional standards and other government, legal or professional requirements

Meeting composition

13 members (plus one vacancy and vacant Chair role):

• 5 female

• 8 male

• 13 executive directors

Activities in the year under review included:

• examining the department, its executive agencies and other public bodies’ in-year finances

• considering and advising on the departmental Spending Review settlement

• assessing and challenging performance, delivery and risk against strategic outcomes

People Business Committee

Chair: Interim Director General, People and Capability

Meetings in 2024-25: 11

Purpose: The People Business Committee supports the Executive Committee in its leadership and management of people and workforce strategies to improve the coordination and design, decisions, and implementation of cross-cutting programmes of work.

Meeting composition

21 members:

• 10 female

• 11 male

• 17 executive directors

• 3 deputy directors

• 1 independent member

Activities in the year under review included:

• reviewing the strategic landscape of diversity, inclusion and wellbeing alongside performance against strategic outcomes of diversity, talent and culture

• reviewing workforce planning activity including headcount, geographical location and capability

• oversight of strategic people risks and identification of appropriate management actions

Investment Committee

Chair: Chief Operating Officer

Meetings in 2024-25: 28

Purpose: The Investment Committee has delegated powers to make investment decisions on the Executive Committee’s behalf, with oversight of the MoJ portfolio. This includes ensuring that portfolio projects remain strategically aligned, affordable and deliverable from inception through to implementation. The committee considers and, where appropriate, approves investment decisions on behalf of the Executive Committee, including gated release of funds for change programmes, ensuring that investments deliver value for money, meet regularity and propriety considerations, and are affordable and sustainable.

Meeting composition

16 members:

• 5 female

• 11 male

• 15 executive directors

• 1 independent member

Activities in the year under review included:

• scrutiny and approval of investment spend where whole-life cost is more than £60 million

• agreeing and monitoring departmental change programmes’ funding

• setting permissible tolerances that include costs, benefits, schedule, quality, scope and performance

• release of funds after reviewing progress of programmes and projects

Portfolio Committee

Chair: Director General, Service Transformation Group

Meetings in 2024-25: 11

Purpose: The Portfolio Committee provides oversight of our major change portfolio, reporting to both the Executive Committee and Delivery Board. It ensures projects are set up for success, resolves issues that may compromise successful delivery, and improves overall delivery confidence. It further advises on prioritisation decisions regarding the deployment of expert resources. The committee ensures that the portfolio is strategically aligned, affordable and deliverable and that project leaders comply with project delivery standards.

Meeting composition

9 members (excluding one vacancy):

• 2 female

• 7 male

• 9 executive directors

Activities in the year under review included:

• assuring that all portfolio programmes and projects comply with agreed delivery standards and best practice, including oversight of the tolerances for time, cost, scope and quality set by the Investment Committee

• oversight of delivery confidence of the portfolio and identification of projects and programmes that merit enhanced governance and/or scrutiny

• review and resolution of project or programme-level issues including risks and benefits management

• undertaking deep dives on cross-cutting systemic issues, thematic risks and constraints, using data to drive improvement actions

Further details and membership of these forums can be found at: www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ministry-of-justice/about/our-governance.

In addition to the standing corporate governance arrangements in place, further structures were introduced during the financial year 2023 to 2024 to strengthen departmental oversight of the immediate prison capacity challenges. In this financial year, the Capacity Options Taskforce continued to coordinate information flows on capacity forecasts and supply and demand choices across the department, reporting this to the Executive Committee, ministers and No 10. It also fed into and received updates from the Criminal Justice System Strategic Command, a multi-agency group set up to manage the impact across the wider criminal justice system, ensuring cross-government collaboration and alignment.

Departmental Board performance and effectiveness

In alignment with the HM Treasury Corporate Governance Code for Central Government Departments, a board effectiveness evaluation was undertaken in April 2025. The report noted improvement in performance from the review carried out the previous year, concluding that overall, the Departmental Board is operating effectively. As part of the exercise, opportunities for further improvement have been highlighted. This has included the strengthening of information flow through the corporate committee environment and continued effort to strengthen regular risk reporting with a focus on risk appetite.

Identifying and managing conflicts of interests

MoJ’s Declaration and Management of Outside Interests Policy is based on Cabinet Office guidance and is available to all employees via the intranet. The policy sets out the expectations and process for declaring an interest. It is the responsibility of individuals to declare all interests (actual, potential or perceived) that could be relevant to their role. Failure to do so could result in action being taken against the individual in line with the relevant conduct or discipline policy.

MoJ holds a central register of declarations of interests for all board members. This includes details of any financial interests declared, secondary employment and appointments, personal interests, and any other relevant interests. There is an annual declaration of interest exercise and individuals are required to submit an updated declaration when there is a change in circumstances during the year. Declarations of interest for employees in the delegated grades are recorded and managed locally.

In line with the Declaration and Management of Outside Interests Policy, MoJ holds a register of senior civil servant secondary paid employment which includes details of all senior civil servants who have declared outside employment.

In line with the current Declaration of Interest Policy for special advisers, all special advisers have declared any relevant interests or confirmed they do not consider they have any relevant interests. The Permanent Secretary has considered these interests, and the following relevant interests are set out in public:

Full name	Details of interest
Ellie Cumbo	Ms Cumbo is a Local Councillor for the St Giles ward in the London Borough of Southwark

Business appointment rules

All officials are subject to rules on accepting outside appointments after leaving the Civil Service. The purpose of the business appointment rules is to avoid:

• the risk that an employer might gain an improper advantage by appointing a former official who holds information about its competitors, or about impending government policy

• any suspicion that an appointment might be a reward for past favours

• the risk of a former official improperly exploiting privileged access to contacts in government

• unfair questioning or criticism of the integrity of former civil servants

Full details on the business appointment rules, including when they apply and the application process, can be accessed by all employees via the intranet. All exit management letters contain wording on the business appointment rules as a reminder to employees of their obligations.

MoJ has a clear procedure in place for considering applications under the business appointment rules for employees at grades SCS2 and below. The process is managed by the People Policy team and includes input from the individual, their line manager, the Chief Commercial Officer, and the Director General People and Capability. In exceptional cases the Permanent Secretary is consulted on business appointment rule applications.

MoJ liaises with the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments for applications from ministers and directors general (SCS3) and above.

During the financial year 2024 to 2025, there were 35 exits from the department at SCS level. 24 business appointment rule applications were made as follows.

• Ministers:

– seven ministerial applications

• Civil servants:

– one SCS3 application

– four SCS2 applications

– three SCS1 applications

– three Grade 6 applications

– two Grade 7 applications

– four applications were below Grade 7

No applications were found to be unsuitable for the applicant to take up. All applications below SCS2 were approved with conditions set. The Advisory Committee on Business Appointments determines the outcome, and any conditions set for SCS3 and above. There were no known breaches of the business appointment rules.

In compliance with business appointment rules, the department is transparent in the advice given to individual applications for senior staff, including special advisers. Advice provided by the department on specific business appointments has been published at: www.gov.uk/government/publications/moj-business-appointment-rules. The Advisory Committee on Business Appointments publishes advice on business appointment rule applications for director general SCS3 and above at: www.gov.uk/government/organisations/advisory-committee-on-business-appointments.

Whistleblowing

MoJ implemented a comprehensive whistleblowing policy in 2021. The policy sets out effective routes and processes in place to enable an individual to raise a concern about suspected wrongdoing, risk or malpractice that affects a wider group of individuals in a supportive and protective environment. The policy was refreshed in April 2024 to improve clarity and better define roles and responsibilities. The policy is accessible to all staff on the intranet.

In response to feedback from assurance activities, MoJ’s People and Capability Group has strengthened awareness of the whistleblowing policy across the department through continuous improvement activities. The department actively promoted the cross-government ‘Speak Up’ campaign and appointed a senior civil servant whistleblowing champion. Additional nominated officers, who provide an independent route to raise a whistleblowing concern and impartial advice to the individual, have been recruited and trained.

MoJ is part of a cross-government network of HR professionals working to enhance whistleblowing arrangements across government departments and improve the experience of whistleblowers. MoJ reports annually to the Cabinet Office on the number of closed whistleblowing cases. In this financial year, MoJ (including the executive agencies) reported 13 closed whistleblowing cases.

Significant control issues

As part of the measures to understand significant control issues across MoJ and its executive agencies, we request that any risks or issues that agencies are including in their governance statements are shared with the MoJ corporate governance team at year end. These are then reviewed and those considered significant are included in the MoJ governance statement.

At the time of publishing the MoJ annual report and accounts for the financial year 2023 to 2024, we reported HMCTS’ concerns about the quality of criminal court statistics. The release of the latest criminal court statistics was postponed for further quality assurance on the data. This included assessing and reviewing potential control failures that may have led to material errors in key data inputs. That process was completed in 2024, and it concluded that there was not a significant control failure. In December 2024, the official statistics for the criminal courts were published together with an update on the investigation and impact of the Crown Court data issues, and the steps taken to ensure the data is now fit for purpose.

The investigation, led jointly between HMCTS and MoJ, found three main issues that needed to be addressed: case records affected by human error, technical system issues, and data coding issues. These issues did not affect the operation of the courts, including having no impact on the listing or hearing of cases. HMCTS has made the necessary changes to administrative and performance monitoring systems to re-state their internal information and published official statistics. An independent review of the data methodology was carried out to provide an additional level of assurance and concluded that HMCTS could now have significant confidence in the Crown Court caseload statistics.

The impact of implementing these improvements has showed that while the headline impact on existing trends is minimal, addressing the issues has allowed a greater understanding of the types of cases (the case mix) and improved the estimates around the age of open cases.

Risk management arrangements

Risk management

The department’s risk management framework sets out the principles, concepts and accountabilities that underpin how we manage risk in alignment with the Orange Book: Management of Risk – Principles and Concepts. These arrangements are harmonised with requirements outlined in the Corporate Governance Code.

Risk management is an essential part of MoJ’s governance and leadership. It is fundamental to the way that the organisation is directed, managed and controlled at all levels. The department has maintained a risk management framework, which establishes robust processes and structures to ensure principal and emerging risks are identified, evaluated and managed appropriately. Our risk management framework and capabilities enhance our strategic planning and prioritisation, assist in achieving the delivery of outcomes and objectives, and strengthen the ability of the department to respond agilely to the challenges faced.

The Principal Accounting Officer, supported by the Audit and Risk Assurance Committee, established the organisation’s overall approach to risk management. Responsibilities for the management of areas of risk are devolved through the organisational structure, defined roles and responsibilities, and delegated authorities. Risk management practices within MoJ comply with the requirements of the Orange Book’s five principles. Responsibility for the effective operation of the risk framework is delegated to the Chief Operating Officer who is supported by our Chief Risk Officer.

The Chief Risk Officer is actively engaged with the department’s governance arrangements, and their responsibilities include:

• setting the framework and guidance in accordance with the principles in the Orange Book

• assessing compliance with this, reviewing effectiveness and driving continuous improvement in risk maturity

• supporting MoJ’s Executive Committee, Audit and Risk Assurance Committee, and Departmental Board in understanding the risk landscape and assessing the department’s risk appetite to inform decision making

Our risk management framework continued to evolve and improve during the financial year, with focused activity and initiatives to support robust systems of risk management including:

• our principal risks being considered and discussed by the Finance, Performance and Risk Committee and Executive Committee, and reported to the Audit and Risk Assurance Committee quarterly

• the Departmental Board routinely considering combined risk and performance reports since November 2024

• principal risk deep dives on property, commercial, technology and security, change, and evidence and insight being considered and discussed by the Finance, Performance and Risk Committee or Executive Committee, and the Audit and Risk Assurance Committee

• risks being routinely assessed as a part of investment decisions and within the lifecycle of our projects, programmes and commercial relationships

• the Departmental Operations Centre horizon scanning the external environment routinely and principal risks being assessed against findings

• short-term resilience risks being reported to the executive team and ministers in advance of significant recess periods

• risk training and awareness being provided to our risk community and leaders throughout the year, including a Risk Awareness Week in October 2024 with the theme of thinking long term 

• ongoing strengthening of relationships between risk leads and practitioners across all parts of the department, facilitated by our Risk Management Centre of Expertise 

• our strategy, strategic finance, planning, risk management and performance teams continuing to work together closely to ensure that risks inform our allocations processes and Spending Review preparations 

Business continuity and organisational resilience

The Departmental Operations Centre leads on business continuity, organisational resilience and incident response for MoJ, enhancing the department’s preparedness for, and ability to respond to, risks and challenges.

During the financial year 2024 to 2025, we have taken steps to strengthen the organisational resilience of the department including:

• developing products to increase awareness and understanding of external threats to the department (such as severe weather, pandemics, industrial action, power outages and public disorder), including horizon scanning reports and justice impact assessments

• improving business continuity self-assessment processes and reporting through the appointment of a new business continuity governance and assurance team – data overview packs for individual business areas have been developed based on self-assessment returns

• undertaking a range of deep-dive assurance visits to test the business continuity arrangements of individual business areas across the department – seven visits will have been undertaken in this reporting period

• running cross-departmental exercises to test preparedness for major National Security Risk Assessment threats, including respiratory pandemics and public disorder, and promoting an exercise suite to allow business areas to manage their own local plans and responses for lower-level disruption

• developing a corporate crisis management strategy for the department, outlining response arrangements in the event of a crisis materialising

• developing a resilience policy which defines MoJ’s approach to organisational resilience and promoting aspects of the resilience cycle to support delivery in an increasingly challenging environment

• the director-led Business Continuity and Resilience Governance Board which meets on a quarterly basis to oversee business continuity and resilience work across MoJ and supports the development of the community of staff working in those areas

Fire, health and safety

The department remains dedicated to ensuring the health, safety and wellbeing of all employees and service users. This year, we have been working on developing an Occupational Health and Safety Management System in alignment with ISO 45001 standards. Additionally, we have established a variety of information and guidance materials to foster a strong safety culture within the department, championed at the highest levels of the department.

Internal control framework

The Principal Accounting Officer is responsible for the development and maintenance of effective systems of internal control for the department, its executive agencies and other public bodies. This is supported through a framework of delegated authorities with the standards, policies and practices set and monitored through our governance and risk management frameworks.

MoJ’s Accounting Officer System Statement describes the component parts of our system of internal control, including delegated authorities. In this section of the governance statement, the most significant changes to our control framework in this financial year are outlined, in addition to material issues where we have responded to limitations in our control framework.

Functional maturity

In the financial year 2024 to 2025 there was a focus on examining the effectiveness of the functional leadership model. In the first six months of the year, the functional reform team investigated the functional model via a discovery exercise devised to drive enhancement.

The remit of the functional reform team was subsequently broadened which included transition into a new Business Effectiveness Division operating within the Business Architecture and Transformation Directorate. The division sets up proportionate, value-adding mechanisms to join up different areas of MoJ in the resolution of cross-cutting challenges and is supported by a Business Effectiveness Committee established to act as a forum to coordinate cross-departmental initiatives. The benefits of this new approach are expected to be realised during the financial year 2025 to 2026, and beyond.  

Throughout the financial year, the overall maturity of functions, including progress in embedding functional standards, has been reviewed through twice-yearly deep dives with the Chief Operating Officer.

Public bodies are strengthening processes to provide MoJ functional leads with sufficient assurance that they are adopting the relevant functional standards.

Finance

The Principal Accounting Officer establishes plans to use resources affordably and sustainably within agreed limits. Authority is delegated to commit resources and incur expenditure, ensuring compliance with financial controls including those mandated by HM Treasury and the Cabinet Office, as set out in our spending control framework. These controls are designed to ensure that the department and its public bodies operate effectively and to the high standard of probity expected. Each budget holder is required to check expenditure to ensure that all transactions are legitimate and in line with anticipated spend, retaining records of all approvals with supporting documents. Any anomalies are investigated with action taken as appropriate, including, where necessary, disciplinary action.

Commercial

The Chief Commercial Officer (CCO) exercises commercial authority on behalf of the Secretary of State for Justice and the Lord Chancellor. The CCO subdelegates a limited commercial authority to commercial staff in MoJ Commercial who use it to meet the procurement requirements of MoJ and most of its public bodies, including HMPPS and HMCTS.

In the financial year 2024 to 2025, MoJ Commercial contributed to strengthening governance through reforming the scheme of commercial delegated authority, and clearly defining the scope, limits and conditions of that authority in a new policy. The CCO issued new letters of delegated authority to each member of commercial staff, requiring them to adhere to the new policy.

As a result of the cross-government review of supplier resilience conducted by the Government Internal Audit Agency, we established a team to review the end-to-end monitoring of both market and supplier resilience. In addition to this, we published our Commercial Strategy (2025 to 2028), which places a strong emphasis on our approach to risk. Working groups relating to supplier resilience and market insights have been established to address this during the financial year 2025 to 2026.

In this financial year, the department managed the collapse of two suppliers. ISG went into administration on 20 September 2024, and ESS followed on 23 September 2024. ISG was a critical supplier to MoJ, delivering capacity expansion and capital maintenance projects across HMCTS and HMPPS. Both companies were also key suppliers to other government departments.

Detailed operational, communications and resourcing plans were prepared and enacted immediately following notification of insolvency in September 2024, maintaining critical site safety and security across the operational estate. At the time of publication, we have re-procured all but four of the affected projects, with those expected to be procured imminently.

Projects and programmes

The department’s projects and programmes are each led by a senior responsible owner who is accountable for delivery and responsible for ensuring that the project or programme delivers the business case benefits and outcomes.

All major projects require an individual project Integrated Assurance and Approvals Plan, quality assured by our project delivery assurance team, and the Infrastructure and Projects Authority.^{[footnote 6]} This is reported to our Portfolio Committee.

Business cases above £10 million are required to undertake a keyholder review and gateway review which provides an additional layer of assurance that the project is complying with all functional standards.

Portfolio reporting drives informed discussions and outcomes at departmental committees including the Delivery Board and Portfolio Committee.

In the financial year 2025 to 2026, we will continue to focus on project delivery fundamentals, including risk management, benefits management and planning to increase the aggregated delivery confidence across the portfolio. Once delivered, the Project Delivery Function Business Plan will be the primary mechanism to control and monitor the principal risk currently held: failure to deliver the outcomes and benefits of the portfolio of major change projects to time, cost and scope.

People

During the financial year 2024 to 2025, we implemented the recommendations from the review of the People Function (now known as People and Capability Group) which was undertaken in the previous financial year, to drive performance improvements and efficiencies. Based on the findings, we implemented:

• a new structure based on professional best practice which builds on our Target Operating Model and forms a central People and Capability Group, supporting the whole of the department

• a new governance model including a HR Delivery and Approval Board to manage HR change projects, performance and change hubs, underpinned by three director-led sub-groups to manage portfolios, policies and risks associated with workforce capacity, capability and experience

• improved assurance and risk management, developing the people and capability performance hub to monitor delivery against our commitments using key performance indicators, while also refreshing our people risks 

Property

We continued to improve governance arrangements for the management of property in MoJ. The MoJ Property Board, which is attended by the Government Chief Property Officer, met regularly to discuss and review the overall management of the estate.

