Show Search Form

Search Results

registered interest	true false
date	exactly: or between: and
answering body
answering dept id
answering dept short name
answering dept sort name
hansard heading
house id
legislature	pref label
question text
tabling member constituency
tabling member printed
uin
answer	is ministerial correction true false date of answer exactly: or between: and answer text answering member constituency answering member printed grouped question UIN question first answered answering member label
tabling member	label

Search

100236

	registered interest
	date	21/10/2014
	answering body	Attorney General
	answering dept id	88
	answering dept short name	Attorney General
	answering dept sort name	Attorney General
	hansard heading	Harassment
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Attorney General, how many people have been charged to date under sections (a) 2A and (b) 4A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 who could not have been charged using sections (i) 2 and (ii) 4.
	tabling member constituency	Dwyfor Meirionnydd
	tabling member printed	Mr Elfyn Llwyd
	uin	211307
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 27/10/2014 answer text <p>The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) does not maintain a separate record of the number of people charged and prosecuted for stalking under sections (a) 2A and (b) 4A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 who could not have been charged for harassment using sections (i) 2 and (ii) 4.</p><p> </p><p>The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 does not provide a definitive list of behaviors that would allow for a prosecution for either harassment or stalking and CPS prosecutors determine the most appropriate charges in any given prosecution based on the facts of the case.</p><p> </p> answering member constituency South Swindon answering member printed Mr Robert Buckland question first answered 27/10/2014 17:09:19 answering member 4106 label Biography information for Sir Robert Buckland
	tabling member	549 label Biography information for Mr Elfyn Llwyd

63459

	registered interest
	date	24/06/2014
	answering body	Attorney General
	answering dept id	88
	answering dept short name	Attorney General
	answering dept sort name	Attorney General
	hansard heading	Serious Fraud Office
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Attorney General, how many (a) investigations were carried out, (b) individuals were charged, (c) corporates were charged, (d) criminal prosecutions were launched and (e) criminal convictions were secured by the Serious Fraud Office in (i) 2012-13 and (ii) each of the five preceding years.
	tabling member constituency	Islington South and Finsbury
	tabling member printed	Emily Thornberry
	uin	201977
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 01/09/2014 answer text <p> </p><p>11 convictions were secured in 2013/14 and 16 prosecutions were completed in 2013/14 (including those with convictions).</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) investigates and, where appropriate, prosecutes cases of serious or complex fraud (including cases of domestic or overseas bribery and corruption) which, in the opinion of the Director of the SFO, call for the multi-disciplinary approach and legislative powers available to the SFO. Since April 2012, the SFO’s caseload has been recalibrated so that it is taking on fewer and more complex cases, as envisaged by the Roskill model.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>The SFO’s Intelligence Unit will assess all matters referred to the SFO whether by the public, the police or other agencies or organisations and refer those considered suitable for acceptance to a Case Evaluation Board before submission to the Director for his decision to open a criminal investigation under the Criminal Justice Act 1987.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>SFO investigations are complex, and this can sometimes lead to investigations merging or splitting into different parts. For instance, the Libor investigation is into numerous financial institutions, and there are other large investigations which have been subdivided.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>The information requested for earlier years is contained in the following table.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td><p> </p></td><td><p><strong>2012/13</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2011/12</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2010/11</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2009/10</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2008/09</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2007/08</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Number of investigations opened</p></td><td><p>8</p></td><td><p>10</p></td><td><p>13</p></td><td><p>17</p></td><td><p>20</p></td><td><p>18</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Number of individuals charged</p></td><td><p>18</p></td><td><p>24</p></td><td><p>25</p></td><td><p>57</p></td><td><p>31</p></td><td><p>20</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Number of corporates charged</p></td><td><p>0</p></td><td><p>0</p></td><td><p>1</p></td><td><p>2</p></td><td><p>0</p></td><td><p>1</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Number of convictions secured</p></td><td><p>14</p></td><td><p>39</p></td><td><p>23</p></td><td><p>24</p></td><td><p>33</p></td><td><p>17</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Number of prosecutions completed by defendant (including those convicted)</p></td><td><p>20</p></td><td><p>54</p></td><td><p>28</p></td><td><p>26</p></td><td><p>54</p></td><td><p>25</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Note 1: Two cases have been opened, closed, and then re-opened. These have been counted only once in the data above.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Note 2: Prior to April 2012 the SFO did not collate all of its casework data centrally and it is therefore possible that some records form this period may not have been identified. The SFO is currently carrying out a project to ensure that its reporting systems are more robust in the future.</p> answering member constituency South Swindon answering member printed Mr Robert Buckland grouped question UIN 205065 205092 question first answered 01/09/2014 14:33:31 answering member 4106 label Biography information for Sir Robert Buckland
	tabling member	1536 label Biography information for Emily Thornberry

