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 attachment file name title previous answer version answering member constituency answering member printed answering member
tabling member	label

Search

101519

	registered interest
	date	29/10/2014
	answering body	Attorney General
	answering dept id	88
	answering dept short name	Attorney General
	answering dept sort name	Attorney General
	hansard heading	European Arrest Warrants
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Attorney General, what recent assessment he has made of the usefulness of the European Arrest Warrant as a prosecutorial tool.
	tabling member constituency	Islington South and Finsbury
	tabling member printed	Emily Thornberry
	uin	212405
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 03/11/2014 answer text <p>The Government and the DPP are in agreement that the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) offers the best way of keeping Britain safe, particularly from serious criminals and terrorists.</p><p>The introduction of the EAW has resulted in much faster processing of extradition requests, meaning that we can secure the return of fugitives wanted for serious offending in this country often in a matter of weeks, not many months or even years as was the case under previous arrangements. The Arrest Warrant is also more effective. For example, under the previous regime, the European Convention on Extradition, some Member States can refuse to surrender their own nationals, including France, Germany and Spain, which is not the position in EAW cases. Furthermore, the EAW overcomes problems of time limitation in other countries. It also means that wanted people can now be extradited to face fraud and tax charges, which was not the case before.</p><p>The Government has recently made changes in the way that the EAW is processed through our courts. These changes are designed to offer greater protection to UK citizens and other UK residents against disproportionate requests and the risk of spending unreasonable lengths of time in pre-trial detention abroad. With those changes in place, the Government is convinced that the EAW provides an effective and cost-efficient tool in the fight against trans-national crime, and it is one which prosecutors and other law enforcement professionals are keen to see preserved.</p><p> </p> answering member constituency Kenilworth and Southam answering member printed Jeremy Wright grouped question UIN 212406 question first answered 03/11/2014 17:02:26 answering member 1560 label Biography information for Sir Jeremy Wright
	tabling member	1536 label Biography information for Emily Thornberry

101520

	registered interest
	date	29/10/2014
	answering body	Attorney General
	answering dept id	88
	answering dept short name	Attorney General
	answering dept sort name	Attorney General
	hansard heading	European Arrest Warrants
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Attorney General, what recent discussions he has had with the Director of Public Prosecutions on the usefulness of the European Arrest Warrant as a prosecutorial tool.
	tabling member constituency	Islington South and Finsbury
	tabling member printed	Emily Thornberry
	uin	212406
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 03/11/2014 answer text <p>The Government and the DPP are in agreement that the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) offers the best way of keeping Britain safe, particularly from serious criminals and terrorists.</p><p>The introduction of the EAW has resulted in much faster processing of extradition requests, meaning that we can secure the return of fugitives wanted for serious offending in this country often in a matter of weeks, not many months or even years as was the case under previous arrangements. The Arrest Warrant is also more effective. For example, under the previous regime, the European Convention on Extradition, some Member States can refuse to surrender their own nationals, including France, Germany and Spain, which is not the position in EAW cases. Furthermore, the EAW overcomes problems of time limitation in other countries. It also means that wanted people can now be extradited to face fraud and tax charges, which was not the case before.</p><p>The Government has recently made changes in the way that the EAW is processed through our courts. These changes are designed to offer greater protection to UK citizens and other UK residents against disproportionate requests and the risk of spending unreasonable lengths of time in pre-trial detention abroad. With those changes in place, the Government is convinced that the EAW provides an effective and cost-efficient tool in the fight against trans-national crime, and it is one which prosecutors and other law enforcement professionals are keen to see preserved.</p><p> </p> answering member constituency Kenilworth and Southam answering member printed Jeremy Wright grouped question UIN 212405 question first answered 03/11/2014 17:02:26 answering member 1560 label Biography information for Sir Jeremy Wright
	tabling member	1536 label Biography information for Emily Thornberry

106192

	registered interest
	date	04/11/2014
	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 successful prosecutions have been made for non-benefit-related fraud in each year since 2009; and how many such prosecutions were for offences against an individual victim.
	tabling member constituency	Bolton West
	tabling member printed	Julie Hilling
	uin	213310
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 11/11/2014 answer text <p>The Crown Prosecution Service does not maintain a separate record of the outcome of prosecution proceedings by specific offences, such as non-benefit frauds, or where the offences prosecuted concerned one victim. To obtain this information would involve undertaking a manual search of case records which would incur a disproportionate cost.</p><p> </p> answering member constituency Kenilworth and Southam answering member printed Jeremy Wright question first answered 11/11/2014 11:35:59 answering member 1560 label Biography information for Sir Jeremy Wright
	tabling member	3925 label Biography information for Julie Hilling