Following a corporate fire, health and safety (FHS) audit, we introduced a standard operating procedure to support a risk assessment and assurance management framework. The FHS Corporate Committee was refreshed, FHS intranet pages enhanced, and a new FHS risk register established following corporate guidance.

The Property Strategy and Strategic Asset Management Plan has been refreshed to reflect the new administration’s updated priorities and the Spending Review settlement. Functional partnership agreements, especially with our public bodies, have been improved to better set out the service offerings, points of contact and escalation routes.

During the year we began a change and organisational design project, examining the way our services were delivered and managed in preparation for the Future State. This generated resource efficiencies and structural changes that will continue over the next two years, with a clear workforce requirement for the Future State and updated strategic workforce plan. 

We also embarked on an HMPPS Reset Programme to improve our working relationship. This improved alignment between the HMPPS area directors and the local heads of property operations through more consistent governance arrangements. We have allocated more funding locally to support joined-up decision making on local priorities.

Climate change and sustainability

The department maintains robust oversight of climate change and sustainability matters, with risks, strategy and performance overseen by the Senior Sustainability Board (chaired by the Chief Operating Officer), with risks and performance reviewed quarterly by the Finance, Performance and Risk Committee, biannually by MoJ’s Audit and Risk Assurance Committee, and annually to MoJ’s Departmental Board. MoJ has an agreed lead minister for climate and sustainability matters and board-level oversight of climate-related risks and disclosures. MoJ’s first climate-related financial disclosure report was published for the financial year 2023 to 2024, aligned to new HM Treasury requirements. During the financial year 2024 to 2025, the climate and sustainability assurance process for major projects was updated, providing additional scrutiny of environmental impacts of spend.

Information security

We continued to actively engage with investment decision making to control the departmental exposure to information security risk and to implement assurance measures across MoJ and its supply chain to improve resilience to cyber attack. Our information security culture continues to improve through implementation of government standards, policy, education and awareness sessions and understanding insider risk.

Regular assurance is undertaken through external government audits, the GovAssure cyber assurance regime, and the Departmental Security Health Check for non-cyber security assurance. GovAssure results at the time of writing indicate MoJ is implementing improvements to its cyber security systems in line with the GovAssure standards. Targeted remediation plans are in place for these systems to drive up security standards, and security training is mandated for all staff. Over 1,000 staff have also attended bespoke training sessions, and the security champions network has grown 300% in the last year.

We continue to focus on improving our response and recovery from security breaches across MoJ through application of consistent incident management processes and systems.

LAA cyber attack and response

LAA has continued to manage risks in relation to its systems and digital services throughout the financial year 2024 to 2025. On 23 April 2025, LAA became aware of a cyber attack on its online digital services. Immediate action was taken to bolster security of the system, with close working across MoJ digital and security, alongside experts at the National Crime Agency, the Government Cyber Coordination Centre, and the National Cyber Security Centre. The ICO was alerted and LAA informed all legal aid providers that some of their details had been compromised.

On 16 May 2025, LAA learned that the cyber attack was more extensive than originally thought and that the attackers had accessed a large amount of information relating to legal aid applicants. Its investigation into the attack has shown that systems were breached from December 2024, with data being exfiltrated from January 2025. LAA believes a significant amount of personal data was downloaded, including data from those who applied for legal aid through its digital service between 2007 and 16 May 2025. In line with advice from the National Cyber Security Centre, LAA took its online services down. There are no indications that other parts of the justice system have been impacted.

Contingency plans were put in place to ensure that those most in need of legal support continue to access the help that they need, and to provide financial support to legal aid providers. Helplines are in place to support legal aid clients and legal aid providers. At the time of publication of this annual report and accounts, this remains an ongoing issue with investigation and mitigation action continuing. Work is ongoing to restore systems and recover services, and LAA continues to keep legal aid clients and providers informed.

Data and quality of information

The Analysis Function and Data Function continued to collaborate to provide a quality, robust and impactful analysis and data service for the department, helping to shape and inform departmental policy and operational delivery. This year, we have met demands for prison capacity and other priority work, alongside modernising MoJ’s use and approach to data. We have made progress in looking at ‘what works’ to reduce reoffending and improve social outcomes through ambitious data linking programmes like Better Outcomes through Linked Data (BOLD) and Data First. We continue to improve data quality and strengthen links across the criminal justice system to develop data and understand drivers of demand though the system.

Building specialist analysis and data capacity to keep pace with increasing demand remains a challenge. Across the Analysis Function we have expanded our flexible resourcing pool to allow rapid deployment of resources to emerging priorities and have put in place new cross-departmental forums to share best practice and improve collaboration.

Analytical quarterly assurance processes have been improved by establishing a new analytical assurance team to provide further scrutiny of the most business-critical pieces of analytical work. We are progressing actions on the recommendations of the Government Internal Audit Agency audit into the end-to-end quality of data, including progressing data governance solutions, such as developing a consistent approach to monitoring data quality and consistent data processing.

Through the Data Improvement Programme, we started to build foundational data capabilities to improve the quality of data, access to data, and the data skills of staff, to enable MoJ to make better decisions. As part of this, we built data governance expertise and developed a Data Ownership Model for MoJ with a focus on understanding and improving the quality of key data sets to mitigate risk.

Counter fraud

Fraud, bribery and corruption are unacceptable. They affect the ability of MoJ to deliver its responsibilities for protecting and advancing the principles of justice. Where fraud occurs, resources are wrongfully diverted and cannot be used for their intended purpose. Working collaboratively with partners across MoJ and the wider government counter fraud community, we will take a collective approach to understanding and tackling the risks from fraud, bribery and corruption.

The Chief Operating Officer has overall responsibility for counter fraud in the department. In 2024 a Senior Security and Counter Fraud Advisor (SCS1) was appointed and the Centre of Expertise merged with the MoJ Security Function to achieve improved alignment.

A Counter Fraud Sub-Committee was created which is attended by counter fraud leads and stakeholders across MoJ.

Initial Fraud Impact Assessments are being completed for all new spending initiatives and programmes that come through the Project Delivery Function. Counter fraud plays a role in the keyholder review process for all new investment, and Initial Fraud Impact Assessments are completed for all investment, including those identified as mandatory by the Public Sector Fraud Authority and functional standards.

The MoJ Counter Fraud Strategy will be refreshed later this year with a view to having a new five‑year strategy, which will continue to address the Enterprise Fraud Risk Assessment risks, compliance with functional standards and greater use of data analytics.

Grants

The department’s grants are overseen by a senior officer responsible for the grant and delivery of its expected outcomes. The Grants Centre of Expertise supported the senior officer responsible and provided a holistic view of MoJ’s grant-giving to improve the effectiveness of grant spend and to strengthen governance and assurance.

Further governance and assurance were provided through a grants challenge and assurance panel which had oversight of all grants and ensured a strong focus on value for money by:

• scrutinising and assessing all proposed and existing grants annually and as required for new grants

• providing constructive challenge and advice to grant sponsors

• ensuring consistency across MoJ regarding grant necessity or appropriateness, benefits, risk, and award level

• ensuring grants and grant proposals comply with the Grants Functional Standard

The department participated in the Grants Continuous Improvement Assessment, a biennial exercise covering the department, its executive agencies and other public bodies, which evaluates compliance with the Grants Functional Standard. The most recent assessment (carried out in 2024) assessed the department as being in the ‘Best’ category with a compliance score of 93.5%, an increase from 80% in the previous assessment.

Senior sponsorship of public bodies

In respect of public bodies where the Principal Accounting Officer doesn’t fulfil the senior sponsor role personally, officials have been appointed as senior sponsors. These arrangements are set out in the Accounting Officer System Statement.

Assurance over the organisational management and performance of our non-departmental public bodies, other statutory office holders and associated offices, and compliance with their respective framework documents is provided primarily by our Public Bodies Centre of Expertise.

The programme of work to update all framework documents to meet revised HM Treasury requirements has continued with plans in place to complete the exercise by the end of the financial year 2025 to 2026.

This financial year was the third and final year of our programme reviewing several public bodies as part of the Cabinet Office-led Public Bodies Review Programme. During the year, we published reviews of Cafcass and OPG (both of which commenced in the financial year 2023 to 2024). We have also commenced reviews of HMCTS and LAA, and conducted an external-led review of the Youth Justice Board.

Our arrangements in-year for providing proportionate oversight and engagement with public bodies included:

• an annual assessment of the optimum risk-based partnership arrangements between the department and each body

• regular holding-to-account meetings between the Public Bodies Centre of Expertise assurance partners, finance business partners, policy officials and public bodies, with relevant risks escalated to the business group risk register or the departmental risk register as appropriate

• quarterly updates on governance, risk and performance to senior sponsors about the oversight of public bodies

• regular attendance by the Head of the Public Bodies Centre of Expertise at the departmental Audit and Risk Assurance Committee, and Finance, Performance and Risk Committee to provide assurance in respect of public bodies’ performance, finance and management of risk

The relationship between the department and its public bodies is informed by the Arm’s Length Body Sponsorship Code of Good Practice, which sets out the common standards for good sponsorship arrangements between government departments and public bodies.

The Public Bodies Centre of Expertise is also responsible for ensuring that ministers make diverse and high-quality public appointments to the department’s public bodies, and that these appointments are made in accordance with the Governance Code on Public Appointments.

Review of effectiveness

As Principal Accounting Officer, I am required to conduct an annual review of the effectiveness of the department’s governance structures, risk management and internal control framework. This review is informed by:

• feedback from senior management with delegated responsibility within the department about the use of resources, responses to risks, compliance with standards and the extent to which in-year budgets and other targets have been met

• information from the department’s public bodies on the performance of their organisations and their relevant boards

• insight into the department’s performance from internal audit, including an audit opinion on the overall adequacy and effectiveness of the organisation’s framework of governance, risk and control

• the work of the National Audit Office through their financial audit of the accounts of the department and its public bodies and their value for money reports assessing the economy, efficiency and effectiveness with which public money has been spent

• the views of the Audit and Risk Assurance Committee on the design and operation of the department’s governance, risk management and internal control frameworks

• the oversight and assurance provided by the Infrastructure and Projects Authority of the department’s change projects that are included in the Government Major Projects Portfolio

As the Principal Accounting Officer, I am responsible for ensuring there is an effective process in place for monitoring and reporting governance issues during the year. In doing so, I have relied on the handover from the previous Permanent Secretary, assurance from the agency chief executives and directors general who have delegated authority appropriate to their responsibilities. As described in the Accounting Officer System Statement, 

I prepare the department’s governance statement with sight of annual assurance processes, which include:

• completion of annual director assurance statements across MoJ HQ (which have been reviewed and countersigned by the relevant director general) to assess the level of compliance against departmental policies and guidance

• completion of a control maturity assessment, to consider how effectively functional governance and compliance controls operate, and to identify opportunities for improvement

• completion of board and committee effectiveness reviews, to ensure we maintain robust and effective governance and oversight

• information on levels of compliance with relevant government functional standards, complemented by assurance statements from function leads on their assessment of compliance within the department

• an overview of material issues from executive agencies and other public bodies, assessed for materiality at MoJ level, providing an overview of compliance for their organisation

Government Internal Audit Agency

One of the main sources of independent assurance within the department comes from the activities of the internal audit function, which provides me and the Audit and Risk Assurance Committee with a clear view on issues highlighted emerging from internal audit work. 

The internal audit programme is closely aligned to the principal risks of the department, its executive agencies and other arm’s length bodies. Arrangements are in place to ensure that I am routinely made aware of any significant issues that indicate that risks are not being effectively managed. I am assured that the internal audit service complies with the public sector internal audit standards. 

The MoJ Group Chief Internal Auditor has provided a ‘moderate’ annual opinion on the department’s framework of governance, risk management and control. This is defined as: ‘some improvements are required to enhance the adequacy and effectiveness of the framework of governance, risk management and control’. This is consistent with previous years, but the Group Chief Internal Auditor has noted a slight downward trend. Overall, the Government Internal Audit Agency has issued a higher number of limited assurance reports within the core department this year and within the public body plans there have been fewer substantial assurances and an increase in limited assurances. This is not highlighted as a cause for significant concern but is shown to be in part a result of the high level of risk that the department has been carrying for some time, constrained resources and high levels of demand in many areas, along with the need to continue to deliver a complex criminal justice system. 

The overall opinion is also informed by the annual opinions provided across the department’s executive agencies and other arm’s length bodies. They have all been given a ‘moderate’ opinion, with the exception of Cafcass which is ‘substantial’ and the CCRC which is ‘limited’. This is due to the outcomes from the Henley review, changes in senior management roles, and the most recent Justice Select Committee review of leadership of the CCRC showing significant impacts on the governance and control environment which the organisation has been operating during the past 12 months. 

Overall the Government Internal Audit Agency has confirmed that the department has an adequate framework in place to ensure the effectiveness of risk management. They highlight that work has continued to evolve the approach to risk and to embed stronger processes which help to ensure that senior management within MoJ are focused on the key areas that require attention. The department continues to operate a risk position that is out of tolerance across most principal risk areas.

This position is well understood, but the challenge remains to ensure that identified controls are operating effectively, or where additional effort or investment is needed to bring risks into tolerance, there is a credible plan in place to do so.

In relation to governance, their work across the public bodies has confirmed reasonable levels of governance operating (with a notable exception in relation to the CCRC). They highlight our in-year internal qualitative assessments of committees have confirmed a broadly positive picture in relation to effectiveness. Where they have undertaken board effectiveness reviews in arm’s length bodies, these findings have also been positive. 

On the effectiveness of control and compliance with required controls, they have confirmed that this position has remained static across recent years. There are areas where they highlight good practice within the department, however they have also continued to raise issues with clarity of accountabilities, the understanding of control effectiveness and how internal assurance structures operate to provide management with confidence over the operation of control. This is also replicated across the agencies and arm’s length bodies where they have identified some areas of strong practice in understanding assurance and compliance but also areas where this needs to be improved. They state that gaining a clearer, consistent approach to ensuring clarity of accountabilities, how those accountabilities should be discharged and how senior management, including the Principal Accounting Officer, can have confidence over effectiveness of operation of key processes remain challenges for the financial year 2025 to 2026.

External audit

The National Audit Office scrutinises public spending on behalf of Parliament, auditing financial statements to hold government to account and improve public services.

The notional cost of the statutory audit for the core department was £789,400 (previous financial year: £757,250), which also includes the statutory external audit of the consolidated accounts, Office of the Accountant General and the Judicial Pension Scheme. The total cost of statutory external audits across the departmental group was £2,971,400, of which £639,500 was cash and £2,331,900 was notional cost (previous financial year: £2,715,050 comprising £592,800 cash and £2,122,250 notional cost). The notional external audit cost includes the cost of the HMCTS Trust Statement which is not consolidated as part of these accounts.

HM Treasury Corporate Governance Code

As part of the preparation of this report, the department considered its compliance with the HM Treasury Corporate Governance Code for Central Government Departments. This year there were two departures from the recommendations.

The code states that the Board should meet on at least a quarterly basis. The Departmental Board convened twice during the financial year, reflecting the transition period under the new administration.

The code states that the Nominations Committee should be chaired by the lead non-executive. While the lead non-executive is a member, the committee was chaired by the Permanent Secretary in this financial year.

Independent oversight of assurance arrangements

The department is subject to independent oversight in several areas. This oversight included:

• National Audit Office reports (including value for money) and the audit report for the annual report and accounts

• Infrastructure and Projects Authority reviews

• feedback from the Major Projects Review Group

• Cabinet Office and HM Treasury representation on programme boards

• HM Chief Inspector of Prisons publications and annual report

• HM Chief Inspector of Probation publications and annual report

• regular Independent Monitoring Board reports

• Ofsted reports

• Public Accounts Committee

Conclusion

I have considered the handover reporting provided by the former interim Permanent Secretary alongside evidence provided regarding the production of the governance statement and the independent advice and assurance provided by the Audit and Risk Assurance Committee. I conclude that the department has satisfactory governance and risk management systems in place with the necessary policies and procedures to support MoJ in delivering its statutory duties and to meet the aims and objectives set by ministers, while safeguarding the public funds and assets for which I am responsible.

Dr Jo Farrar CB OBE

Permanent Secretary and Principal Accounting Officer

24 October 2025

Remuneration and staff report

The remuneration and staff report summarises the department’s policy on remuneration of ministers, executive board members, non-executive board members and staff. It also provides details of actual costs and contractual arrangements.

The remuneration and staff report has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Government Financial Reporting Manual as issued by HM Treasury.

Remuneration policy

The remuneration of senior civil servants is set by the Prime Minister following independent advice from the Review Body on Senior Salaries. The Review Body on Senior Salaries also advises the Prime Minister from time to time on:

• the pay and pensions of MPs and their allowances

• peers’ allowances

• the pay, pensions and allowances of ministers and others whose pay is determined by the Ministerial and Other Salaries Act 1975 (as amended)

In reaching its recommendations, the Review Body on Senior Salaries has regard to the following considerations:

• the need to recruit, retain and motivate suitably able and qualified people to exercise their different responsibilities

• regional and local variations in labour markets and their effects on the recruitment and retention of staff

• government policies for improving the public services, including the requirement on departments to meet the output targets for the delivery of departmental services

• the funds available to departments as set out in the government’s DEL

• the government’s inflation target

The Review Body on Senior Salaries takes account of the evidence it receives about wider economic considerations and the affordability of its recommendations.

Board members and senior civil servants’ remuneration

The salaries of MoJ Departmental Board members (excluding the ministerial and non-executive members) are determined in line with the Cabinet Office SCS reward policy. Non-consolidated performance-related payments for senior civil servants are determined by the Executive Committee (SCS pay band 1 and 2) and the Nominations Committee (SCS pay band 3).

Service contracts

The Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 requires Civil Service appointments to be made on merit on the basis of fair and open competition. The Recruitment Principles published by the Civil Service Commission specify the circumstances when appointments may be made otherwise.

Unless otherwise stated below, the officials covered by this report hold appointments which are open-ended. Early termination, other than for misconduct, would result in the individual receiving compensation as set out in the Civil Service Compensation Scheme.

Further information about the work of the Civil Service Commission can be found at: www.civilservicecommission.org.uk

Remuneration and pension entitlement

The following sections provide details of the remuneration and pension interests of the ministers and most senior management (such as board members) of the department.