76968

	registered interest
	date	10/07/2014
	answering body	Attorney General
	answering dept id	88
	answering dept short name	Attorney General
	answering dept sort name	Attorney General
	hansard heading	Public Expenditure
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Attorney General, how much the (a) Serious Fraud Office and (b) Crown Prosecution Service spent on (i) travel, (ii) furniture and fittings and (iii) any dilapidation claims arising from the quitting of premises in each year since 2008.
	tabling member constituency	Islington South and Finsbury
	tabling member printed	Emily Thornberry
	uin	205094
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 17/07/2014 answer text <p>The Serious Fraud Office moved from its premises at Elm House on Elm Street and part of the ITN building on Gray's Inn Road at the end of 2012. It is now located on one site in Cockspur Street.</p><p>The information requested is set out in the table below. There were no relevant costs in 2008/09 or 2009/10.</p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td><p><strong> </strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2010/11</strong></p><p><strong>£‘000's</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2011/12</strong></p><p><strong>£‘000's</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2012/13</strong></p><p><strong>£‘000's</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2013/14</strong></p><p><strong>£‘000's</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Travel</p></td><td><p>-</p></td><td><p>-</p></td><td><p>9</p></td><td><p>24</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Furniture and fittings</p></td><td><p>-</p></td><td><p>-</p></td><td><p>23</p></td><td><p>-</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Dilapidations</p></td><td><p>750</p></td><td><p>290</p></td><td><p>-</p></td><td><p>-</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p>The Crown Prosecution Service spent the following amounts on furniture and fittings and dilapidations in each year since 2008.</p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td><p><strong> </strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2013/14</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2012/13</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2011/12</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2010/11</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2009/10</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2008/09</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong> </strong></p></td><td><p><strong>£‘000's</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>£‘000's</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>£‘000's</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>£‘000's</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>£‘000's</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>£‘000's</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Furniture and Fittings</p></td><td><p>386</p></td><td><p>497</p></td><td><p>957</p></td><td><p>4,210</p></td><td><p>4,462</p></td><td><p>3,197</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Dilapidations</p></td><td><p>1,992</p></td><td><p>917</p></td><td><p>1,595</p></td><td><p>201</p></td><td><p>362</p></td><td><p>185</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p>Expenditure incurred on dilapidations occurred as a result of quitting premises. Expenditure on furniture and fittings covers all such expenditure. To identify spend that relates solely and specifically to quitting premises would involve the checking of thousands of invoices and would incur a disproportionate cost.</p><p>From records held it is also not possible to identify spend on travel arising from quitting premises without incurring a disproportionate cost.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p> answering member constituency South Swindon answering member printed Mr Robert Buckland question first answered 17/07/2014 16:27:23 answering member 4106 label Biography information for Sir Robert Buckland
	tabling member	1536 label Biography information for Emily Thornberry

76969

	registered interest
	date	10/07/2014
	answering body	Attorney General
	answering dept id	88
	answering dept short name	Attorney General
	answering dept sort name	Attorney General
	hansard heading	Serious Fraud Office
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Attorney General, how much the Serious Fraud Office spent on civil claims in which it was the respondent in 2013-14.
	tabling member constituency	Islington South and Finsbury
	tabling member printed	Emily Thornberry
	uin	205095
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 01/09/2014 answer text <p>The Serious Fraud Office spent £10,833k on civil claims in which it was the respondent in 2013-14, including legal costs and other payments.</p> answering member constituency South Swindon answering member printed Mr Robert Buckland question first answered 01/09/2014 13:50:23 answering member 4106 label Biography information for Sir Robert Buckland
	tabling member	1536 label Biography information for Emily Thornberry

