answer text |
<p>The number of offenders managed by (i) the National Probation Service (NPS) and
(ii) a Community Rehabilitation Company who were (a) charged with murder and (b) subsequently
convicted of murder in each year since 2014 in England and Wales is given in the table
below. The number of convictions is a provisional figure and is subject to change
as some cases have not yet reached conclusion.</p><p> </p><p>In addition, there was
an offender supervised by the NPS in 2015 and another in 2016 who were charged with
a lesser offence but eventually convicted of murder. Similarly, there was an offender
supervised by a CRC in 2015 and three offenders supervised by a CRC in 2018 who were
charged with a lesser offender but eventually convicted of murder.</p><p> </p><p>A
Serious Further Offence (SFO) review is triggered where an offender under statutory
supervision in the community is charged with a qualifying offence – a “notification”.
However, in cases where charges are dropped in the three-month period for the SFO
review to be produced, the SFO review will not be completed.</p><p> </p><p>SFOs are
rare. Less than 0.1% of offenders under statutory supervision are convicted of murder,
and less than 0.5% convicted of any SFO. Nonetheless, every single SFO is taken extremely
seriously, and in all cases a review is carried out to identify any lessons for the
better management of future cases.</p><p> </p><p>The probation caseload, counted in
September of each year was: 2015 – 127,000, 2016 – 181,000, 2017 – 185,000 and 2018
– 180,000. The CRCs have a much larger proportion of the caseload than the NPS.</p><p>
</p><p> </p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2"><p>Year</p></td><td colspan="2"><p>(i)National
Probation Service</p></td><td colspan="2"><p>(ii) Community Rehabilitation Companies</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>(a)Number
of Notifications (charges)</p></td><td><p>(b) Number of Convictions</p></td><td><p>(a)
Number of Notifications (charges)</p></td><td><p>(b) Number of Convictions</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2015</p></td><td><p>28</p></td><td><p>16</p></td><td><p>41</p></td><td><p>22</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2016</p></td><td><p>26</p></td><td><p>16</p></td><td><p>60</p></td><td><p>29</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2017</p></td><td><p>49</p></td><td><p>27</p></td><td><p>65</p></td><td><p>37</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2018</p></td><td><p>54</p></td><td><p>14</p></td><td><p>78</p></td><td><p>18</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p>
</p><p> </p><ol><li>Under the Offender Rehabilitation Act (ORA) 2014 offenders serving
short prison sentences are now released on licence. As a direct and predicted result,
there has been an increase in the number of SFO notifications as a result of ORA.
This does not mean that a greater proportion of offenders under statutory probation
supervision are being charged with SFOs. The increase plateaued in 2017.</li><li>The
number of ORA only includes cases those cases that would not have previously fallen
in scope of the SFO procedures as mentioned above. Cases that were sentenced to an
ORA sentence of less than 12 months, but who were previously and concurrently subject
to probation intervention, have not been captured within this figure. For example,
the offender was subject to a community order (CO), when he was further sentenced
to under 12 month sentence under ORA. If the CO was active at the time of the SFO,
it would have qualified regardless of the ORA sentence, so has not been counted in
the ORA numbers.</li><li>Data Sources and Quality .We have drawn these figures from
administrative IT systems which, as with some large-scale recording system, are subject
to possible errors with data entry and processing.</li></ol>
|
|