Remuneration: salary and payments in kind (audited),

Remuneration					2024-25					2023-24
	Total amount of salary and fees	All taxable benefits (nearest £100)	Pension-related benefits (nearest £1,000)[footnote 7]	Severance payments	Total (nearest £1,000)	Total amount of salary and fees	All taxable benefits (nearest £100)	Pension-related benefits (nearest £1,000)	Severance payments	Total (nearest £1,000)
Ministers[footnote 8][footnote 9]	£	£	£	£	£	£	£	£	£	£
The Rt Hon Shabana Mahmood MP, Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (from 5 July 2024)	49,721 (FYE 67,505)	-	13,000	-	62,000	-	-	-	-	-
Lord Timpson OBE, Minister of State for Justice (from 5 July 2024)	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Heidi Alexander MP, Minister of State for Justice (from 8 July 2024 to 28 November 2024)	12,604 (FYE 31,680)	-	3,000	-	16,000	-	-	-	-	-
Alex Davies-Jones MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Justice (from 9 July 2024)	16,300 (FYE 22,375)	-	4,000	-	21,000	-	-	-	-	-
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Justice (from 9 July 2024)	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Sir Nic Dakin MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Justice (from 23 July 2024)	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Sarah Sackman KC MP, Minister of State for Justice (from 2 December 2024)	10,475 (FYE 31,680)	-	3,000	-	13,000	-	-	-	-	-
The Rt Hon Alex Chalk KC MP, Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (from 21 April 2023 to 5 July 2024)	17,784 (FYE 67,505)	-	4,000	16,876	39,000	63,755 (FYE 67,505)	-	16,000	-	80,000
Lord Christopher Bellamy KC, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Justice (from 7 June 2022 to 5 July 2024)	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Mike Freer MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Justice (from 20 September 2022 to 5 July 2024)	5,894 (FYE 22,375)	-	1,000	5,593	13,000	22,375	-	6,000	-	28,000
The Rt Hon Edward Argar MP, Minister of State for Justice (from 27 October 2022 to 5 July 2024)	8,346 (FYE 31,680)	-	2,000	7,920	18,000	31,680	-	8,000	-	40,000
Laura Farris MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Justice (from 13 November 2023 to 5 July 2024)	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Gareth Bacon MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Justice (from 13 November 2023 to 5 July 2024)	5,894 (FYE 22,375)	-	1,000	5,593	13,000	8,577 (FYE 22,375)	-	2,000	-	11,000
The Rt Hon Damian Hinds MP, Minister of State for Justice (from 27 October 2022 to 12 November 2023)	-	-	-	-	-	19,624 (FYE 31,680)	-	5,000	-	24,000
The Rt Hon Dominic Raab MP, Deputy Prime Minister, Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (to 20 April 2023)[footnote 10]	-	-	-	-	-	3,750 (FYE 67,505)	-	-	16,876	21,000

Remuneration: salary and payments in kind (audited)

Remuneration					2024‑25					2023‑24
	Total amount of salary and fees	All taxable benefits (nearest £100)	Bonuses paid[footnote 11]	Pension-related benefits (nearest £1,000)[footnote 12]	Total	Total amount of salary and fees	All taxable benefits (nearest £100)	Bonuses paid	Pension-related benefits (nearest £1,000)	Total
Senior managers	£000	£000	£000	£000	£000	£000	£000	£000	£000	£000
Dame Antonia Romeo DCB, Permanent Secretary	205-210	-	-	63	270-275	195-200	-	10-15	91	300-305
Amy Rees, Chief Executive, HMPPS[footnote 13][footnote 14]	175-180	40.2	15-20	25	260-265	160-165	33.1	15-20	23	235-240
Nick Goodwin, Chief Executive, HMCTS[footnote 15]	145-150	-	0-5	85	230-235	135-140	-	-	54	190-195
Jerome Glass, Director General, Policy Group – Courts and Access to Justice	145-150	-	10-15	87	245-250	140-145	-	0-5	61	200-205
James McEwen, Chief Operating Officer	165-170	-	10-15	141	320-325	150-155	-	10-15	82	250-255
Ross Gribbin, Director General, Policy – Prisons, Offenders and International Justice (from 16 November 2023)	145-150	-	15-20	112	270-275	50-55 (135-140 FYE)	-	0-5	27	80-85
Megan Lee-Devlin, Director General, Service Delivery Transformation (from 28 March 2024 to 16 March 2025)	175-180 (FYE 185‑190)	-	0-5	69	245-250	0-5 (170-175 FYE)	-	-	1	0-5
Amy Holmes, Interim Director General, Service Delivery Transformation (from 17 March 2025)	5-10 (FYE 125-130)	-	-	5	10-15	-	-	-	-	-
Richard Price, Director General, Performance, Strategy and Analysis (to 31 October 2024)	85-90 (FYE 145‑150)	-	-	81	165-170	140-145	-	-	53	190-195
Jo Farrar, Second Permanent Secretary (to 31 May 2023)	-	-	-	-	-	25-30 (165-170 FYE)	-	-	4	30-35

Remuneration: salary and payments in kind (audited)

			2024-25			2023-24
	Fees (excluding performance-related remuneration)	All taxable benefits (nearest £100)	Bonuses paid	Fees (excluding performance-related remuneration)	All taxable benefits (nearest £100)	Bonuses paid
Non‑executive board members[footnote 16]	£000	£000	£000	£000	£000	£000
Mark Rawlinson, Lead Non-Executive Member	20-25	-	-	20-25	-	-
Paul Smith, Non-Executive Member and Chair of Audit and Risk Assurance Committee	20-25	-	-	20-25	-	-
Mark Beaton, Non-Executive Member	10-15	6.0	-	10-15	0.5	-
Jennifer Rademaker, Non-Executive Member (from 21 August 2023)	10-15	-	-	5-10	-	-
Jonathan Spence, Non-Executive Member (from 21 August 2023)	10-15	2.4	-	5-10	1.4	-
Andrew Robb, Non-Executive Member (from 21 August 2023)	10-15	-	-	5-10	-	-

Salary

‘Salary’ includes:

• gross salary

• overtime

• reserved rights to London weighting or London allowances

• recruitment and retention allowances

• private office allowances

• any other allowance to the extent that it is subject to UK taxation

This report is based on accrued payments made by the department and therefore recorded in these accounts. In respect of ministers in the House of Commons, departments bear only the cost of the additional ministerial remuneration. The salary for their services as an MP (£91,346 from 1 April 2024) and various allowances to which they are entitled are borne centrally.

Ministers in the House of Lords do not receive a salary but rather an additional remuneration, which cannot be quantified separately from their ministerial salaries. This total remuneration, as well as the allowances to which they are entitled, is paid by the department and is therefore shown in full in the figures above.

Benefits in kind

Taxable benefits include all benefits in kind and taxable cash benefits. The monetary value of benefits in kind covers any benefits provided by the department and treated by HM Revenue and Customs as a taxable emolument. Benefits recognised relate to travel and subsistence.

Bonuses

Bonuses are based on performance levels attained and are made as part of the appraisal process. Bonuses relate to the performance in the year in which they become payable to the individual. Permanent Secretary bonuses are determined by the Permanent Secretary Remuneration Committee within Cabinet Office.

Bonuses for SCS pay band 3 are determined by the Permanent Secretary, as advised by the Nominations Committee which includes the lead non-executive board member and the Chief People Officer. The bonuses reported in the this financial year relate to performance in the financial years 2024 to 2025 and 2023 to 2024. The comparative bonuses reported for the previous financial year relate to performance in the financial years 2023 to 2024 and 2022 to 2023.

Pension entitlements: ministerial pensions (audited)

	Accrued pension at age 65 as at 31 March 2025	Real increase in pension at age 65	CETV at 31 March 2025	CETV at 31 March 2024[footnote 17]	Real increase/ (decrease) in CETV
Ministers[footnote 18][footnote 19]	£000	£000	£000	£000	£000
The Rt Hon Shabana Mahmood MP, Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (from 5 July 2024)	0-5	0-2.5	12	-	7
Lord Timpson OBE, Minister of State for Justice (from 5 July 2024)	-	-	-	-	-
Heidi Alexander MP, Minister of State for Justice (from 8 July 2024 to 28 November 2024)	0-5	0-2.5	4	-	2
Alex Davies-Jones MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Justice (from 9 July 2024)	0-5	0-2.5	4	-	2
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Justice (from 9 July 2024)	-	-	-	-	-
Sir Nic Dakin MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Justice (from 23 July 2024)	-	-	-	-	-
Sarah Sackman KC MP, Minister of State for Justice (from 2 December 2024)	0-5	0-2.5	8	-	1
The Rt Hon Alex Chalk KC MP, Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (from 21 April 2023 to 5 July 2024)	0-5	0-2.5	49	44	2
Lord Christopher Bellamy KC, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Justice (from 7 June 2022 to 5 July 2024)	-	-	-	-	-
Mike Freer MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Justice (from 20 September 2022 to 5 July 2024)	0-5	0-2.5	56	53	1
The Rt Hon Edward Argar MP, Minister of State for Justice (from 27 October 2022 to 5 July 2024)	0-5	0-2.5	51	48	1
Laura Farris MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Justice (from 13 November 2023 to 5 July 2024)	-	-	-	-	-
Gareth Bacon MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Justice (from 13 November 2023 to 5 July 2024)	0-5	0-2.5	4	3	1
The Rt Hon Damian Hinds MP, Minister of State for Justice (from 27 October 2022 to 12 November 2023)	-	-	-	-	-
The Rt Hon Dominic Raab MP, Deputy Prime Minister, Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (to 20 April 2023)	-	-	-	-	-

Ministerial pension benefits

Pension benefits for ministers are provided by the Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund. The scheme is made under statute and the rules are set out in the Ministers’ Etc. Pension Scheme 2015.

Those ministers who are MPs may also accrue an MP’s pension under the Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund (details of which are not included in this report).

Benefits for ministers are payable from state pension age under the 2015 scheme. Pensions are revalued annually in line with pensions increase legislation both before and after retirement. The contribution rate from May 2015 is 11.1% and the accrual rate is 1.775% of pensionable earnings.

The figure shown for pension value includes the total pension payable to the member under both the pre- and post-2015 ministerial pension schemes.

Cash equivalent transfer value

This is the actuarially assessed capitalised value of the pension scheme benefits accrued by a member at a particular point in time. The benefits valued are the member’s accrued benefits and any contingent spouse’s pension payable from the scheme. A cash equivalent transfer value (CETV) is a payment made by a pension scheme or arrangement to secure pension benefits in another pension scheme or arrangement when the member leaves a scheme and chooses to transfer the pension benefits they have accrued in their former scheme.

The pension figures shown relate to the benefits that the individual has accrued as a consequence of their total ministerial service, not just their current appointment as a minister. CETVs are calculated in accordance with the Occupational Pension Schemes (Transfer Values) (Amendment) Regulations 2008 and do not take account of any actual or potential reduction to benefits resulting from Lifetime Allowance Tax which may be due when pension benefits are taken.

Real increase in value of the case equivalent transfer value

This is the element of the increase in accrued pension funded by the Exchequer. It excludes increases due to inflation and contributions paid by the minister. It is worked out using common market valuation factors for the start and end of the period.

Civil Service pensions (audited)

	Accrued pension and related lump sum at pension age as at 31 March 2025	Real increase in pension and related lump sum at pension age	CETV at 31 March 2025	CETV at 31 March 2024	Real increase/ (decrease) in CETV	Employer partnership  pension account at 31 March 2025
Senior managers	£000	£000	£000	£000	£000	Nearest £100
Dame Antonia Romeo DCB, Permanent Secretary	60-65 plus a lump sum of 145-150	2.5-5 plus a lump sum of 0	1,310	1,214	36	-
Amy Rees, Chief Executive, HMPPS[footnote 20]	-	-	-	-	-	24,900
Nick Goodwin, Chief Executive, HMCTS[footnote 21]	45-50 plus a lump sum of 115-120	2.5-5 plus a lump sum of 2.5-5	998	890	63	-
Jerome Glass, Director General, Policy Group – Courts and Access to Justice	50-55	2.5-5	863	767	56	-
James McEwen, Chief Operating Officer	65-70	7.5-10	1,094	945	102	-
Ross Gribbin, Director General, Policy – Prisons, Offenders and International Justice (from 16 November 2023)	40-45	5-7.5	698	587	78	-
Megan Lee-Devlin, Director General, Service Delivery Transformation (from 28 March 2024 to 16 March 2025)	15-20	2.5-5	160	108	30	-
Amy Holmes, Interim Director General, Service Delivery Transformation (from 17 March 2025)	35-40 plus a lump sum of 90-95	0-2.5 plus a lump sum of 0-2.5	745	740	4	-
Richard Price, Director General, Performance, Strategy and Analysis (to 31 October 2024)	60-65 plus a lump sum of 155-160	2.5-5 plus a lump sum of 5-7.5	1,460	1,336	75	-
Jo Farrar, Second Permanent Secretary (to 31 May 2023)[footnote 22]	-	-	-	-	-	-

Civil Service pensions

Pension benefits are provided through the Civil Service pension arrangements. Before 1 April 2015, the only scheme was the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme (PCSPS), which is divided into a few different sections. Classic, premium, and classic plus provide benefits on a final salary basis, while nuvos provides benefits on a career average basis. From 1 April 2015 a new pension scheme for civil servants was introduced – the Civil Servants and Others Pension Scheme or alpha – which provides benefits on a career average basis. All newly appointed civil servants, and the majority of those already in service, joined the new scheme.

The PCSPS and alpha are unfunded statutory schemes. Employees and employers make contributions (employee contributions range between 4.6% and 8.05%, depending on salary). The balance of the cost of benefits in payment is met by monies voted by Parliament each year. Pensions in payment are increased annually in line with the pensions increase legislation. Instead of the defined benefit arrangements, employees may opt for a defined contribution pension with an employer contribution, which is the partnership pension account.

In alpha, pension builds up at a rate of 2.32% of pensionable earnings each year, and the total amount accrued is adjusted annually in line with a rate set by HM Treasury. Members may opt to give up (commute) pension for a lump sum up to the limits set by the Finance Act 2004. All members who switched to alpha from the PCSPS had their PCSPS benefits ‘banked’, with those with earlier benefits in one of the final salary sections of the PCSPS having those benefits based on their final salary when they leave alpha.

The accrued pensions shown in this report are the pension the member is entitled to receive when they reach normal pension age, or immediately on ceasing to be an active member of the scheme if they are already at or over normal pension age. Normal pension age is 60 for members of classic, premium, and classic plus, 65 for members of nuvos, and the higher of 65 or state pension age for members of alpha. The pension figures in this report show pension earned in PCSPS or alpha – as appropriate. Where a member has benefits in both the PCSPS and alpha, the figures show the combined value of their benefits in the two schemes but note that the constituent parts of that pension may be payable from different ages.

When the government introduced new public service pension schemes in 2015, there were transitional arrangements which treated existing scheme members differently based on their age. Older members of the PCSPS remained in that scheme, rather than moving to alpha. In 2018, the Court of Appeal found that the transitional arrangements in the public service pension schemes unlawfully discriminated against younger members (the McCloud judgment).

As a result, steps are being taken to remedy those 2015 reforms, making the pension scheme provisions fair to all members. The public service pensions remedy is made up of two parts. The first part closed the PCSPS on 31 March 2022, with all active members becoming members of alpha from 1 April 2022. The second part removes the age discrimination for the remedy period, between 1 April 2015 and 31 March 2022, by moving the membership of eligible members during this period back into the PCSPS on 1 October 2023. This is known as ‘rollback’.

The accrued pension benefits, cash equivalent transfer value and single total figure of remuneration reported for any individual affected by the Public Service Pensions Remedy have been calculated based on their inclusion in the PCSPS for the period between 1 April 2015 and 31 March 2022, following the McCloud judgment. The Public Service Pensions Remedy applies to individuals that were members, or eligible to be members, of a public service pension scheme on 31 March 2012 and were members of a public service pension scheme between 1 April 2015 and 31 March 2022. The basis for the calculation reflects the legal position that impacted members have been rolled back into the PCSPS for the remedy period and that this will apply unless the member actively exercises their entitlement on retirement to decide instead to receive benefits calculated under the terms of the alpha scheme for the period from 1 April 2015 to 31 March 2022.

The partnership pension account is an occupational defined contribution pension arrangement which is part of the Legal and General Mastertrust. The employer makes a basic contribution of between 8% and 14.75% (depending on the age of the member). The employee does not have to contribute but, where they do make contributions, the employer will match these up to a limit of 3% of pensionable salary (in addition to the employer’s basic contribution). Employers also contribute a further 0.5% of pensionable salary to cover the cost of centrally provided risk benefit cover (death in service and ill health retirement).

Further details about the Civil Service pension arrangements can be found at the website: www.civilservicepensionscheme.org.uk

Fair pay disclosure

This section has been subject to audit.

Reporting bodies are required to disclose the relationship between the remuneration of the highest paid director in their organisation and the median remuneration of the organisation’s workforce.

The banded remuneration of the highest paid director in MoJ in the financial year 2024 to 2025 was £235,000 to £240,000 (previous financial year: £215,000 to £220,000). This was 6.9 times (previous financial year: 6.7) the median remuneration of the workforce, which was £34,649 (previous financial year: £32,539).

12 employees (previous financial year: 20), with their pay annualised, received remuneration in excess of the highest paid director. These were agency staff who worked for a part of the reporting year. In line with fair pay disclosure guidance, remuneration for agency workers has been annualised to arrive at the figures disclosed and does not reflect actual remuneration payments made to agency staff in this financial year.

Of the 12 agency workers, 10 (previous financial year: 9) worked less than 30 days in the year, and 1 (previous financial year: 3) received actual compensation in excess of the highest paid director. Remuneration ranged from £20,000 to £25,000, to £310,000 to £315,000 (previous financial year: £20,000 to £25,000, to £365,000 to £370,000).

No permanent staff received remuneration in excess of the highest paid director.

Total remuneration includes salary, non‑consolidated performance-related pay and benefits in kind. It does not include severance payments, employer pension contributions and the CETV of pensions.

Table 1 ‑ Annual percentage change in remuneration of highest paid director and staff

		2024-25		2023-24
	Salary	Bonus payments	Salary	Bonus payments
Staff average	6%	-7%	10%	29%
Highest paid director	6%	6%	-11%	-

The highest paid director received a bonus of £17,500 in the financial year 2024 to 2025 and a bonus of £16,500 in the financial year 2023 to 2024. In the financial year 2022 to 2023 the highest paid director did not receive a bonus, so a comparative percentage cannot be calculated for 2023 to 2024.

Table 2 ‑ Ratio between the highest paid director’s total remuneration and the pay and benefits of employees in the lower quartile, median and upper quartile

	Lower quartile	Median	Upper quartile
2024-25	8.5:1	6.9:1	5.7:1
2023-24	8.1:1	6.7:1	5.5:1

The ratio between the highest paid director’s remuneration and the staff lower quartile, median and upper quartile increased due to a larger percentage increase in total remuneration of the highest paid director than staff pay.