76971

	registered interest
	date	10/07/2014
	answering body	Attorney General
	answering dept id	88
	answering dept short name	Attorney General
	answering dept sort name	Attorney General
	hansard heading	Fraud: Prosecutions
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Attorney General, how many prosecutions have been completed by the Serious Fraud Office in 2013-14 and each of the previous five years.
	tabling member constituency	Islington South and Finsbury
	tabling member printed	Emily Thornberry
	uin	205092
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 01/09/2014 answer text <p> </p><p>11 convictions were secured in 2013/14 and 16 prosecutions were completed in 2013/14 (including those with convictions).</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) investigates and, where appropriate, prosecutes cases of serious or complex fraud (including cases of domestic or overseas bribery and corruption) which, in the opinion of the Director of the SFO, call for the multi-disciplinary approach and legislative powers available to the SFO. Since April 2012, the SFO’s caseload has been recalibrated so that it is taking on fewer and more complex cases, as envisaged by the Roskill model.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>The SFO’s Intelligence Unit will assess all matters referred to the SFO whether by the public, the police or other agencies or organisations and refer those considered suitable for acceptance to a Case Evaluation Board before submission to the Director for his decision to open a criminal investigation under the Criminal Justice Act 1987.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>SFO investigations are complex, and this can sometimes lead to investigations merging or splitting into different parts. For instance, the Libor investigation is into numerous financial institutions, and there are other large investigations which have been subdivided.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>The information requested for earlier years is contained in the following table.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td><p> </p></td><td><p><strong>2012/13</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2011/12</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2010/11</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2009/10</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2008/09</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2007/08</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Number of investigations opened</p></td><td><p>8</p></td><td><p>10</p></td><td><p>13</p></td><td><p>17</p></td><td><p>20</p></td><td><p>18</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Number of individuals charged</p></td><td><p>18</p></td><td><p>24</p></td><td><p>25</p></td><td><p>57</p></td><td><p>31</p></td><td><p>20</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Number of corporates charged</p></td><td><p>0</p></td><td><p>0</p></td><td><p>1</p></td><td><p>2</p></td><td><p>0</p></td><td><p>1</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Number of convictions secured</p></td><td><p>14</p></td><td><p>39</p></td><td><p>23</p></td><td><p>24</p></td><td><p>33</p></td><td><p>17</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Number of prosecutions completed by defendant (including those convicted)</p></td><td><p>20</p></td><td><p>54</p></td><td><p>28</p></td><td><p>26</p></td><td><p>54</p></td><td><p>25</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Note 1: Two cases have been opened, closed, and then re-opened. These have been counted only once in the data above.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Note 2: Prior to April 2012 the SFO did not collate all of its casework data centrally and it is therefore possible that some records form this period may not have been identified. The SFO is currently carrying out a project to ensure that its reporting systems are more robust in the future.</p> answering member constituency South Swindon answering member printed Mr Robert Buckland grouped question UIN 201977 205065 question first answered 01/09/2014 14:33:31 answering member 4106 label Biography information for Sir Robert Buckland
	tabling member	1536 label Biography information for Emily Thornberry

76972

	registered interest
	date	10/07/2014
	answering body	Attorney General
	answering dept id	88
	answering dept short name	Attorney General
	answering dept sort name	Attorney General
	hansard heading	Administration of Justice
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Attorney General, what proportion of judicial orders and instructions were complied with by the Crown Prosecution Service (a) on time, (b) late and (c) not at all in each of the last 15 years.
	tabling member constituency	Islington South and Finsbury
	tabling member printed	Emily Thornberry
	uin	205093
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 01/09/2014 answer text <p>The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has maintained a central record of the number of, and compliance with, judicial directions since April 2012.</p><p>Current CPS data on the number and proportion of judicial directions complied with by the CPS (and timeliness) is set out in the table below:</p><table><tbody><tr><td> </td><td colspan="2"><p><strong>(a) Timely Compliance</strong></p></td><td colspan="2"><p><strong>(b) Late Compliance</strong></p></td><td colspan="2"><p><strong>(c) Not Complied With</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>TOTAL </strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>2012-2013</strong></p></td><td><p>44,006</p></td><td><p>54.8%</p></td><td><p>25,186</p></td><td><p>31.4%</p></td><td><p>11,090</p></td><td><p>13.8%</p></td><td><p><strong>80,282</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>2013-2014</strong></p></td><td><p>89,955</p></td><td><p>74.0%</p></td><td><p>21,977</p></td><td><p>18.1%</p></td><td><p>9,575</p></td><td><p>7.9%</p></td><td><p><strong>121,507</strong></p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p>Data Source: CPS Case Management Information System</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>The CPS is evaluating its compliance with Judge’s directions, including its processes for recording such data.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>No central record of judicial directions was maintained prior to April 2012. Obtaining the above information for periods prior to April 2012 would involve a review of individual case files incurring a disproportionate cost.</p><p> </p> answering member constituency South Swindon answering member printed Mr Robert Buckland question first answered 01/09/2014 14:23:33 answering member 4106 label Biography information for Sir Robert Buckland
	tabling member	1536 label Biography information for Emily Thornberry