106349

	registered interest
	date	04/11/2014
	answering body	Attorney General
	answering dept id	88
	answering dept short name	Attorney General
	answering dept sort name	Attorney General
	hansard heading	Sexting: Children
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Attorney General, how many cases including the sending of a nude or sexually explicit electronic image of an individual under the age of 18 where the perpetrator of the crime is under the age of 18 have been referred to the Crown Prosecution Service in the last three years; how many such cases have been taken forward for prosecution; and how many such prosecutions have been successful.
	tabling member constituency	Basingstoke
	tabling member printed	Maria Miller
	uin	213364
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 07/11/2014 answer text <p>The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) does not collect specific data on suspects referred to the CPS for a charging decision where the sending of sexually explicit images of children is alleged. However, data is available to indicate the number of offences charged, in which a prosecution commenced at magistrates’ courts, for offences of involving indecent images of children.</p><p> </p><p>The two main offence provisions for the prosecution of offences relating to indecent images of children are section 1 of the Protection of Children Act 1978 (making, distributing, showing or advertising indecent images of children) and section 160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (possession of indecent images of children).</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>The table below sets out the number of offences charged by way of the above legislation, in each of the last three years, in England and Wales.</p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td><p> </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 Children Act 1978 { 1 }</p></td><td><p>15,599</p></td><td><p>14,694</p></td><td><p>15,574</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Criminal Justice Act 1988 { 160 }</p></td><td><p>3,885</p></td><td><p>3,849</p></td><td><p>4,265</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p>Data Source: CPS Management Information System</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>It is not possible to disaggregate offences which relate to indecent images sent by way of an electronic device as opposed to other indecent image offences, cases where a conviction was obtained or the age of the perpetrator without reviewing individual case files incurring disproportionate cost.</p> answering member constituency Kenilworth and Southam answering member printed Jeremy Wright question first answered 07/11/2014 11:21:16 answering member 1560 label Biography information for Sir Jeremy Wright
	tabling member	1480 label Biography information for Dame Maria Miller

106388

	registered interest
	date	04/11/2014
	answering body	Attorney General
	answering dept id	88
	answering dept short name	Attorney General
	answering dept sort name	Attorney General
	hansard heading	Cybercrime: Prosecutions
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Attorney General, pursuant to the Answer of 30 October 2014, to Question 212020, how many successful prosecutions were made for cybercrimes in each year since 2009.
	tabling member constituency	Bolton West
	tabling member printed	Julie Hilling
	uin	213370
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 06/11/2014 answer text <p>The Crown Prosecution Service does not centrally record the number of prosecutions initiated, or those which resulted in a successful outcome, relating to cyber or cyber-enabled crime. A number of offences may involve the use of a computer or a network in the commission of the offence. To obtain details of the number of cases where defendants were alleged to have been involved in cyber or cyber-enabled crimes would require a manual review of individual case files to be undertaken which would incur a disproportionate cost.</p><p> </p> answering member constituency Kenilworth and Southam answering member printed Jeremy Wright question first answered 06/11/2014 14:41:56 answering member 1560 label Biography information for Sir Jeremy Wright
	tabling member	3925 label Biography information for Julie Hilling

64872

	registered interest
	date	01/07/2014
	answering body	Attorney General
	answering dept id	88
	answering dept short name	Attorney General
	answering dept sort name	Attorney General
	hansard heading	Crown Prosecution Service
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Attorney General, pursuant to the Answer of 16 June 2014, Official Report, column 389W, on the legal profession, what proportion of the money spent on consultancy fees by the Crown Prosecution Service was paid to which companies for what services in (a) 2010, (b) 2011, (c) 2012, (d) 2013 and (e) 2014 to date.
	tabling member constituency	Leicester East
	tabling member printed	Keith Vaz
	uin	203402
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 16/07/2014 answer text <p>A table setting out the proportion of the money spent on consultancy fees by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) paid to companies for services in financial years from 2010/11 to 2013/14 has been placed in the Library of the House, together with the corresponding expenditure. The CPS financial reporting systems are configured to provide information based on financial rather than calendar years.</p> answering member constituency Kenilworth and Southam answering member printed Jeremy Wright question first answered 16/07/2014 15:17:21 answering member 1560 label Biography information for Sir Jeremy Wright attachment 1 file name CPS consultancy data 2010-2014.docx title CPS consultancy data 2010 -2014 previous answer version 8474 answering member constituency North East Hertfordshire answering member printed Oliver Heald answering member 69
	tabling member	338 label Biography information for Keith Vaz

76235

	registered interest
	date	08/07/2014
	answering body	Attorney General
	answering dept id	88
	answering dept short name	Attorney General
	answering dept sort name	Attorney General
	hansard heading	Chris Huhne and Vicky Pryce
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Attorney General, what costs his Department has incurred in prosecuting the case of (a) Christopher Huhne and (b) Vasiliki Pryce.
	tabling member constituency	Shipley
	tabling member printed	Philip Davies
	uin	204655
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 16/07/2014 answer text <p>The total cost the CPS incurred in prosecuting the case was £150,710.88. The cost incurred in relation to each defendant individually is not available, as some of the costs were recorded for both defendants collectively.</p><p> </p> answering member constituency Kenilworth and Southam answering member printed Jeremy Wright question first answered 16/07/2014 15:25:44 answering member 1560 label Biography information for Sir Jeremy Wright
	tabling member	1565 label Biography information for Sir Philip Davies