The pay ratios are consistent with the pay and reward policies for the organisation as a whole.

Table 3 ‑ Lower quartile, median and upper quartile remuneration for staff

		Lower quartile		Median		Upper quartile
	2024-25	2023-24	2024-25	2023-24	2024-25	2023-24
Salary	27,840	26,653	34,345	32,268	41,781	39,821
Total remuneration	27,986	27,000	34,649	32,539	42,000	39,821

Compensation for loss of office

This section has been subject to audit.

The Rt Hon Alex Chalk KC MP received compensation of £16,876.

The Rt Hon Edward Argar MP received compensation of £7,920.

Mike Freer MP received compensation of £5,593.

Gareth Bacon MP received compensation of £5,593.

Staff numbers and composition

This section has been subject to audit.

Staff costs

Departmental group

				2024-25	2023-24
	Permanently employed staff[footnote 23]	Other	Ministers[footnote 24]	Total	Total
	£000	£000	£000	£000	£000
Wages and salaries	3,672,453	240,421	412	3,913,286	3,740,548
Social security costs[footnote 25]	400,846	2,205	38	403,089	375,659
Other pension costs	894,076	55	-	894,131	791,876
Sub-total	4,967,375	242,681	450	5,210,506	4,908,083
Early departure costs	32,690	-	-	32,690	45,052
Early departure provisions	(32)	-	-	(32)	-
Add inward secondments	4,880	2,815	-	7,695	25,788
Less recoveries in respect of outward secondments	(12,546)	(10)	-	(12,556)	(13,894)
Total net costs	4,992,367	245,486	450	5,238,303	4,965,029
Of which:
Core department and agencies	4,750,749	204,067	450	4,955,266	4,701,233
Non‑departmental public bodies	241,618	41,419	-	283,037	263,796
	4,992,367	245,486	450	5,238,303	4,965,029

During the financial year 2024 to 2025, £18.1 million of staff costs (previous financial year: £26.5 million) have been capitalised.

The department has disclosed information on the number of hours and associated cost to the department of employees who were relevant union officials during the financial year in Annex F.

Under the Ministerial and Other Salaries Act 1975, the salary and social security costs of the Lord Chancellor, included under ‘Ministers’ above, are paid from the Consolidated Fund. In the financial year 2024 to 2025, the Lord Chancellor’s full year equivalent salary was £67,505 (previous financial year: £67,505) and the associated combined social security costs were £8,060 (previous financial year: £8,627). Four severance payments totalling £35,982 were made to ministers (previous financial year: one payment of £16,876).

Special advisers are temporary civil servants. In order to improve efficiency, the administration of staff costs for all special advisers across government was moved to the Cabinet Office in July 2019, with corresponding budget cover transfers. Therefore, special adviser costs are now reported in the Cabinet Office annual report and accounts. Special advisers remain employed by the respective departments of their appointing minister.

In line with the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 and the model contract for special advisers, a special adviser’s appointment automatically ends when their appointing minister leaves office. Special advisers are not entitled to a notice period but receive contractual termination benefits to compensate for this. Termination benefits are based on length of service and capped at six months’ salary.

If a special adviser returns to work for the government following the receipt of a severance payment, the payment is required to be repaid, less a deduction in lieu of wages for the period until their return. Termination costs for special advisers are reported in the Cabinet Office annual report and accounts.

The PCSPS and the Civil Servants and Other Pension Scheme (known as alpha) are unfunded multi-employer defined benefit schemes where the department is unable to identify its share of the underlying assets and liabilities. The scheme actuary valued the scheme as at 31 March 2020. Details can be found in the accounts of the Cabinet Office: Civil Superannuation on GOV.UK.

For this financial year, employers’ contributions of £743.2 million were payable to the PCSPS (previous financial year: £648.6 million) at a single rate of 28.97% of pensionable earnings (previous financial year: at one of four rates which ranged from 26.6% to 30.3% of pensionable pay, based on salary bands). The scheme actuary reviews employer contributions approximately every four years following a full scheme valuation. The contribution rates are set to meet the cost of the benefits accruing during this financial year to be paid when the member retires and not the benefits paid during this period to existing pensioners.

Employer pension contributions equivalent to 0.5% (previous financial year: 0.5%) of pensionable pay were payable to the PCSPS to cover the cost of the future provision of lump sum benefits on death in service and ill health retirement of employees in the PCSPS.

Past employees of the probation trusts, and Local Government Pension Scheme probation staff who transferred to community rehabilitation companies and HMPPS’ National Probation Service, are covered by the provisions of the Local Government Pension Scheme via one pension fund, Greater Manchester Pension Fund, administered by Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council. For the year to 31 March 2025, HMPPS paid employers’ contributions of £192.9 million to the Greater Manchester Pension Fund, relating to current probation staff, at 26.5% (previous financial year: £181.1 million at 26.5%).

Past employees of the community rehabilitation companies are also members of the Local Government Pension Scheme via the Greater Manchester Pension Fund. This financial year, MoJ paid employers’ contributions of £0.4 million in respect of these staff (previous financial year: £0.6 million).

Employees of Cafcass are members of the Local Government Pension Scheme through the West Yorkshire Pension Fund. This financial year employer contributions of £17.5 million were payable at a rate of 18.6% (previous financial year: £17.7 million at a rate of 19.4%).

Employees can opt to open a partnership pension account, which is a stakeholder pension with an employer contribution. Employers’ contributions to partnership pension accounts were £2.2 million (previous financial year: £2.0 million) and were paid to one or more of the three appointed stakeholder pension providers. Employer contributions, which are age-related, ranged from 8% to 14.75% (previous financial year: 8% to 14.75%) of pensionable pay. Employers also match employee contributions up to 3% of pensionable pay.

The NEST Defined Contribution Scheme is offered to individuals working in HMPPS who are not civil servants and therefore not eligible to join the Civil Service Pension Scheme or the Local Government Pension Scheme. For the year to 31 March 2025, employer contributions of £0.03 million were paid (previous financial year: £0.03 million).

In addition, other pension costs include Greater Manchester Pension Fund pension cost recharge adjustments of £64.8 million (previous financial year: £60.8 million), West Yorkshire Pension Fund pension cost recharge adjustments of £1.3 million (previous financial year: £0.3 million), and other pension scheme costs of £3.3 million (previous financial year: £2.8 million) for some of the department’s arm’s length bodies. For further details on employers’ pension contributions and contribution rates for the Legal Services Commission, Cafcass and probation pension schemes, refer to Note 25.

24 employees (previous financial year: 57 employees) retired early on ill health grounds. The total additional accrued pension liabilities in the year were £123,000 (previous financial year: £320,000).

Judicial costs

Departmental group

				2024-25	2023-24
	Senior judicial salaries	Other judicial salaries	Fee-paid judiciary	Total	Total
	£000	£000	£000	£000	£000
Wages and salaries	172,502	134,335	160,717	467,554	432,930
Social security costs	23,143	17,771	16,857	57,771	53,846
Other pension costs	105,623	83,264	73,632	262,519	201,983
Total net costs	301,268	235,370	251,206	787,844	688,759

The Judicial Pension Scheme is an unfunded multi‑employer defined benefit scheme which prepares its own accounts, but for which the department (through HMCTS) is unable to identify its share of the liabilities. Details of the most recent completed valuation (as at March 2020) are available in the Judicial Pension Scheme annual report and accounts 2024 to 2025.

Judicial pensions are paid out of the Consolidated Fund where the judicial office holder’s salary was paid from that fund, or the Judicial Pension Scheme where the salary has been paid from the department’s Supply Estimate. Contributions to the Judicial Pension Scheme have been made at a rate of 62.55%.

The benefits payable are governed by the provisions of either: the Judicial Pensions Regulations 2022 (for all judicial office holders appointed from 1 April 2022), the Judicial Pensions Regulations 2015 (for judicial office holders appointed between 1 April 2015 and 31 March 2022 and existing judicial office holders who are not in scope of the McCloud remedy), the Judicial Pensions Act 1981 or the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1993 (for those remaining in these schemes due to the McCloud options choice made), and the Judicial Pensions Regulations 2017 (for eligible fee-paid judges with reckonable service up to 31 March 2015).

The Judicial Pensions Regulations 2022 replaced the legacy schemes for judicial office holders appointed from 1 April 2022. The department makes employer contributions to the Judicial Pension Scheme in respect of this scheme as service is incurred.

Staff numbers

Departmental group

The average number of full-time equivalent persons employed during the year was as follows:

					2024-25	2023-24
	Permanently employed staff[footnote 26]	Other	Ministers	Special advisers	Total	Total
MoJ HQ and associated offices[footnote 27]
Chief Operating Officer Group	3,000	74	0.4	0.2	3,074	3,040
Policy Group	2,380	1	3.6	1.9	2,386	2,242
Service Transformation Group	2,357	398	-	-	2,755	2,212
Agencies
HMCTS	14,418	1,863	0.6	0.3	16,282	16,423
OPG	1,702	210	0.1	-	1,912	1,806
HMPPS	64,824	957	1.1	0.6	65,783	65,111
LAA	1,204	2	0.3	0.2	1,207	1,143
CICA	302	-	0.1	-	302	306
Non-departmental bodies
Non-departmental public bodies	4,366	579	-	-	4,945	4,779
Capital projects
Staff engaged in capital projects	259	91	-	-	350	254
Total	94,812	4,175	6.2	3.2	98,996	97,316
Of which:
Core departments and agencies	90,446	3,596	6.2	3.2	94,051	92,537
Non-departmental public bodies	4,366	579	-	-	4,945	4,779
Total	94,812	4,175	6.2	3.2	98,996	97,316

Average number of full-time equivalent staff employed in the year

MoJ HQ* (9%)	8,565
HMCTS (16%)	16,282
HMPPS (66%)	65,783
Legal Aid Agency (1%)	1,207
Other departmental agencies (2%)	2,214
Non-departmental public bodies (5%)	4,945

*Includes staff engaged in capital projects

Average number of full-time equivalent judiciary in post in the year

				2024-25	2023-24
	Senior judicial salaried	Other judicial salaried	Fee-paid judiciary	Total	Total
Core department and agencies	1,010	968	1,109	3,087	3,031
Total	1,010	968	1,109	3,087	3,031

The judiciary is independent. Their payroll costs disclosed within HMCTS are met either directly from the Consolidated Fund, in the case of senior judiciary, or by the department for other judiciary. All costs are included within these accounts to ensure that the full cost is disclosed.

Civil Service and other compensation schemes – exit packages

This section has been subject to audit.

			2024-25			2023-24
	Compulsory redundancies	Other compensated departures	Total exit packages	Compulsory redundancies	Other compensated departures	Total exit packages
Exit package cost band	Number	Number	Total number	Number	Number	Total number
Less than £10,000	-	214	214	-	169	169
£10,000 - £25,000	-	114	114	-	126	126
£25,001 - £50,000	-	99	99	-	170	170
£50,001 - £100,000	-	316	316	-	309	309
£100,001 - £150,000	-	39	39	-	107	107
£150,001 - £200,000	-	3	3	-	8	8
£200,001 - £250,000	-	1	1	-	3	3
£250,001 - £300,000	-	-	-	-	-	-
£300,001 - £350,000	-	-	-	-	1	1
Total number of exit packages by type	-	786	786	-	893	893
Of which:
Core department and agencies	-	786	786	-	893	893
Non-departmental public bodies	-	-	-	-	-	-
Total cost of exit packages by type (£000)	-	34,674	34,674	-	46,647	46,647
Of which:
Core department and agencies	-	34,674	34,674	-	46,647	46,647
Non-departmental public bodies	-	-	-	-	-	-

Redundancy and other departure costs have been paid in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Service Compensation Scheme, a statutory scheme made under the Superannuation Act 1972. Exit costs are accounted for in accordance with IAS 19 Employee Benefits within the financial statements. The table above discloses exit packages in the year the exit package is confirmed. Where the department has agreed early retirements, the additional costs are met by the department and not by the PCSPS. Ill health retirement costs are met by the pension scheme and are not included in the table above.

In this financial year, the figures include six departures of £0.7 million for HMPPS staff members leaving under a voluntary departure scheme as part of the delivery of the One HMPPS model. HMPPS is committed to savings on non-frontline staffing by redefining HQ to deliver more efficient and effective support to frontline services. Some of these exits relate to staff who are members of the Local Government Pension Scheme, a funded scheme, and therefore result in additional costs. Other departure exit costs include 67 within the Chief Operating Officer Group and MoJ senior civil servants on voluntary exit terms at a value of £5.3 million within payment bands not exceeding £95,000.

Spend on consultancy and temporary staff

			2024-25			2023-24
	Core and agencies	Non-departmental public bodies	Total	Core and agencies	Non-departmental public bodies	Total
	£000	£000	£000	£000	£000	£000
Consultancy	13,317	151	13,468	18,329	92	18,421
Temporary staff	198,599	18,388	216,987	232,874	15,891	248,765
Total	211,916	18,539	230,455	251,203	15,983	267,186

Consultants were used to support the delivery of the following strategic programmes.

• Property Transformation Programme: this aims to modernise the MoJ estate in England and Wales, particularly within prisons and probation, by transforming facilities management services to improve efficiency and reduce costs.

• Service Transformation Programme: this reviews all aspects of the IT architecture and systems, including hardware, software, network infrastructure, security measures and data management practices, identifying transformation options and supporting MoJ to create investment cases.

Our staff

Recruitment

Our recruitment is managed in accordance with the Civil Service Recruitment Principles which require appointments to be made on merit and on the basis of fair and open competition: civilservicecommission.independent.gov.uk/recruitment/recruitment-principles

MoJ continues to champion innovation to improve candidate and vacancy manager experience throughout the recruitment process, whether that be through the introduction of new technology or streamlining of our internal processes.

In November 2024, MoJ published an updated MoJ resourcing policy for delegated grades to ensure the department continued to have a policy which reflects legislation, Civil Service Commission guidelines and HR transactional processes.

This year, we have also made specific improvements to continue to embed inclusion principles within our recruitment model in the methods we use to attract, assess, select and retain diverse talent with the right skills, capabilities and motivation at all levels of the organisation so we can reflect the communities we serve. Inclusive recruitment guidance is available for vacancy managers to support them in embedding all elements of inclusion through each step of their recruitment campaigns. Furthermore, the department has published Diverse Interview Panel Guidance to support vacancy managers to ensure an inclusive sifting and interview process. To increase understanding of the Equality Act 2010 and the impact it has on recruitment, all MoJ People and Capability staff have access to inclusive recruitment workshops and separate one-day training on ‘Making Fair and Effective Decisions in Recruitment’.

This year MoJ was shortlisted for the Civil Service Commission’s 2024 Mark of Excellence Award. After winning the award in 2023, this year’s nomination reflected the work undertaken to:

• embrace technology through the introduction of a new Applicant Tracking System, improvements to candidate communications and attraction tools such as through the introduction of a ‘Match Me’ tool for HMPPS

• improve visibility of a wide range of roles across the department through sophisticated brand campaigns

• introduce and improve routes for candidates into roles such as the Aspiring Prison and Probation Officer Pathways and a dedicated alumni scheme for former staff who wish to return to roles within HMPPS

Furthermore, over the last year MoJ has developed its offer for applicants from an Armed Forces background, through the development of the Advance into Justice Scheme. MoJ has gained accreditation for extended eligibility for the scheme to be targeted at all Armed Forces veterans, military spouses of serving veterans and those who have exited the Armed Forces within the last 12 months. This revamped campaign will be a permanent feature of our recruitment options for HMPPS roles in the future and its launch in May 2025 will be supported by a suite of marketing and communications to attract applications.

Extensive work has also been undertaken to update policy and practice within the hiring of people with convictions through the Going Forward into Employment Scheme. This work allowed the introduction of new guidance to support current and future staff, providing confidence to the business in using this scheme.

Case study: CIPD People Development Partnership status

In February 2025, MoJ was awarded the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development’s (CIPD) People Development Partnership (PDP) status.

PDP recognises MoJ’s support for its people, HR frameworks, and learning and development approaches which meet People Profession global standards.

PDP status reflects MoJ’s dedication and commitment to five key focus areas:

• recognising the CIPD Profession Map as the international standard in the People Profession

• promoting and investing in professionalism aligned with CIPD’s standards

• providing career development pathways for both aspiring and established people professionals

• promoting and investing in continuing professional development for people professionals

• collaborating with CIPD to promote and support the People Profession

MoJ joins a select group of Civil Service departments with CIPD PDP status, including the Department for Work and Pensions, the Home Office and the Ministry of Defence.

Employment of people with disabilities

MoJ continues to be an accredited Disability Confident Leader, demonstrating our commitment to attracting, recruiting, developing and retaining disabled people and those with long-term conditions. As part of that commitment, the department continues to ensure its processes, policies and organisational culture promote disability inclusion with leadership from a board-level disability champion, SCS disability leads and staff networks.

From a recruitment perspective, the department has improved access and timeliness regarding the offer of reasonable adjustments to candidates as part of the introduction of our new Applicant Tracking System. This includes providing animated clips to help candidates gain a better initial grasp of reasonable adjustment support for the job assessment process within our volume recruitment processes and how to apply for it. The aim is to provide guidance in a multi-sensory format. Additionally, candidate correspondence has been improved to remind candidates of reasonable adjustment support with text message reminders at every stage of the recruitment process.

Diversity, inclusion and wellbeing

MoJ is committed to equality and inclusion and to providing an employee experience that attracts and enables staff to do their best work. Aligned to our strategic ambition of achieving ‘a culture rooted in our values’ in the MoJ People Strategy and the commitments set out in the Civil Service People Plan, we want to attract talent from the broadest range of backgrounds to deliver innovative, effective services for the public.

In May 2025 we published the Professional Standards and Behaviour Review, conducted by an MoJ non-executive director. The review looked at organisational culture and how HMPPS applies policies, procedures and practice relating to bullying, harassment and discrimination. It contains 12 recommendations, all of which have been accepted. We are now actively working to implement them in collaboration with our trade unions and staff networks.

MoJ is also delivering cross-government social mobility initiatives including the Catapult mentoring and sponsorship scheme (around 16,000 participants) and the Schools Programme (500 events delivered in this financial year), supported by over 3,600 volunteer ambassadors across government.

We publish gender pay gap information annually, including our action plan to close the gap.

We monitor the impact of our employee policies and procedures via the effective use of equalities data. Staff diversity information is published in the departmental core diversity statistics section of this report, and MoJ staff diversity data can be found in the Civil Service statistics tables.

At the end of March 2025, women make up 51% of the department’s SCS, and female representation across all grades is 58%.

Self-reporting rates (previously referred to as declaration rates) have risen in the department over the last year. Between March 2024 and March 2025, self-reporting rates have risen for disability (from 80% to 81%), religion (from 77% to 78%) and sexual orientation (from 78% to 79%). Meanwhile, self-reporting rates for ethnicity have remained stable at 85%.