76973

	registered interest
	date	10/07/2014
	answering body	Attorney General
	answering dept id	88
	answering dept short name	Attorney General
	answering dept sort name	Attorney General
	hansard heading	Sick Leave
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Attorney General, what the average number of sick days per staff member was at the (a) Crown Prosecution Service and (b) Serious Fraud Office in 2013-14 and each of the five preceding years.
	tabling member constituency	Islington South and Finsbury
	tabling member printed	Emily Thornberry
	uin	205133
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 21/07/2014 answer text <p> </p><p>The information requested is contained in the following table.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td><p><strong>Department</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2008-09</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2009-10</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2010-11</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2011-12</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2012-13</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2013-14</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Crown Prosecution Service</p></td><td><p>8.5</p></td><td><p>9</p></td><td><p>8.9</p></td><td><p>8.5</p></td><td><p>9</p></td><td><p>8.8</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Serious Fraud Office</p></td><td><p>11.2</p></td><td><p>9.8</p></td><td><p>11.2</p></td><td><p>8.8</p></td><td><p>7</p></td><td><p>5.1</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p><strong> </strong></p><p> </p> answering member constituency South Swindon answering member printed Mr Robert Buckland question first answered 21/07/2014 15:08:47 answering member 4106 label Biography information for Sir Robert Buckland
	tabling member	1536 label Biography information for Emily Thornberry

76974

	registered interest
	date	10/07/2014
	answering body	Attorney General
	answering dept id	88
	answering dept short name	Attorney General
	answering dept sort name	Attorney General
	hansard heading	Confiscation Orders
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Attorney General, what the value is of outstanding debt under confiscation orders obtained by the Crown Prosecution Service; and what recent estimate he has made of how much such debt is realistically recoverable.
	tabling member constituency	Islington South and Finsbury
	tabling member printed	Emily Thornberry
	uin	205134
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 17/07/2014 answer text <p> </p><p>As of 3 April 2014 the total amount of outstanding debt in confiscation orders where the CPS was the lead enforcer was £501,450,120 (excluding interest). 31.8% of this debt has been assessed as recoverable which relates to £159,416,384.</p><p> </p> answering member constituency South Swindon answering member printed Mr Robert Buckland question first answered 17/07/2014 16:30:00 answering member 4106 label Biography information for Sir Robert Buckland
	tabling member	1536 label Biography information for Emily Thornberry

76975

	registered interest
	date	10/07/2014
	answering body	Attorney General
	answering dept id	88
	answering dept short name	Attorney General
	answering dept sort name	Attorney General
	hansard heading	Fraud: Convictions
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Attorney General, how many people have been convicted by the Serious Fraud Office in 2013-14 and each of the previous five years.
	tabling member constituency	Islington South and Finsbury
	tabling member printed	Emily Thornberry
	uin	205065
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 01/09/2014 answer text <p> </p><p>11 convictions were secured in 2013/14 and 16 prosecutions were completed in 2013/14 (including those with convictions).</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) investigates and, where appropriate, prosecutes cases of serious or complex fraud (including cases of domestic or overseas bribery and corruption) which, in the opinion of the Director of the SFO, call for the multi-disciplinary approach and legislative powers available to the SFO. Since April 2012, the SFO’s caseload has been recalibrated so that it is taking on fewer and more complex cases, as envisaged by the Roskill model.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>The SFO’s Intelligence Unit will assess all matters referred to the SFO whether by the public, the police or other agencies or organisations and refer those considered suitable for acceptance to a Case Evaluation Board before submission to the Director for his decision to open a criminal investigation under the Criminal Justice Act 1987.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>SFO investigations are complex, and this can sometimes lead to investigations merging or splitting into different parts. For instance, the Libor investigation is into numerous financial institutions, and there are other large investigations which have been subdivided.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>The information requested for earlier years is contained in the following table.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td><p> </p></td><td><p><strong>2012/13</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2011/12</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2010/11</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2009/10</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2008/09</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2007/08</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Number of investigations opened</p></td><td><p>8</p></td><td><p>10</p></td><td><p>13</p></td><td><p>17</p></td><td><p>20</p></td><td><p>18</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Number of individuals charged</p></td><td><p>18</p></td><td><p>24</p></td><td><p>25</p></td><td><p>57</p></td><td><p>31</p></td><td><p>20</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Number of corporates charged</p></td><td><p>0</p></td><td><p>0</p></td><td><p>1</p></td><td><p>2</p></td><td><p>0</p></td><td><p>1</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Number of convictions secured</p></td><td><p>14</p></td><td><p>39</p></td><td><p>23</p></td><td><p>24</p></td><td><p>33</p></td><td><p>17</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Number of prosecutions completed by defendant (including those convicted)</p></td><td><p>20</p></td><td><p>54</p></td><td><p>28</p></td><td><p>26</p></td><td><p>54</p></td><td><p>25</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Note 1: Two cases have been opened, closed, and then re-opened. These have been counted only once in the data above.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Note 2: Prior to April 2012 the SFO did not collate all of its casework data centrally and it is therefore possible that some records form this period may not have been identified. The SFO is currently carrying out a project to ensure that its reporting systems are more robust in the future.</p> answering member constituency South Swindon answering member printed Mr Robert Buckland grouped question UIN 201977 205092 question first answered 01/09/2014 14:33:31 answering member 4106 label Biography information for Sir Robert Buckland
	tabling member	1536 label Biography information for Emily Thornberry