At the end of March 2025, of those staff who have reported their ethnicity, 19% of staff (17% at March 2024) and 9% of SCS (9% at March 2024) are from ethnic minorities. Of those staff who have reported their disability status, 18% of staff (17% at March 2024) and 14% of SCS (13% at March 2024) have indicated that they have a disability.

Modern slavery

The MoJ Modern Slavery Leadership Group brings together leaders from the organisation’s functions to provide leadership of this agenda at a corporate level.

MoJ contributes to the cross-government modern slavery statement.

Sickness absence data

Across the department (including its executive agencies), the number of average working days lost in the last 12 months was 10.7 at the end of March 2025, compared to 10.0 at the end of March 2024. This reflects the range of operational and non-operational functions across the organisation. Mental health and muscular-skeletal issues remain the main absence drivers.

The department continues to actively support colleagues who are off work due to illness through various interventions. Occupational health and the Employee Assistance Programme are available for both employees and managers, providing tailored individual advice and support, in addition to regular departmental communications and interventions focusing on wellbeing and staff support.

Number of average working days lost at 31 March each year

2021	7.1
2022	12.2
2023	11.2
2024	10
2025	10.7

Employment and occupation trade union relationships

MoJ (excluding HMPPS) recognises four trade unions – PCS (Public and Commercial Services Union), FDA (formerly the First Division Association), Prospect and GMB (formerly the General, Municipal and Boilermakers’ Union). GMB is recognised for LAA only for HEO and below.

This year we have continued to engage on pay, developing progressive people policies and supporting our people through organisational change.

HMPPS recognises 10 trade unions. For prisons, the Youth Custody Service and HQ, these are the POA, PGA and NTUS (comprising PCS, UNITE, FDA, PROSPECT and GMB). For probation (and some HQ roles), these are NAPO, GMB SCOOP and Unison. The prime focus of engagement during this financial year has been on managing the operational pressures of the prison and probation capacity situation and on the strategic measures to relieve this, including resetting probation work to facilitate a move to a more community-based sentencing model (in anticipation of the Independent Sentencing Review). Engagement with trade unions on safety, decency, rehabilitation and workplace culture have also been strong areas of focus. It remains critical that these trade union relationships and levels of engagement and consultation continue to be constructive (as they have been in this financial year) to support operational delivery and reform priorities. HMPPS has comprehensive engagement frameworks in place to ensure this remains the case.

Health and safety at work

All MoJ members are provided with the necessary protections outlined in the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. As a result, all work processes go through the required risk assessment process to identify and mitigate potential hazards.

To further strengthen workplace safety, senior leadership training has been enhanced, reinforcing a strong commitment at the highest levels to occupational health and safety.

MoJ remains committed to effectively managing health and safety risks, driving outcomes, and ensuring alignment with safety standards and best practices.

Staff engagement

The 2024 Civil Service People Survey was completed by 44,279 (44%) of employees, a decrease of 4 percentage points from 2023 (from 48% to 44%). HMPPS response rate remains low (38%), a reduction from 2023’s response rate (41%). HMCTS also saw a decrease in response rate, down 7 percentage points to 48%.

The Employee Engagement Index score remained at 61% since 2023, apart from a decrease of 1% regarding the theme of pay and benefits. We maintained or increased our scores in all the other eight core themes at department level. MoJ scores increased by 1 percentage point in organisational objective and purpose (to 83%), my team (to 79%), and learning and development (to 56%). Resource and workload saw the highest improvement, rising by 2 percentage points to 72%.

We are committed to acting on the survey results. As in 2023, 32% of colleagues believe action was taken last year, and 42% believe action will be taken this year.

Staff turnover

Across MoJ HQ and operational agencies, departmental turnover rates have fallen. Attrition drivers are monitored at the business group level, with HR teams implementing interventions when needed. The pay and reward team is also working to maintain competitive pay to address areas with higher turnover.

HMPPS continued to see a sustained reduction in leaver rates through the financial year 2024 to 2025. The overall leaver rate reduced from March 2024 to March 2025. The retention oversight process is embedded as business-as-usual activity and sites with high attrition being supported with deep dives to support senior leaders in tackling individual issues. The top drivers of attrition are career progression, health and wellbeing, and leadership. To address these we are focusing on thematic reviews to look at national issues arising from the data and insights. The first is focused on the experience of those prison officers in their first two years of service.

		2024-25		2023-24
	Turnover	Departmental turnover[footnote 28]	Turnover	Departmental turnover
MoJ HQ	6.0%	10.1%	5.8%	12.1%
HMPPS[footnote 29]	10.1%	10.8%	11%	12.2%
HMCTS	9.2%	11.1%	11.4%	14.5%
OPG	5.9%	8.5%	6.4%	10.2%
LAA	6.5%	8.5%	6.3%	8.6%
CICA	5.5%	8.6%	7.3%	12.8%

Workforce composition^{[footnote 30]}

The number of staff split between male and female in the five years to 31 March 2025 is as follows.

	2020-21		2021-22		2022-23		2023-24[footnote 31]		2024-25
	Male	Female	Male	Female	Male	Female	Male	Female	Male	Female
Board	26	23	34	31	28	30	24	26	26	27
SCS staff only[footnote 32]	157	174	165	168	164	179	152	161	157	163
Non-SCS staff	35,468	43,547	37,315	49,776	38,679	53,239	40,538	55,337	40,685	55,842

Departmental core diversity statistics: payroll staff in post on 31 March 2025

Gender

Female	58%
Male	42%

Ethnicity

Ethnic minority	19%
White	81%

Disability

Disabled	18%
Non-disabled	82%

Full/part time

Part time	17%
Full time	83%

These statistics provide a snapshot of the department’s workforce. Further detail on MoJ workforce diversity can be found within the Civil Service statistics for 2025.

SCS equivalent staff – headcount by band

		SCS or equivalent within band as at 31 March 2025		SCS or equivalent within band as at 31 March 2024
Salary band	Number	Percentage	Number	Percentage
£60,000-£69,999	0	0	0	0%
£70,000-£79,999	10	3%	17	5%
£80,000-£89,999	125	39%	143	46%
£90,000-£99,999	63	20%	46	15%
£100,000-£109,999	54	17%	54	17%
£110,000-£119,999	29	9%	20	6%
£120,000-£129,999	16	5%	13	4%
£130,000-£139,999	6	2%	8	3%
£140,000-£149,999	8	2%	3	1%
£150,000-£159,999	1	0%	3	1%
£160,000-£169,999	3	1%	3	1%
£170,000-£179,999	2	1%	2	1%
£180,000-£189,999	2	1%	0	0%
£190,000-£199,999	0	0%	1	0%
£200,000-£209,999	1	0%	0	0%
Total	320	100%	313	100%

Off-payroll engagements

During the financial year, MoJ reviewed off-payroll engagements where we are required to consider intermediaries (IR35) legislation using HM Revenue and Customs’ guidance and online status indicator. We have advised our contracting body of the outcome of the status determinations so that, where appropriate, tax deductions are made at source from payments made in respect of the engagement with MoJ.

Further details of off-payroll engagements for the core department, executive agencies and arm’s length bodies are shown in the off-payroll tables in Annex D and form part of the accountability reports.

Parliamentary accountability

This section has been subject to audit.

Statement of Outturn against Parliamentary Supply

In addition to the primary statements prepared under International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), the financial reporting manual requires the department to prepare a Statement of Outturn against Parliamentary Supply (SOPS) and supporting notes.

The SOPS and related notes are subject to audit, as detailed in the certificate and report of the Comptroller and Auditor General to the House of Commons.

The SOPS shows an entity’s spend against its Supply Estimate. Supply is the monetary provision (for resource and capital purposes) and cash (drawn primarily from the Consolidated Fund), that Parliament gives statutory authority for entities to utilise. The Estimate details supply and is voted on by Parliament at the start of the financial year. If an entity exceeds the limits set by its Supply Estimate, called control limits, their accounts will receive a qualified opinion.

The format of the SOPS mirrors the Supply Estimates, published on GOV.UK, to enable comparability between what Parliament approves and the final outturn.

The SOPS contains a summary table, detailing performance against the control limits that Parliament has voted on, cash spent (budgets are compiled on an accruals basis and so outturn will not match exactly to cash spent) and administration.

The supporting notes detail:

• outturn by estimate line, providing a more detailed breakdown (Note 1)

• a reconciliation of outturn to net operating expenditure in the Consolidated Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure (CSoCNE), to tie the SOPS to the financial statements (Note 2)

• a reconciliation of outturn to net cash requirement (Note 3)

• an analysis of income payable to the Consolidated Fund (Note 4)

The SOPS and Estimates are compiled against the budgeting framework, which is similar to, but different from, IFRS. An understanding of the budgeting framework and an explanation of key terms is provided below. Further information on the Public Spending Framework and the reasons why budgeting rules are different to IFRS can also be found in chapter 1 of the Consolidated Budgeting Guidance, available on GOV.UK.

The SOPS provides a detailed view of financial performance, in a form that is voted on and recognised by Parliament. The financial review in the performance report provides a summarised discussion of outturn against estimate and functions as an introduction to the SOPS disclosures.

MoJ operates within a financial framework set by HM Treasury, which categorises public spending into two principal types:

Departmental expenditure limits (DEL)

DEL budgets are set for each department over a multi-year period at Spending Reviews, with adjustments each year as set out in the Estimates voted by Parliament. They cover relatively predictable and controllable spending areas, and split further into:

Resource DEL (RDEL)

Estimate: £12,212 million

Outturn: £12,043 million

Of which: Administration

Estimate: £581 million

Outturn: £549 million

This includes day-to-day operational costs, such as staff salaries, legal aid payments, running costs of courts and tribunals, and the maintenance of the prison and courts estate. RDEL costs are split between administration costs (general support costs) and programme costs (direct frontline delivery costs and support costs directly associated with frontline service delivery).

Capital DEL (CDEL)

Estimate: £1,689 million

Outturn: £1,541 million

This includes long-term investment in infrastructure and assets, including the construction of prisons, refurbishment of court buildings, and investment in digital transformation and IT systems.

Annually managed expenditure (AME)

AME budgets are used for spending that is more volatile, demand-led, or otherwise difficult to forecast accurately. In MoJ, they mainly allow for non-cash items such as revaluation of assets and provisions for future costs. These are split further into:

Resource AME (RAME)

Estimate: £810 million

Outturn: £297 million

This includes the accounting cost of annually revaluing our property assets, along with provisions for potential future costs such as legal liabilities, which can fluctuate significantly from year to year.

Capital AME (CAME)

Estimate: £23 million

Outturn: £(1) million

In MoJ this is used exclusively for provisions relating to leased assets.

This framework ensures that the department can plan and manage its resources effectively and efficiently, while maintaining flexibility to respond to changing demands and financial pressures.

Summary of resource and capital outturn in the financial year 2024 to 2025

									2024-25	2023-24
				Outturn			Estimate		Outturn vs Estimate, saving/(excess)	Outturn
		Voted	Non-voted	Total	Voted	Non-voted	Total	Voted	Total	Total
	Note	£000	£000	£000	£000	£000	£000	£000	£000	£000
DEL
Resource	SOPS 1.1	11,867,431	175,498	12,042,929	12,045,728	166,551	12,212,279	178,297	169,350	11,330,118
Capital	SOPS 1.2	1,540,379	-	1,540,379	1,688,758	-	1,688,758	148,379	148,379	1,458,412
AME
Resource	SOPS 1.1	296,861	-	296,861	810,287	-	810,287	513,426	513,426	505,264
Capital	SOPS 1.2	(930)	-	(930)	23,304	-	23,304	24,234	24,234	7,471
Total budget		13,703,741	175,498	13,879,239	14,568,077	166,551	14,734,628	864,336	855,389	13,301,265
Non-budget expenditure
Non-budget	SOPS 1.1	-	-	-	100,000	-	100,000	100,000	100,000	-
Non-budget expenditure		-	-	-	100,000	-	100,000	100,000	100,000	-
Total resource	SOPS 1.1	12,164,292	175,498	12,339,790	12,856,015	166,551	13,022,566	691,723	682,776	11,835,382
Total capital	SOPS 1.2	1,539,449	-	1,539,449	1,712,062	-	1,712,062	172,613	172,613	1,465,883
Total non-budget		-	-	-	100,000	-	100,000	100,000	100,000	-
Total budget and non-budget		13,703,741	175,498	13,879,239	14,668,077	166,551	14,834,628	964,336	955,389	13,301,265

Figures in the areas outlined in bold lines are voted totals subject to parliamentary control. Refer to the Supply Estimates guidance manual, available on GOV.UK, for detail on the control limits voted by Parliament.

Net cash requirement in the financial year 2024 to 2025

				2024-25	2023-24
		Outturn	Estimate	Outturn vs Estimate, saving/(excess)	Outturn total
Item	Note	£000	£000	£000	£000
Net cash requirement	Annex A, SOPS 3	12,519,599	13,043,043	523,444	11,835,073

Administration costs in the financial year 2024 to 2025

				2024-25	2023-24
		Outturn	Estimate	Outturn vs Estimate, saving/(excess)	Outturn total
Type of spend	SOPS Note	£000	£000	£000	£000
Administration costs	1.1	549,552	581,481	31,929	517,106

The department sought non-budget cover in the Supplementary Estimate 2024 to 2025 for a possible prior period adjustment of £100 million. It is proper for the department to seek parliamentary authority for the provision that should have been sought previously. The provision has not been required, and therefore the non-budget cover has not been utilised.

Due to their size, the variances in estimate to outturn of RDEL and AME have been explained below.

This financial year, the RDEL budget for day‑to‑day spending was £12,212 million (previous financial year: £11,400 million) and the final outturn was £12,043 million (previous financial year: £11,330 million). The saving on the RDEL estimate was mainly due to underspending on non-cash charges for depreciation and asset impairment. These are inherently uncertain as they are sensitive to fluctuations in market values and in-year changes to capital investment programmes, and the actual requirement was lower than provided for.

AME is demand-led spending, where budgets are not fixed in advance. Expenditure in AME is generally less predictable and controllable than expenditure in DEL. AME covers costs such as property impairments, provisions for legal claims and legal aid work in progress. MoJ has a relatively small AME budget so large variances are not unusual. This financial year, the department budgeted for £833 million (previous financial year: £721 million) of AME and the final outturn was £296 million (previous financial year: £513 million).

SOPS Notes 3 and 4 in Annex A form part of the SOPS. These notes are subject to audit.

Notes to the Statement of Outturn against Parliamentary Supply 2024 to 2025

SOPS 1. Outturn detail, by estimate line

SOPS 1.1 Analysis of resource outturn by estimate line

								Resource outturn			Estimate		Outturn
				Administration			Programme
		Gross	Income	Net	Gross	Income	Net	Total	Total	Virements	Total including virements	Outturn vs Estimate saving/(excess)	2023-24 Outturn total
		£000	£000	£000	£000	£000	£000	£000	£000	£000	£000	£000	£000
Spending in DEL voted expenditure
A	Policy, corporate services and associated offices	510,319	(34,879)	475,440	1,845,831	(1,301,023)	544,808	1,020,248	1,268,855	(113,644)	1,155,211	134,963	932,609
B	HM Prison and Probation Service	16,092	(42)	16,050	5,958,633	(298,673)	5,659,960	5,676,010	5,613,564	70,550	5,684,114	8,104	5,305,652
C	HM Courts and Tribunals Service	23,634	-	23,634	2,440,565	(67,452)	2,373,113	2,396,747	2,416,387	-	2,416,387	19,640	2,294,226
D	Legal Aid Agency	16,999	-	16,999	2,315,476	(53,290)	2,262,186	2,279,185	2,240,449	38,736	2,279,185	-	2,154,655
E	Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority	1,476	(1,802)	(326)	180,753	(17,083)	163,670	163,344	162,766	578	163,344	-	161,126
F	Office of the Public Guardian	84	-	84	105,785	(126,221)	(20,436)	(20,352)	(10,714)	-	(10,714)	9,638	(18,745)
G	Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (net)	7,700	-	7,700	149,294	-	149,294	156,994	156,914	1,896	158,810	1,816	154,088
H	Criminal Cases Review Commission (net)	974	-	974	8,388	-	8,388	9,362	9,267	146	9,413	51	8,501
I	Judicial Appointments Commission (net)	677	-	677	8,982	-	8,982	9,659	10,289	-	10,289	630	9,326
J	Legal Services Board (net)	-	-	-	5,220	-	5,220	5,220	5,521	-	5,521	301	4,550
K	Office for Legal Complaints (net)	-	-	-	17,447	-	17,447	17,447	17,950	-	17,950	503	16,484
L	Parole Board (net)	2,418	-	2,418	29,364	-	29,364	31,782	30,817	1,231	32,048	266	28,239
M	Youth Justice Board (net)	3,168	-	3,168	100,757	-	100,757	103,925	104,552	-	104,552	627	105,243
N	Gov Facility Services Limited (net)	-	-	-	508	-	508	508	1	507	508	-	485
O	Independent Monitoring Authority (net)	2,734	-	2,734	2,343	-	2,343	5,077	5,734	-	5,734	657	5,622
P	Oasis Restore Trust (net)	-	-	-	12,275	-	12,275	12,275	13,376	-	13,376	1,101	3,434
Total voted expenditure in DEL		586,275	(36,723)	549,552	13,181,621	(1,863,742)	11,317,879	11,867,431	12,045,728	-	12,045,728	178,297	11,165,495
Non-voted expenditure
Q	Higher judiciary judicial salaries	92	-	92	198,270	-	198,270	198,362	190,022	-	190,022	(8,340)	185,724
R	Levy income – Legal Services Board and Office for Legal Complaints	-	-	-	-	(22,864)	(22,864)	(22,864)	(23,471)	-	(23,471)	(607)	(21,101)
Total non-voted expenditure in DEL		92	-	92	198,270	(22,864)	175,406	175,498	166,551	-	166,551	(8,947)	164,623
Total resource DEL spending		586,367	(36,723)	549,644	13,379,891	(1,886,606)	11,493,285	12,042,929	12,212,279	-	12,212,279	169,350	11,330,118
Spending in AME voted expenditure
S	Policy, corporate services and associated offices	-	-	-	117,403	-	117,403	117,403	432,450	(697)	431,753	314,350	345,854
T	HM Prison and Probation Service	-	-	-	(21,909)	-	(21,909)	(21,909)	47,000	-	47,000	68,909	(31,522)
U	HM Courts and Tribunals Service	-	-	-	2,789	-	2,789	2,789	48,500	-	48,500	45,711	7,349
V	Legal Aid Agency	-	-	-	87,403	-	87,403	87,403	87,000	403	87,403	-	102,673
W	Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority	-	-	-	114,236	-	114,236	114,236	168,680	-	168,680	54,444	81,150
X	Office of the Public Guardian	-	-	-	(548)	-	(548)	(548)	200	-	200	748	(733)
Y	Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (net)	-	-	-	(1,678)	-	(1,678)	(1,678)	26,000	-	26,000	27,678	(409)
Z	Criminal Cases Review Commission (net)	-	-	-	(762)	-	(762)	(762)	300	-	300	1,062	1,006
AA	Judicial Appointments Commission (net)	-	-	-	(10)	-	(10)	(10)	1	-	1	11	(6)
AB	Legal Services Board (net)	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	-	1	1	-
AC	Office for Legal Complaints (net)	-	-	-	197	-	197	197	1	196	197	-	67
AD	Parole Board (net)	-	-	-	248	-	248	248	150	98	248	-	383
AE	Youth Justice Board (net)	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	-	1	1	(63)
AF	Gov Facility Services Limited (net)	-	-	-	(508)	-	(508)	(508)	1	-	1	509	(485)
AG	Independent Monitoring Authority (net)	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	-	1	1
AH	Oasis Restore Trust (net)	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	-	1	1	-
Total resource AME spending		-	-	-	296,861	-	296,861	296,861	810,287	-	810,287	513,426	505,264
Total resource		586,367	(36,723)	549,644	13,676,752	(1,886,606)	11,790,146	12,339,790	13,022,566	-	13,022,566	682,776	11,835,382
Non-budget expenditure
Voted expenditure
AI	Prior period adjustment	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	100,000	-	100,000	100,000	-
Total voted non-budget expenditure		-	-	-	-	-	-	-	100,000	-	100,000	100,000	-

SOPS 1.2 Analysis of capital outturn by estimate line

				Capital outturn			Estimate		Outturn
		Gross	Income	Net total	Total	Virements	Total including virements	Outturn vs Estimate saving/(excess)	2023-24 Prior year outturn total
		£000	£000	£000	£000	£000	£000	£000	£000
Spending in DEL voted expenditure
A	Policy, corporate services and associated offices	363,724	-	363,724	312,026	51,698	363,724	-	252,708
B	HM Prison and Probation Service	1,011,325	(12,207)	999,118	1,174,333	(56,891)	1,117,442	118,324	949,945
C	HM Courts and Tribunals Service	169,037	(2,295)	166,742	192,836	-	192,836	26,094	228,269
D	Legal Aid Agency	(19)	(13)	(32)	395	-	395	427	(290)
E	Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority	62	-	62	1,306	-	1,306	1,244	5,290
F	Office of the Public Guardian	(89)	-	(89)	100	-	100	189	1,138
G	Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (net)	3,147	-	3,147	4,500	-	4,500	1,353	2,041
H	Criminal Cases Review Commission (net)	416	-	416	417	-	417	1	165
I	Judicial Appointments Commission (net)	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
J	Legal Services Board (net)	31	-	31	724	-	724	693	148
K	Office for Legal Complaints (net)	2,405	-	2,405	461	1,944	2,405	-	244
L	Parole Board (net)	500	-	500	500	-	500	-	42
M	Youth Justice Board (net)	1,104	-	1,104	1,158	-	1,158	54	109
N	Gov Facility Services Limited (net)	1,850	-	1,850	1	1,849	1,850	-	1,071
O	Independent Monitoring Authority (net)	216	-	216	-	216	216	-	(61)
P	Oasis Restore Trust (net)	1,185	-	1,185	1	1,184	1,185	-	17,593
Total capital DEL spending		1,554,894	(14,515)	1,540,379	1,688,758	-	1,688,758	148,379	1,458,412
Spending in AME voted expenditure
S	Policy, corporate services and associated offices	(854)	-	(854)	18,494	(449)	18,045	18,899	4,675
T	HM Prison and Probation Service	-	-	-	1	-	1	1	-
U	HM Courts and Tribunals Service	(364)	-	(364)	4,500	-	4,500	4,864	(601)
V	Legal Aid Agency	-	-	-	1	-	1	1	96
W	Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority	(213)	-	(213)	1	-	1	214	1,310
X	Office of the Public Guardian	188	-	188	1	187	188	-	1,013
Y	Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (net)	50	-	50	300	-	300	250	784
Z	Criminal Cases Review Commission (net)	-	-	-	1	-	1	1	-
AA	Judicial Appointments Commission (net)	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
AB	Legal Services Board (net)	-	-	-	1	-	1	1	-
AC	Office for Legal Complaints (net)	238	-	238	-	238	238	-	194
AD	Parole Board (net)	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
AE	Youth Justice Board (net)	-	-	-	1	-	1	1	-
AF	Gov Facility Services Limited (net)	-	-	-	1	-	1	1	-
AG	Independent Monitoring Authority for the Citizens’ Rights Agreements (net)	-	-	-	1	-	1	1	-
AH	Oasis Restore Trust (net)	25	-	25	1	24	25	-	-
Total capital AME spending		(930)	-	(930)	23,304	-	23,304	24,234	7,471
Total capital		1,553,964	(14,515)	1,539,449	1,712,062	-	1,712,062	172,613	1,465,883

The total estimate columns include virements. Virements are the reallocation of provision in the Estimates that do not require parliamentary authority (because Parliament does not vote to that level of detail and delegates to HM Treasury). Further information on virements is provided in the Supply Estimates Manual, available on GOV.UK.

The outturn vs estimate column is based on the total including virements. The estimate total before virements have been made is included so that users can compare the value to the Estimates laid before Parliament.

SOPS 2 Reconciliation of outturn to net operating expenditure

		2024‑25 Outturn total	2023‑24 Outturn total
	Note	£000	£000
Total resource outturn in SOPS
Budget DEL	SOPS 1.1	12,042,929	11,330,118
Budget AME	SOPS 1.1	296,861	505,264
Non-budget		-	-
		12,339,790	11,835,382
Add:
Capital grants (net of EU contributions)		(3,787)	(1,903)
Research costs classified as capital under ESA 10		19,578	6,284
Other costs and income transferred to capital		(226)	-
		15,565	4,381
Less:
Income payable to the Consolidated Fund (excluding non-voted levy income)		-	(975)
RDEL private finance initiative adjustments		1,625	15,498
Other adjustments		(5,099)	1,880
		(3,474)	16,403
Net operating expenditure in CSoCNE		12,351,881	11,856,166

Outturn and the estimates are compiled against the budgeting framework, which is similar to, but different from, IFRS. This reconciliation therefore bridges the resource outturn to net operating expenditure, linking the SOPS to the financial statements.

Capital grants and capital research and development are budgeted for as capital DEL but accounted for as spend on the face of the CSoCNE, and therefore function as a reconciling item between resource and net operating expenditure. Income payable to the Consolidated Fund is outside of budget but accounted for as income in the CSoCNE, and therefore functions as a reconciling item between resource and net operating expenditure. The depreciation on certain private finance initiative contract assets is accounted for as spend in the CSoCNE, but is non-budget spend and therefore does not appear in the SOPS.

Regularity of expenditure

This section has been subject to audit

Losses and special payments^{[footnote 33]}

Losses statement

		2024-25		2023-24
Values	Core department and agencies	Departmental group	Core department and agencies	Departmental group
	£000	£000	£000	£000
Cash losses	273	273	475	480
Claims abandoned	53	53	205	212
Administrative write offs	19,848	20,129	16,128	16,427
Fruitless payments	104	104	3	1,735
Store losses	2,481	2,481	3,143	3,143
Constructive losses	47,995	47,995	11,893	11,893
Total value of losses	70,754	71,035	31,847	33,890

		2024-25		2023-24
Numbers	Core department and agencies	Departmental group	Core department and agencies	Departmental group
	£000	£000	£000	£000
Cash losses	632	632	617	622
Claims abandoned	14	14	29	44
Administrative write offs	10,536	10,541	16,482	16,484
Fruitless payments	6	6	14	15
Store losses	11,035	11,035	20,584	20,584
Constructive losses	8	8	4	4
Total value of losses	22,231	22,236	37,730	37,753

In the financial year 2024 to 2025, there were 17 losses (previous financial year: six) over £300,000 as follows.

HMPPS recognised constructive losses arising from the prison capacity programme of £23,996,152. Losses arose from: our continued focus on delivering sites which provided greatest value for money, resulting in the write-off of construction costs incurred to date on descoped build projects within existing prison sites, and supplier failure.

In order to deliver 20,000 additional prison places by 2031, the full prison capacity portfolio is regularly evaluated to identify the optimal projects for both value for money and feasibility. Following commencement of these particular projects there have been material increases to the costs to completion, in part due to the extent of asbestos contamination, which have meant that they no longer represent value for money.

We anticipate that further losses of a similar order will be disclosed in the 2025 to 2026 annual report and accounts in relation to construction, demobilisation and remediation costs incurred after March 2025.

In order to comply with International Financial Reporting Standards, and in light of the likelihood of the continued vacant state of the prison in the short to medium term, the accounting judgement has been taken to reclassify HMP Dartmoor to surplus property. As the building is not owned by HMPPS but held on a finance lease, it holds no inherent value to HMPPS outside of its value in use. Therefore, the value of the right of use asset previously recognised has been reduced to nil, triggering recognition of an impairment loss of £16,800,000 in accordance with IFRS 16. This represents the reduction in the capitalised value of the asset, based on the assumption that it is now not being used for its intended purpose. We continue to hold responsibility for future lease payments of £13.6 million.

During 2012 to 2015, a legal aid provider made fraudulent claims. Following identification of the fraud, improved controls were put in place. These include all providers being subject to an annual risk assessment, and, unless deemed low risk, an annual file audit. The largest providers are subject to additional levels of scrutiny in proportion with their annual claims. Stewardship arrangements include working closely with providers and collaborating across our contract management, finance and digital teams to strengthen internal controls and provider compliance. LAA contract managers have access to provider activity reports and risk data which allow them to identify patterns in claiming, enabling faster identification and exploration of potential risk areas.

LAA vigorously pursued recovery of the fraudulent claims, including through a private prosecution, which found in LAA’s favour, appointment of enforcement solicitors, freezing orders on assets, and a worldwide asset search. In the financial year 2024 to 2025, following the conclusion of legal and recovery action, LAA has recognised a loss of £22,136,000. LAA has also recognised a loss of £3,404,000 in respect of debts owed by the provider in relation to other legally aided work where final bills were not received and we cannot confirm whether the work has been done. The cost of the fraudulent activity was expensed when it occurred, between 2012 and 2015, and therefore does not appear in Note 4 of the financial statements or in the table above, while the cost of the unbilled activity, less the amount already provided for as impaired, has been expensed in the financial year 2024 to 2025.

During the financial year LAA has assessed that further recovery action on a number of provider debts is not appropriate due to, for example, provider bankruptcy, and has therefore written off the remaining debt balances. These mainly relate to payments on account for which final bills have not been received and where we either cannot confirm whether the work has been done, or the provider has recovered costs from other parties. In the financial year 2024 to 2025, there were seven write offs in excess of £300,000, as follows: £1,921,000, £968,000, £819,000, £786,000, £528,000, £407,000 and £399,000 (previous financial year: none). Additionally, one recovery of defence costs order debt of £668,000 has been written off, as our assessment is that the debtor has insufficient assets to justify further recovery action (previous financial year: none).

The department recognised a constructive loss of £3,526,000. Following the government’s introduction of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill in January 2025, LAA has impaired £2,808,000 of digital capital expenditure, and HMCTS has impaired £718,000 of digital capital expenditure, in relation to work undertaken to prepare for the implementation of the Illegal Migration Act 2023.

Following a formal approval process in May 2025 a decision was made to cease the continuation and development of a specific video hearing project in HMCTS due to unresolved technical issues. This has resulted in a constructive loss of £3,632,609.

We identified that some employees at delegated grades received incorrect temporary responsibility allowance payments between 2016 and 2022. A full review has been carried out, resulting in a write off of £683,745.

Special payments

		2024-25		2023-24
Values	Core department and agencies	Departmental group	Core department and agencies	Departmental group
	£000	£000	£000	£000
Compensation payments	31,775	32,758	31,184	31,841
Ex gratia	2,544	2,576	4,644	4,768
Extra-contractual payments	7	7	4	184
Extra-statutory and extra‑regulatory payments	5	5	-	-
Total value of special payments	34,331	35,346	35,832	36,793

		2024-25		2023-24
Numbers	Core department and agencies	Departmental group	Core department and agencies	Departmental group
	£000	£000	£000	£000
Compensation payments	6,660	6,974	6,430	6,619
Ex gratia	2,736	2,742	8,262	8,274
Extra-contractual payments	139	139	91	92
Extra-statutory and extra‑regulatory payments	40	40	-	-
Total value of special payments	9,575	9,895	14,783	14,985

In the financial year 2024 to 2025, there were 14 (previous financial year: 10) special payments over £300,000.

HMPPS made 12 special payments over £300,000 (2023 to 2024: eight). Six compensation payments were made to operational members of HMPPS staff: £820,178, £824,950, £773,647 (in addition to £36,000 from previous financial years), £604,178, £516,991, and £307,703 (in addition to £170,000 from previous financial years). Three payments were made to third parties – £496,067, £452,500 (in addition to £12,500 from previous financial years) and £333,008. Two payments were made to prisoners – £5,592,353 (in addition to £351,000 from previous financial years) and £498,269 (in addition to £2,844,219 from previous financial years). Finally, one payment was made to a third party as part of a contract termination: £532,962. 

In MoJ HQ, a compensation payment of £865,000 was made after MoJ lost a case at the European Court of Human Rights following a breach of Article 6(1) (right to a fair trial) and Article 1 of Protocol 1 (protection of property) rights.

HMCTS paid £375,000 to settle a legal claim, having paid £55,000 in the financial year 2022 to 2023; totalling a payment of £430,000.

Charitable donations

HMCTS made charitable donations totalling £25,000 (previous financial year: £25,000).

Publicity and advertising

The department spent £8,975,058 on publicity and advertising (previous financial year: £12,609,151), relating to media buying services (such as radio advertising) to support multiple priority campaigns, including the HMPPS Extraordinary Jobs brand campaign to recruit prison and probation officers.

Gifts and hospitality

Details of the department’s ministers, directors general, Permanent Secretary and special advisers’ gifts, hospitality, travel and meetings can be found at: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/moj-gifts-hospitality-travel-and-meetings#2025

Fees and charges

This section has been subject to audit

MoJ is required, in accordance with HM Treasury’s Managing Public Money, to disclose results for the areas of its activities where fees and charges are levied. The analysis provided below is for fees and charges purposes and is not intended to meet the requirements of IFRS 8 Operating Segments.

					2024-25	2023-24
	Gross income net of remissions	Full cost	Surplus/ (deficit)	Fee recovery actual	Fee recovery target	Fee recovery actual
	£000	£000	£000	%	%	%
Office of the Accountant General	7,956	7,956	-	100%	100%	85%
Official Solicitor and Public Trustee
Litigation	1,346	9,802	(8,456)	14%	N/A	14%
Trust and estates	985	348	637	283%	N/A	258%
HM Courts and Tribunals Service
Family	225,315	359,302	(133,987)	63%	N/A	66%
Civil	591,920	690,183	(98,263)	86%	N/A	86%
Asylum and immigration	6,134	130,748	(124,614)	5%	N/A	5%
Other	1,459	23,724	(22,265)	6%	N/A	7%
Office of the Public Guardian	126,221	121,074	5,147	104%	100%	107%
Legal Services Board	5,220	5,220	-	100%	100%	100%
Office for Legal Complaints	17,644	17,644	-	100%	100%	100%
HMCTS – employment tribunal refunds	(6)	-	(6)	-	-	-
HMCTS – council tax liability orders fee refunds and interest paid	(46)	-	(46)	-	-	-
HMCTS – other fee refunds	(49)	-	(49)	-	-	-
HMCTS – movement in fee refunds provision	5,434	-	5,434	-	-	-
Total	989,533	1,366,001	(376,468)

Fee charging segments

Office of the Accountant General (OAG)

OAG invests money on behalf of its clients in the court funds investment account, which earns interest at the Bank of England base rate, or in the equity index tracker fund for long-term investments. Clients do not pay fees for investment services, but the operational costs of OAG are paid out of the surplus interest earned on their funds.

OAG is therefore intended to run at nil net cost to the department’s vote and in terms of the principles of cost recovery should be 100% self-funding.

Official Solicitor and the Public Trustee (OSPT)

The Official Solicitor’s civil, family and court of protection litigation services continue to be largely publicly funded due to the nature of the cases dealt with, but where appropriate, alternative funding arrangements (such as conditional fee agreements) are also entered into. In some classes of court of protection case, where appropriate to do so, the Official Solicitor charges clients at full cost for services provided.

OSPT charges for their work in administering trusts and estates. The fee income associated with Public Trustee trusts and estates cases is governed by a fees order and the Official Solicitor’s trusts and estates work is charged for on an hourly rate basis.

The Public Trustee also processes ‘title on death’ applications under the Law of Property Act.

The budget allocation to OSPT also covers the cost of the Lord Chancellor’s Reciprocal Enforcement of Maintenance Orders Unit and the International Child Abduction and Contact Unit. This service is publicly funded in full.

HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS)

HMCTS collects and reports on fee charges that have been set by MoJ policy and which appear in statutory instrument fees orders. Section 180 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 gives the Lord Chancellor, with the consent of HM Treasury, the statutory power to set certain court and tribunal fees above cost recovery levels. The income generated must be reinvested back into HMCTS.

Government introduced enhanced fee charging for money claims on 9 March 2015, and further enhanced fees including divorce, civil and some tribunals in March, April and July 2016. The system of ‘Help with fees’ (fee remissions) exists to ensure that individuals are not denied access to the courts if they genuinely cannot afford the fee. Only the civil and tribunal businesses have systems for charging fees. HMCTS reports on both the civil and tribunal fee-charging business segments. Civil business contains two business streams: family (including probate and court of protection) and civil (including civil business in the county court, higher courts and magistrates’ courts). Tribunal business contains two business streams: immigration and asylum, and other fee-charging special tribunals (including lands, residential property, gambling and gender recognition). Further detail on current fees orders can be found within the HMCTS annual report and accounts.

Office of the Public Guardian (OPG)

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 provides for fees to be charged for proceedings brought in relation to the functions carried out by the Public Guardian.

The levels of charges are contained in two statutory instruments as well as the Lasting Powers of Attorney, Enduring Powers of Attorney and Public Guardian Regulations 2007 and the Public Guardian (Fees etc.) Regulations 2007.

Section 180 of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 permits the Lord Chancellor, with the consent of HM Treasury, to prescribe a fee that exceeds the cost of providing that service. Since April 2017, OPG has used this power to charge an enhanced fee for power of attorney registration to cover the costs of exemption and remission of fees and to subsidise the operating costs of delivering supervision services.