76976

	registered interest
	date	10/07/2014
	answering body	Attorney General
	answering dept id	88
	answering dept short name	Attorney General
	answering dept sort name	Attorney General
	hansard heading	Animal Welfare: Prosecutions
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Attorney General, how many prosecutions the Crown Prosecution Service has carried out for (a) dog-fighting and (b) badger persecution in each of the last five financial years.
	tabling member constituency	Islington South and Finsbury
	tabling member printed	Emily Thornberry
	uin	205066
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 21/07/2014 answer text <p>Prosecutions for dog-fighting and badger persecution are conducted under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 and Protection of Badgers Act 1992 respectively. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) does not maintain a central record of the number or prosecutions for ‘dog fighting’ conducted under the Animal Welfare Act. To obtain this information would require a manual file examination at disproportionate cost.</p><p>The number of offences charged under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 is as follows:</p><table><tbody><tr><td> </td><td> </td><td><p><strong>2009-2010</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2010-2011</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2011-2012</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2012-2013</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2013-2014</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Protection of Badgers Act 1992 { 1(1) }</p><p>Wilfully kill a badger</p></td><td><p> </p></td><td><p>1</p></td><td><p>2</p></td><td><p>9</p></td><td><p>6</p></td><td><p>0</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Protection of Badgers Act 1992 { 1(1) }</p><p>Attempt to kill a badger</p></td><td><p> </p></td><td><p>1</p></td><td><p>0</p></td><td><p>0</p></td><td><p>0</p></td><td><p>0</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Protection of Badgers Act 1992 { 1(1) }</p><p>Attempt to takea badger</p></td><td><p> </p></td><td><p>4</p></td><td><p>0</p></td><td><p>0</p></td><td><p>7</p></td><td><p>3</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Protection of Badgers Act 1992 { 1(1) and 12 }</p><p>Wilfully taking a badger</p></td><td><p> </p></td><td><p>0</p></td><td><p>0</p></td><td><p>0</p></td><td><p>0</p></td><td><p>3</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Protection of Badgers Act 1992 { 1(3) and 12 }</p><p>Possess a dead / part of a dead badger</p></td><td><p> </p></td><td><p>0</p></td><td><p>1</p></td><td><p>2</p></td><td><p>1</p></td><td><p>0</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Protection of Badgers Act 1992 { 2(1) and 12 }</p><p>Digging for badgers</p></td><td><p> </p></td><td><p>0</p></td><td><p>0</p></td><td><p>8</p></td><td><p>18</p></td><td><p>6</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Protection of Badgers Act 1992 { 3 }</p><p>Interfering with badger setts</p></td><td><p> </p></td><td><p>18</p></td><td><p>23</p></td><td><p>24</p></td><td><p>38</p></td><td><p>19</p></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"><p><strong>Total</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>24</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>26</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>43</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>70</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>31</strong></p></td></tr></tbody></table><p>These are offences which reached a first hearing in the magistrates’ court and the substantive charge when the case was finalised may have been different. It does preclude the possibility that other offences relating to badgers may have been charged under other legislation.</p> answering member constituency South Swindon answering member printed Mr Robert Buckland question first answered 21/07/2014 14:37:20 answering member 4106 label Biography information for Sir Robert Buckland
	tabling member	1536 label Biography information for Emily Thornberry