Legal Services Board (LSB) and Office for Legal Complaints (OLC)

LSB and OLC income relates to levies receipted from approved regulators. This income is surrendered to the Consolidated Fund in line with the Legal Services Act 2007. In return, LSB and OLC receive grant-in-aid funding from the department equal to the income surrendered.

Remote contingent liabilities

This section has been subject to audit.

As required by Managing Public Money, in addition to contingent liabilities disclosed in accordance with IAS 37 in Note 26 to the accounts, HMPPS discloses, for parliamentary reporting and accountability purposes, certain statutory and non-statutory contingent liabilities where the likelihood of transfer of economic benefit is remote.

Heathrow Airport Holdings Limited indemnity: Assurance has been given to Heathrow Airport Holdings Limited and other third parties (such as airlines) which may be affected by the operations of HMPPS. The likelihood of a liability arising from these contingencies is considered to be remote.

The assurance covers the following amounts:

• up to £50 million for damage or injury per incident to third parties caused airside in the event of negligence of HMPPS

• up to £250 million for damage or injury to third parties per incident in the event of negligence by HMPPS while on board an aeroplane

• personal accident and/or sickness for HMPPS staff while on escorting duties

Privately managed prisons: HMPPS would be liable as underwriter of last resort to meet certain losses incurred by the privately managed prisons.

CICA: On occasions, compensation cases at appeal stage, under the jurisdiction of the First-Tier Tribunal – Criminal Injuries Compensation, may proceed to judicial review. These could have an impact on CICA’s future liabilities. These cases are not included within the provision due to the fact that a possible obligation exists which will only be confirmed by the occurrence or non-occurrence of one or more uncertain future events not wholly within the control of CICA.

Dr Jo Farrar CB OBE

Permanent Secretary and Principal Accounting Officer

24 October 2025

The certificate and report of the Comptroller and Auditor General to the House of Commons

Opinion on financial statements

I certify that I have audited the financial statements of the Ministry of Justice and of its departmental group for the year ended 31 March 2025 under the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000. The department comprises the core department and its agencies.  The departmental group consists of the department and the bodies designated for inclusion under the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000 (Estimates and Accounts) Order 2024. The financial statements comprise: the department’s and the departmental group’s:

• Consolidated Statement of Financial Position as at 31 March 2025;

• Consolidated Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure, Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows and Consolidated Statement of Changes in Taxpayers’ Equity for the year then ended; and

• the related notes including the significant accounting policies.

The financial reporting framework that has been applied in the preparation of the group financial statements is applicable law and UK adopted international accounting standards.

In my opinion, the financial statements:

• give a true and fair view of the state of the department and the departmental group’s affairs as at 31 March 2025 and their net expenditure for the year then ended; and

• have been properly prepared in accordance with the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000 and HM Treasury directions issued thereunder.

Opinion on regularity

In my opinion, in all material respects:

• the Statement of Outturn against Parliamentary Supply properly presents the outturn against voted Parliamentary control totals for the year ended 31 March 2025 and shows that those totals have not been exceeded; and

• the income and expenditure recorded in the financial statements have been applied to the purposes intended by Parliament and the financial transactions recorded in the financial statements conform to the authorities which govern them.

Basis for opinions

I conducted my audit in accordance with International Standards on Auditing (UK) (ISAs UK), applicable law and Practice Note 10 Audit of Financial Statements and Regularity of Public Sector Bodies in the United Kingdom (2024). My responsibilities under those standards are further described in the Auditor’s responsibilities for the audit of the financial statements section of my certificate.

Those standards require me and my staff to comply with the Financial Reporting Council’s Revised Ethical Standard 2024. I am independent of the department and its group in accordance with the ethical requirements that are relevant to my audit of the financial statements in the UK. My staff and I have fulfilled our other ethical responsibilities in accordance with these requirements.

I believe that the audit evidence I have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for my opinion.

The framework of authorities described in the table below has been considered in the context of my opinion on regularity.

Framework of authorities
Authorising legislation	Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000
Parliamentary authorities	Supply and Appropriations Act
HM Treasury and related authorities	Managing Public Money

Conclusions relating to going concern

In auditing the financial statements, I have concluded that the department and its group’s use of the going concern basis of accounting in the preparation of the financial statements is appropriate.

Based on the work I have performed, I have not identified any material uncertainties relating to events or conditions that, individually or collectively, may cast significant doubt on the department or its group’s ability to continue as a going concern for a period of at least twelve months from when the financial statements are authorised for issue.

My responsibilities and the responsibilities of the Accounting Officer with respect to going concern are described in the relevant sections of this certificate.

The going concern basis of accounting for the department and its group is adopted in consideration of the requirements set out in HM Treasury’s Government Financial Reporting Manual, which requires entities to adopt the going concern basis of accounting in the preparation of the financial statements where it is anticipated that the services which they provide will continue into the future.

Overview of my audit approach

Key audit matters

Key audit matters are those matters that, in my professional judgment, were of most significance in the audit of the financial statements of the current period and include the most significant assessed risks of material misstatement (whether or not due to fraud) identified by the auditor, including those which had the greatest effect on: the overall audit strategy; the allocation of resources in the audit; and directing the efforts of the engagement team.

These matters were addressed in the context of the audit of the financial statements as a whole, and in forming my opinion thereon. I do not provide a separate opinion on these matters.

This is not a complete list of all risks identified through the course of my audit but only those areas that had the greatest effect on my overall audit strategy, allocation of resources and direction of effort. I have not, for example, included information relating to the work I have performed on the presumed risk of management override of controls; fraud in revenue recognition; valuation of legal provisions; and the implementation of a new lease accounting system where my work has not identified any matters to report.

The key audit matters were discussed with the Audit and Risk Committee.

In this year’s report the following changes to the risks identified have been made compared to my prior year report, there is a new key audit matter related to the cyber incident at the Legal Aid Agency; and our work on other provisions is now only focussed on the CICA tariff scheme.

Valuation of property

Description of risk

The group owns significant property valued at £13.2 billion (2023-24: £12.8 billion). This includes the prison and probation estate valued at £9.5 billion (2023-24: £9.1 billion) and courts estate valued at £3.6 billion (2023-24: £3.6 billion). 92% the group’s estate is considered specialised and is valued on a depreciated replacement cost basis.

The valuation of this property requires significant judgement and estimation by management and its external valuers, the Valuation Office Agency (VOA). Inaccuracies in inputs or unreasonable assumptions used in these valuations (namely in respect of determining the modern equivalent asset; the level of obsolescence and the gross internal area) could result in a material misstatement of the financial statements.

How the scope of my audit responded to the risk

In response to the risk over the valuation of property, I:

• assessed the design and implementation of the group’s processes and controls around the valuation of properties;

• evaluated the competence of the group’s external valuers, the VOA, which included consideration of its qualifications and expertise;

• engaged valuation experts who reviewed and challenged the valuation approach and assumptions for a sample of properties. Using the work of an auditor’s expert, I reviewed the key inputs adopted by the VOA in its valuation calculations and confirmed that the valuation methodology used is consistent with the RICS Valuation Standards and the Government Financial Reporting Manual. Specific consideration was given to the valuation of Millsike prison which was opened in 2024-25;

• reviewed capital expenditure to identify the completeness of changes to properties. Drawing on this review, I sampled a selection of changes to the gross internal areas used in valuations, conducting site visits where necessary; and

• assessed the adequacy of the disclosures of estimates and valuation assumptions in Note 1.7 that were made in accordance with IFRS 13 – Fair Value Measurement.

Key observations

I consider the inputs, assumptions and methods used by the department to value the property estate to be appropriate. I did not identify material misstatements as a result of the work I have performed. the work I have performed.

Assets under construction           

Description of risk

Assets under construction are material to departmental group. Across the group during the year, there were additions of £1.3 billion (2023‑24: £1.2 billion); transfers to live assets of £1.2 billion (2023-24: £0.98 billion) and a year-end balance of unfinished projects valued at £2.1 billion (2023‑24: £2 billion).

There is a risk that spending on these projects does not meet the recognition criteria of the accounting standards. There is also a risk that projects classified in under construction at year-end have gone live and therefore require valuation at depreciated replacement cost rather than at cost, which generally leads to differences in carrying value. This was an area where we found errors in the prior year.

How the scope of my audit responded to the risk

In response to the risk over assets under construction, I:

• assessed the design and implementation of the group’s processes and controls over assets under construction;

• tested a sample of in year capital additions, to ensure that they met the requirements for capitalisation under International Accounting Standards;

• reviewed a sample of assets reclassified from assets under construction to live, to ensure that assets had become operational before the end of the reporting period. I also considered the value of these assets to ensure that they were properly reflected in the financial statements; and

• tested a sample of ongoing assets under construction projects to confirm that these projects remained live and to determine whether any needed to be impaired. This included reviewing the £24m of prison projects which were cancelled in the year and therefore disclosed as a constructive loss in the Losses statement.

Key observations

I have obtained sufficient assurance over this risk through my substantive testing. I did not identify material misstatements as a result of the work I have performed.

Legal Aid Agency: Valuation of net receivables

Description of risk

The Legal Aid Agency (LAA) recognises receivables for contributions towards legal aid costs and overpayments to legal aid providers, with gross receivables of £411 million (2023-24: £420 million). LAA does not expect to recover all of these and has recognised an impairment of £255 million (2023-24: £247 million) to reflect this. There are two categories of these receivables:

• Receivables held at amortised cost are debts owed to LAA by providers and funded clients and recovery of costs and damages. Impairment for these amounted to £217 million (2023-24: £210 million against gross debt of £283 million (2023-24: £287 million). Assumptions are made within the models used to calculate the value of impairment and there is significant estimation uncertainty in the recoverability of these debts.

• Receivables held at fair value through profit and loss are debts owed to LAA by funded clients on civil schemes that are secured by a charge against a property. The calculation of the fair value of these receivables is based on unobservable inputs, which results in significant estimation uncertainty. Gross debt was £128 million (2023-24: £132 million) and the impairment was £38 million (2023‑24: £37 million).

How the scope of my audit responded to the risk

In response to this risk, I:

• assessed the design and implementation of controls that management has in place over the models used to calculate recoverability of debt;

• reviewed the key assumptions applied to the models and assessed whether they are reasonable and complete;

• assessed the appropriateness of the methodology used;

• understood management’s assessment of macroeconomic factors on the expected credit losses for the assets held at amortised cost and on the fair value of other assets. I assessed whether the assumptions are reasonable considering the outcome compared to the prior year estimate;

• tested the completeness and accuracy of the historic caseload data inputs entered drawing upon IT audit specialists to review the extraction of data;

• tested the logical integrity of the models including independently recalculating the output using modelling experts; and

• reviewed the adequacy of the disclosures including the sensitivity analysis in Note 24 of the financial statements.

Key observations

I have obtained sufficient assurance over this risk through my testing of the impairment models, data inputs and assumptions. I did not identify material misstatements as a result of the work I have performed.

Legal Aid Agency: work in progress provision

Description of risk

The provision for unbilled work completed by legal aid providers is highly material to the financial statements at £1.01 billion (2023-24: £936 million). This liability is calculated based on different models for each legal aid stream. The underlying models and methodology used for these provisions are complex and based on assumptions about the operation of the legal aid market and courts. These provisions have a high degree of estimation uncertainty, with a range of reasonable outcomes greater than my materiality for the financial statements.

The financial statements (Note 20) disclose the sensitivity estimated by the group.

How the scope of my audit responded to the risk

In respect of the Legal Aid work in progress provisions, I:

• assessed the design and implementation of the group’s processes and controls over the work in progress provision;

• reviewed the key assumptions which are applied within the underlying models and assessed whether these are reasonable and complete;

• understood the changes in assumptions from the prior year and I assessed whether the assumptions are reasonable considering the outcome compared to the prior year estimate. I paid particular attention to how management modelled changes in court and provider behaviour;

• tested the completeness and accuracy of the data inputs, drawing upon the work of IT audit specialists;

• reviewed the results of post-date analysis for the prior year model;

• tested the logical integrity of the models including independently recalculating the output, using modelling experts; and

• reviewed the adequacy of the disclosures including the sensitivity analysis in Note 20 of the financial statements.

Key observations

I have obtained sufficient assurance over this risk through my testing of the models, data inputs and assumptions. I did not identify material misstatements as a result of the work I have performed.

Legal Aid Agency: cyber security incident

Description of risk

In April 2025, the Legal Aid Agency identified a cyber-attack affecting its online digital services. Subsequent investigation revealed that the attack originated in December 2024, within the 2024–25 financial year.

The attackers accessed systems used to process payments to Legal Aid providers. As a result, I assessed a risk that fraudulent claims may have been submitted and paid during the period of compromise.

Additionally, several material balances and transactions in the departmental group financial statements rely on data extracted from the affected systems. These include:

• Work-in-progress provisions;

• Receivables for contributions towards legal aid costs and overpayments to providers; and

• Payments on account to legal aid providers.

I considered there was a risk that the underlying data used to derive these balances may have been manipulated during the cyber-attack, potentially resulting in material misstatement in the financial statements.

How the scope of my audit responded to the risk

To address this risk, I undertook the following procedures:

• assessed the design and implementation of management’s controls to identify and respond to risks arising from the cyber-attack;

• reviewed management’s expert report on the scope and impact of the incident and commissioned an auditor’s expert to evaluate whether the report adhered to industry best practice;

• examined changes to provider bank details and the onboarding of new providers post-December 2024 to identify any material fraudulent payments;

• performed audit procedures to test the reliability and integrity of data sourced from compromised systems and used in the preparation of financial statement balances;

• considered the completeness of any liabilities arising from the incident, including potential fines from the Information Commissioner’s Office; and

• reviewed disclosures in the annual report and accounts to ensure the impact of the cyber-attack was appropriately presented.

Key Observations

I have obtained sufficient assurance over this risk through my testing. I did not identify material misstatements as a result of the work I have performed.

Criminal injury tariff scheme provision

Description of risk

The group recognises a provision of £365 million (2023-24: £250 million) for compensation claims under the 2012 Criminal Injuries Compensation scheme. The provision includes all cases known and received by the group but have not yet been processed through to award. To determine the expected level of award; management use historic case data and overlay assumptions around how future cases will be resolve different compared to historic cases.

Due to the complexity of the model; the high levels of estimation uncertainty; and a trend of increasing caseload and increasing average case values, I consider the valuation of the provision could result in material misstatement in the group financial statements.

How the scope of my audit responded to the risk

In response to this risk, I:

• considered the design and implementation of key controls around the estimate and modelling process;

• assessed changes to the model and process for 2024-25. Management updated the model to better capture more complex cases, and to reflect payment patterns arising from the retrospective review of the estimate;

• used an auditor’s expert to test and validate  model inputs, including SQL reports run from the Case Management System, which form the basis of the model calculation;

• reviewed and recalculated the provision estimate;

• documented our assessment of key model assumptions for reasonableness and best practice; and

• reviewed model disclosures, including those around the sensitivity of the estimate.

Key observations

I have obtained sufficient assurance over this risk through my substantive testing. I did not identify material misstatements as a result of the work I have performed.

Valuation of lease liabilities

Description of risk

The group holds £1.49 billion (2023-24: £1.66 billion) of lease liabilities across a broad portfolio of assets, mostly in the court estate alongside related right of use assets of £1.17 billion (2023‑24: £1.33 billion). The lease liabilities are subject to valuation risk because they are dependent on assumptions, for example whether management may exercise a break clause or how management has estimated the term of leases where the contract has expired. These assumptions change depending on the group’s strategy for its property and require reassessment each year. Given that changes in these assumptions can have a material impact on the accounts, I have identified the value of lease liabilities as a key audit matter.

During 2024-25, the group transitioned from managing the lease portfolio on spreadsheets to using an off the shelf lease accounting software.

How the scope of my audit responded to the risk

In response to this risk, I have:

• assessed the design and implementation of relevant controls over the leasing model;

• reviewed a sample of new and modified leases in year, including the completeness of new leases;

• tested the lease model and confirmed that it calculates the lease liability appropriately;

• reviewed the key assumptions applied in the model and assessed whether these were reasonable and complete;

• evaluated how management has addressed estimation uncertainty in relation to the values and its consideration of alternative assumptions and inputs in its estimate; and

• assessed the adequacy of disclosures (note 1.11), including the sufficiency of disclosures in relation to estimation uncertainty.

Key observations

I have obtained sufficient assurance over this risk through my substantive testing. I did not identify material misstatements as a result of the work I have performed.

Valuation of defined benefit pension net asset/liability

Description of risk

The departmental group has material gross defined benefit pension liabilities including HMPPS’s share of the Greater Manchester Pension Fund (GMPF) of £4.2 billion (2023-24: £4.8 billion); and Cafcass’s share of the West Yorkshire Pension Fund (WYPF) of £614 million (2023-24: £706 million). The net liability of HMPPS’s share of GMPF is £472 million (2023-24: £529 million); and Cafcass’s share of WYPF is £17.4 million (2023-24: £2 million). These net balances are derived from highly material asset and liability balances as set out in Note 25.

Significant estimates are made in determining the key assumptions used in valuing the group’s gross defined benefit pension scheme obligations. When making these assumptions management take independent actuarial advice relating to their appropriateness.

A small change in assumptions and estimates can have a material financial impact on the group’s gross defined benefit pension obligations.

The most significant assumptions are discount rate, inflation rate and mortality/life expectancy. As part of my risk assessment, I determined that the gross defined benefit pension scheme obligations have a high degree of estimation uncertainty, with a potential range of reasonable outcomes greater than my materiality for the financial statements, which is  why I considered it a key audit matter.

In addition to the pension obligations, the departmental group has rights over a £6.9 billion (2023-24: £6.7 billion) of investment assets. 30% or £2.1 billion of these assets are hard to value, where assumptions and judgments are required when determining their fair value. The remaining elements of the asset balances are easier to value. However, given the overall value of the assets, the level of error identified in prior years in initial data received from the pension funds and the element of hard to value assets, I consider pension asset valuation to be a key audit matter.

How the scope of my audit responded to the risk

For these pension schemes, I:

• assessed the design and implementation of the group’s processes and controls over the schemes;

• challenged, with the support of actuarial specialists, the key assumptions applied, being the discount rate, inflation rate and mortality/ life expectancy against externally derived data in the context of market practice and the macroeconomic uncertainties;

• engaged actuarial specialists to review the roll-forward methodology used to value the pensions liability based on the previous triennial valuation, considering the implications over the accounting estimate and demographic assumptions. Specifically, I considered whether it was appropriate to recognise the surplus calculated by the actuaries of the two funds. The judgments supporting this conclusion are noted in the Financial statements;

• considered the adequacy of the group’s disclosures in respect of the sensitivity of the deficit to these assumptions (Note 25); and

• reviewed assurances about the procedures performed by the auditors of the two funds related to the valuation and existence of fund assets. I also considered the work performed by the auditors over benefits paid; contributions received and membership data which all feed into the calculation of the pension obligation

Key observations

I have obtained sufficient assurance over this risk through my substantive testing. I did not identify material misstatements in the valuation of defined benefit pension net liability as a result of the work I have performed.as a result of the work I have performed.

Application of materiality

Materiality

I applied the concept of materiality in both planning and performing my audit, and in evaluating the effect of misstatements on my audit and on the financial statements. This approach recognises that financial statements are rarely absolutely correct, and that an audit is designed to provide reasonable, rather than absolute, assurance that the financial statements are free from material misstatement or irregularity. A matter is material if its omission or misstatement would, in the judgement of the auditor, reasonably influence the decisions of users of the financial statements.

Based on my professional judgement, I determined overall materiality for the department and its group’s financial statements as a whole as follows:

	Departmental group	Department parent
Materiality	£170 million (2023-24: £170 million)	£136 million (2023-24: £165 million)
Basis for determining overall account materiality	1% of non‑current assets (2023‑24: 1% of non-current assets)	0.8% of non‑current assets (2023-24: 1% of non-current assets)
Rationale for the benchmark applied	Non-current assets are the largest item in both the departmental group and parent Statements of Financial Position. Significant public benefit is derived from the prison and courts estate, driving user interest in the extent and condition of those assets.
Taxpayer backed financial activity where an additional level of materiality has been applied	£135 million (2023-24: £135 million)	£108m (2023-24: £130 million)
Basis for determining residual account materiality	1% of gross expenditure excluding depreciation and impairment but including capital additions. (2023-24:1% of gross expenditure excluding depreciation and impairment but including capital additions)	0.8% of gross expenditure excluding depreciation and impairment but including capital additions. (2023-24:1% of gross expenditure excluding depreciation and impairment but including capital additions)
Rationale for the benchmark applied	This threshold is set to reflect the sensitivity of financial statement users to transactions and balances reflecting taxpayer-backed financial activity. Capital additions are included since these form part of Total Managed Expenditure voted by Parliament, and depreciation is excluded to avoid double-counting.

Performance materiality

I set performance materiality at a level lower than materiality to reduce the probability that, in aggregate, uncorrected and undetected misstatements exceed the materiality of the financial statements as a whole. Group performance materiality was set at 70% of Group materiality for the 2024-25 audit (2023-24: 70%). In determining performance materiality, we have considered the uncorrected misstatements identified in the previous period.

Other materiality considerations

Apart from matters that are material by value (quantitative materiality), there are certain matters that are material by their very nature and would influence the decisions of users if not corrected. Such an example is any errors reported in the Related Parties note in the financial statements. Assessment of such matters needs to have regard to the nature of the misstatement and the applicable legal and reporting framework, as well as the size of the misstatement.

I applied the same concept of materiality to my audit of regularity. In planning and performing my audit work to support my opinion on regularity and in evaluating the impact of any irregular transactions, I considered both quantitative and qualitative aspects that would reasonably influence the decisions of users of the financial statements.

Error reporting threshold

I agreed with the Audit and Risk Committee that I would report to it all uncorrected misstatements identified through my audit in excess of £300,000, as well as differences below this threshold that in my view warranted reporting on qualitative grounds. I also report to the Audit Committee on disclosure matters that I identified when assessing the overall presentation of the financial statements.

Total unadjusted audit differences reported to the Audit and Risk Committee have decreased net assets by £14.2 million.

Audit scope

The scope of my group audit was determined by obtaining an understanding of the department and its group’s and its environment, including group‑wide controls, and assessing the risks of material misstatement at the group level.

The departmental group comprises the core department and the 14 entities within its boundary and has total group assets of £18.6 billion and total group operating expenditure of £14.2 billion. The group’s largest components comprise the core department, HMCTS, HMPPS and LAA, which make up 99% of gross assets and 94% of gross expenditure.

In line with ISA (UK) 600 Audits of Group Finance Statements (Including the Work of Component Auditors), I assessed my approach to the audit of the Ministry of Justice Group considering the risks of material misstatement given the size, estimation, and/or complexity of various classes of transactions, account balances and disclosures within the departmental group financial statements. I used this risk assessment to determine the audit procedures I require to be performed under my direction, supervision and review, whether those classes of transactions, account balances and disclosures arise within the department itself or in its components.

Based on my risk assessment, I included in the scope of my audit various classes of transactions, account balances and disclosures arising from the departmental group, HMPPS, HMCTS, LAA, CICA, OPG, Cafcass, GFSL and YJB. My audit included coverage of 99% of departmental group assets and 99% Departmental group expenditure through the work performed directly as a group auditor and work performed by the component auditors.

I have satisfied myself that sufficient work has been undertaken to provide the necessary assurances for my audit opinion on the departmental group’s consolidated financial statements.

I also reviewed the Statement of Parliamentary Supply, which includes figures derived from the group financial statements. I obtained assurance over the classification of items within this statement and confirmed that these had been properly disclosed and classified. I also tested reconciling items.

Gross expenditure of components of the Ministry of Justice Group (as at 31 March 2025)

Core Department	4%
HMPPS	65%
HMCTS	29%
LAA	1%
Other components	1%

Gross assets of components of the Ministry of Justice Group (as at 31 March 2025)

Core Department	7%
HMPPS	51%
HMCTS	19%
LAA	17%
Other components	6%

Other Information

The other information comprises the information included in the Annual Report, but does not include the financial statements and my auditor’s certificate and report thereon. The Accounting Officer is responsible for the other information.

My opinion on the financial statements does not cover the other information and, except to the extent otherwise explicitly stated in my certificate, I do not express any form of assurance conclusion thereon.

My responsibility is to read the other information and, in doing so, consider whether the other information is materially inconsistent with the financial statements or my knowledge obtained in the audit or otherwise appears to be materially misstated.

If I identify such material inconsistencies or apparent material misstatements, I am required to determine whether this gives rise to a material misstatement in the financial statements themselves. If, based on the work I have performed, I conclude that there is a material misstatement of this other information, I am required to report that fact.

I have nothing to report in this regard.

Opinion on other matters

In my opinion the part of the Remuneration and Staff Report to be audited has been properly prepared in accordance with HM Treasury directions issued under the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000.

In my opinion, based on the work undertaken in the course of the audit:

• the parts of the Accountability Report subject to audit have been properly prepared in accordance with HM Treasury directions issued under the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000;

• the information given in the Performance and Accountability Reports for the financial year for which the financial statements are prepared is consistent with the financial statements and is in accordance with the applicable legal requirements.

Matters on which I report by exception

In the light of the knowledge and understanding of the department and its group and their environment obtained in the course of the audit, I have not identified material misstatements in the Performance and Accountability Reports.

I have nothing to report in respect of the following matters which I report to you if, in my opinion:

• Adequate accounting records have not been kept by the department and its group or returns adequate for my audit have not been received from branches not visited by my staff; or

• I have not received all of the information and explanations I require for my audit; or

• the financial statements and the parts of the Accountability Report subject to audit are not in agreement with the accounting records and returns; or

• certain disclosures of remuneration specified by HM Treasury’s Government Financial Reporting Manual have not been made or parts of the Remuneration and Staff Report to be audited is not in agreement with the accounting records and returns; or 

• the Governance Statement does not reflect compliance with HM Treasury’s guidance.

Responsibilities of the Accounting Officer for the financial statements

As explained more fully in the Statement of Accounting Officer’s Responsibilities, the Accounting Officer is responsible for:

• maintaining proper accounting records;

• providing the C&AG with access to all information of which management is aware that is relevant to the preparation of the financial statements such as records, documentation and other matters;

• providing the C&AG with additional information and explanations needed for his audit;

• providing the C&AG with unrestricted access to persons within the department and its group from whom the auditor determines it necessary to obtain audit evidence;

• ensuring such internal controls are in place as deemed necessary to enable the preparation of financial statements to be free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error;

• preparing financial statements which give a true and fair view and are in accordance with HM Treasury directions issued under the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000;

• preparing the annual report, which includes the Remuneration and Staff Report, in accordance with HM Treasury directions issued under the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000; and

• assessing the department and its group’s ability to continue as a going concern, disclosing, as applicable, matters related to going concern and using the going concern basis of accounting unless the Accounting Officer anticipates that the services provided by the department and its group will not continue to be provided in the future.

Auditor’s responsibilities for the audit of the financial statements

My responsibility is to audit, certify and report on the financial statements in accordance with the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000.

My objectives are to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements as a whole are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error, and to issue a certificate that includes my opinion. Reasonable assurance is a high level of assurance but is not a guarantee that an audit conducted in accordance with ISAs (UK) will always detect a material misstatement when it exists. Misstatements can arise from fraud or error and are considered material if, individually or in the aggregate, they could reasonably be expected to influence the economic decisions of users taken on the basis of these financial statements.

Extent to which the audit was considered capable of detecting non-compliance with laws and regulations including fraud

I design procedures in line with my responsibilities, outlined above, to detect material misstatements in respect of non-compliance with laws and regulations,^{[footnote 34]} including fraud. The extent to which my procedures are capable of detecting non‑compliance with laws and regulations, including fraud is detailed below.

Identifying and assessing potential risks related to non-compliance with laws and regulations, including fraud

In identifying and assessing risks of material misstatement in respect of non-compliance with laws and regulations, including fraud, I:

• considered the nature of the sector, control environment and operational performance including the design of the department and its group’s accounting policies;

• inquired of management, the department’s head of internal audit and those charged with governance, including obtaining and reviewing supporting documentation relating to the department and its group’s policies and procedures on:

  * identifying, evaluating and complying with laws and regulations;

  * detecting and responding to the risks of fraud; and

  * the internal controls established to mitigate risks related to fraud or non-compliance with laws and regulations including the department and its group’s controls relating to the department’s compliance with the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000, Managing Public Money, and the Supply and Appropriation (Main Estimates) Act 2024.

• inquired of management, the department’s head of internal audit and those charged with governance whether:

  * they were aware of any instances of non-compliance with laws and regulations;

  * they had knowledge of any actual, suspected, or alleged fraud; and

• discussed with the engagement team including relevant component audit teams and the relevant internal and external specialists, including modelling experts and property valuation experts regarding how and where fraud might occur in the financial statements and any potential indicators of fraud.

As a result of these procedures, I considered the opportunities and incentives that may exist within the department and its group for fraud and identified the greatest potential for fraud in the following areas: revenue recognition, posting of unusual journals, complex transactions, and bias in management estimates. In common with all audits under ISAs (UK), I am required to perform specific procedures to respond to the risk of management override.

I obtained an understanding of the department and group’s framework of authority and other legal and regulatory frameworks in which the department and group operates. I focused on those laws and regulations that had a direct effect on material amounts and disclosures in the financial statements or that had a fundamental effect on the operations of the department and its group. The key laws and regulations I considered in this context included Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000, Managing Public Money, Supply and Appropriation (Main Estimates) Act 2024, employment law, pensions and tax legislation, and legislation setting out fees, charges and compensation in relation to legal aid, courts and tribunals and criminal injuries compensation.

Audit response to identified risk

To respond to the identified risks resulting from the above procedures:

• I reviewed the financial statement disclosures and testing to supporting documentation to assess compliance with provisions of relevant laws and regulations described above as having direct effect on the financial statements;

• I enquired of management, the Audit and Risk Committee and in-house legal counsel concerning actual and potential litigation and claims;

• I reviewed minutes of meetings of those charged with governance and the Board and internal audit reports; and

• I addressed the risk of fraud through management override of controls by testing the appropriateness of journal entries and other adjustments; assessing whether the judgements on estimates are indicative of a potential bias; and evaluating the business rationale of any significant transactions that are unusual or outside the normal course of business.

I communicated relevant identified laws and regulations and potential risks of fraud to all engagement team members including internal and external specialists and relevant component audit teams and remained alert to any indications of fraud or non-compliance with laws and regulations throughout the audit.

A further description of my responsibilities for the audit of the financial statements is located on the Financial Reporting Council’s website at: www.frc.org.uk/auditorsresponsibilities. This description forms part of my certificate.

Other auditor’s responsibilities

I am required to obtain appropriate evidence sufficient to give reasonable assurance that the Statement of Outturn against Parliamentary Supply properly presents the outturn against voted Parliamentary control totals and that those totals have not been exceeded. The voted Parliamentary control totals are Departmental Expenditure Limits (Resource and Capital), Annually Managed Expenditure (Resource and Capital), Non-Budget (Resource) and Net Cash Requirement.

I am required to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence to give reasonable assurance that the expenditure and income recorded in the financial statements have been applied to the purposes intended by Parliament and the financial transactions recorded in the financial statements conform to the authorities which govern them.

I communicate with those charged with governance regarding, among other matters, the planned scope and timing of the audit and significant audit findings, including any significant deficiencies in internal control I identify during my audit.

Report

I have no observations to make on these financial statements.

Gareth Davies

Comptroller and Auditor General

28 October 2025

National Audit Office

157-197 Buckingham Palace Road

Victoria

London

SW1W 9SP

1. The Chief People Officer is a member of the Nominations Committee and attended both meetings but is not listed in this table as they are not a member of the Departmental Board. ↩

2. There was a change in ministerial team following the general election on July 4, 2024. In September 2025, the Rt Hon David Lammy MP was appointed Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice. The Rt Hon Shabana Mahmood MP moved to become Secretary of State for the Home Office. ↩

3. Laura Farris MP held a joint ministerial role within the Home Office. Following the general election, the portfolio was split, with Alex Davies-Jones MP taking over the component remaining within the department. ↩

4. Dame Antonia Romeo DCB left the department on 11 April 2025 to join the Home Office. ↩

5. Jerome Glass left the department on 13 June 2025 to join the Home Office. ↩

6. As of 1 April 2025, the Infrastructure and Projects Authority combined with the National Infrastructure Commission to form a new organisation, the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority, a unit within HM Treasury. ↩

7. The value of pension benefits accrued during the year is calculated as (the real increase in pension multiplied by 20) less (the contributions made by the individual). The real increase excludes increases due to inflation or any increase or decrease due to a transfer of pension rights. ↩

8. There was a change in the ministerial team following the general election on 4 July 2024. Information disclosed relates to the period in which the individuals were in post as ministers. When a minister moves from one department to another, the exporting department pays their salary at the current rate of pay until the end of the month of departure, and the importing department pays in the following month at the appropriate salary plus any arrears. ↩

9. Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede and Sir Nic Dakin MP are paid by HM Treasury. Laura Farris is paid by Home Office. Lord Timpson OBE and Lord Christopher Bellamy KC served as unpaid ministers. ↩

10. Dominic Raab MP opted out of the pension scheme. ↩

11. Bonus figures include performance-related pay relating to the performance in the previous financial year, which was paid out in this financial year. ↩

12. The value of pension benefits accrued during the year is calculated as (the real increase in pension multiplied by 20) plus (the real increase in any lump sum) less (the contributions made by the individual). The real increases exclude increases due to inflation or any increase or decreases due to a transfer of pension rights. ↩

13. Amy Rees is remunerated by HMPPS. Her remuneration is also published in the HMPPS annual report and accounts for the financial year ending 31 March 2025. ↩

14. Amy Rees is a member of the partnership pension scheme and as such did not accrue Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme benefits. The employer contributions to her partnership pension account are included in the ‘Pension-related benefits’ column of this table and the cash equivalent transfer value (CETV) table. ↩

15. Nick Goodwin is remunerated by HMCTS. His remuneration is also published in the HMCTS annual report and accounts for the financial year ending 31 March 2025. ↩

16. Information disclosed relates to the period in which the individuals were in post as senior managers or non-executive board members. None of the non-executive board members have pension entitlements with the department. ↩

17. The ‘CETV at 31 March 2024’ figure may differ to the figure used for the end date in the previous year’s published accounts. This is due to a change in the factors used in part of the calculation since the previous figures were run. ↩

18. These ministers were not paid by MoJ during the reporting year. Lord Timpson OBE and Lord Christopher Bellamy KC served as unpaid ministers, therefore no pension benefits were received by them from MoJ. Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, Sir Nic Dakin MP, and Laura Farris MP were paid by another government department. ↩

19. Information disclosed relates to the full year, whereas dates included relate to the period in which the individuals were in post as ministers. ↩

20. Amy Rees is a member of the partnership pension scheme. No Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme benefits were accrued in this financial year (previous financial year: £0). There were no employer contributions to the Local Government Pension Scheme. Amy Rees’ remuneration is also published in the HMPPS annual report and accounts 2024 to 2025. ↩

21. Nick Goodwin’s remuneration is also published in the HMCTS annual report and accounts 2024 to 2025. ↩

22. Dr Jo Farrar is a member of the partnership pension scheme. No Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme benefits were accrued in this financial year (previous financial year: £0). There were no employer contributions to the Local Government Pension Scheme. ↩

23. Includes staff on permanent and fixed-term contracts. ↩

24. Ministers’ costs include costs of Scotland Office ministers and staff which are recovered as secondment income. ↩

25. The apprenticeship levy, implemented across England on 6 April 2017, is an employment tax of 0.5% of the annual pay bill and these costs are included within social security costs. ↩

26. Includes staff on permanent and fixed-term contracts. Data for agencies is taken from agency published accounts. ↩

27. Under a restructuring exercise, the functions of Performance Strategy and Analysis and its staff were realigned into other business groups. Therefore, MoJ HQ figures for this financial year are not comparable to the figures from the previous financial year. ↩

28. Transfers of staff within the Civil Service are included in ‘Departmental turnover’ and excluded from ‘Turnover’. ↩

29. Due to changes in data processing, the staff turnover figures were updated from 10.9% and 12.1% to 11% and 12.2% respectively for the previous financial year. ↩

30. The data represents the department and executive agencies (HMPPS, HMCTS, LAA, OPG and CICA). Disability and ethnicity percentages are calculated based on all staff who have provided information on their ethnicity or disability status ↩

31. In August 2023, the equivalent Civil Service grade for HMPPS Band 12s was recategorised from SCS to G6 for reporting purposes, leading to a decrease in overall SCS figures. ↩

32. Headcount for the department and its executive agencies (excluding non-departmental public bodies), at 31 March 2025. The number of staff reported represents the average number of full-time equivalent staff over the year. ↩

33. Descriptions of the types of losses and special payments are covered in the glossary in the annex of this report. ↩

34. Non-compliance is defined as acts of omission or commission intentional or unintentional, committed by the entity, or by those charged with governance, by management or by other individuals working for or under the direction of the entity, which are contrary to the prevailing laws or regulations. Non-compliance does not include personal misconduct unrelated to the business activities of the entity. ISA 700 uses the word “irregularities” to describe non-compliance with laws and regulations.  We do not use the word irregularities to describe non-compliance within our certificates and reports as it has another meaning in the context of PN10. ↩