76649

	registered interest
	date	09/07/2014
	answering body	Attorney General
	answering dept id	88
	answering dept short name	Attorney General
	answering dept sort name	Attorney General
	hansard heading	Pay
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Attorney General, how many officials in the Law Officers' Departments, of each grade, have remained at that grade since 2010 but received a pay rise; and how much of a rise each such person at each such grade has received.
	tabling member constituency	Exeter
	tabling member printed	Mr Ben Bradshaw
	uin	204761
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 16/07/2014 answer text <p>Tables containing the information requested plus accompanying notes have been placed in the Library of the House.</p><p> </p> answering member constituency Kenilworth and Southam answering member printed Jeremy Wright question first answered 16/07/2014 15:31:06 answering member 1560 label Biography information for Sir Jeremy Wright attachment 1 file name Law Officers Dept's pay and grade details.docx title LOD's Pay and Grades 2010-2014
	tabling member	230 label Biography information for Mr Ben Bradshaw

76651

	registered interest
	date	09/07/2014
	answering body	Attorney General
	answering dept id	88
	answering dept short name	Attorney General
	answering dept sort name	Attorney General
	hansard heading	Procurement
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Attorney General, how much and what proportion of the Law Officers' Departments' budget was spent on activities which were contracted out in (a) 2009-10, (b) 2010-11, (c) 2011-12, (d) 2012-13 and (e) 2013-14; and how much and what proportion of the Law Officers' Department's budget he expects to be contracted out in 2014-15.
	tabling member constituency	Tooting
	tabling member printed	Sadiq Khan
	uin	204893
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 01/09/2014 answer text <p> </p><p>Tables showing the information requested for the Crown Prosecution Service and the Serious Fraud Office have been placed in the Library of the House.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>The remaining Law Officers’ Departments are unable to provide any reliable estimates of the amount spent annually on contracted out services since 2009-10 without incurring a disproportionate cost.</p> answering member constituency Kenilworth and Southam answering member printed Jeremy Wright question first answered 01/09/2014 14:56:03 answering member 1560 label Biography information for Sir Jeremy Wright attachment 1 file name Tables for deposit- PQ 204893 contracted work in LOD's.doc title Table - contracted out services - LOD's
	tabling member	1577 label Biography information for Sadiq Khan

76970

	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	Prosecutions
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Attorney General, how many and what proportion of all (a) Crown Prosecution Service and (b) Serious Fraud Office cases were prosecuted by external counsel in 2013-14 and each of the five preceding years; and what the cost to each agency was of such counsel in each such year.
	tabling member constituency	Islington South and Finsbury
	tabling member printed	Emily Thornberry
	uin	205096
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 01/09/2014 answer text <p>Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) cases are not prosecuted exclusively by self-employed advocates or in-house advocates. Many cases are transferred between self-employed and in-house advocates and therefore it is not possible to report on the number or proportion of cases prosecuted solely by one type of advocate or the other.</p><p>However, the CPS does record the proportion of work undertaken across the 13 CPS Areas in the Crown Court by self-employed advocates by value, in accordance with the graduated fee scheme (GFS). CPS records show:</p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td> </td><td><p><strong>Crown Court Advocacy (13 Area position)</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td> </td><td><p><strong>SELF-EMPLOYED ADVOCATES</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td> </td><td><p><strong>% of prosecutions by GFS value</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2008-09</p></td><td><p>78%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2009-10</p></td><td><p>75%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2010-11</p></td><td><p>72%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2011-12</p></td><td><p>69%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2012-13</p></td><td><p>70%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2013-14</p></td><td><p>71%</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>The cost to the CPS of fees paid to self-employed advocates in relation to Crown Court and Higher Court advice, preparation and advocacy for each of the last six years is:</p><p> </p><p>2013-14: £114,606,541</p><p>2012-13: £110,608,524</p><p>2011-12; £111,041,044</p><p>2010-11: £134,194,869</p><p>2009-10: £135,296,368</p><p>2008-09: £127,132,677</p><p> </p><p>Note: Figures include VAT and are all fees paid to self-employed advocates not just those paid under the graduated fee scheme.</p><p>All of the cases prosecuted by the Serious Fraud Office in the Crown Court are prosecuted by external counsel. Costs associated with this are detailed in the following table.</p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td> </td><td><p>2008/09</p></td><td><p>2009/10</p></td><td><p>2010/11</p></td><td><p>2011/12</p></td><td><p>2012/13</p></td><td><p>2013/14</p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>Fees to counsel relating</strong></p><p><strong> to prosecution work</strong></p></td><td><p> </p><p> </p><p>£3,146k</p></td><td><p> </p><p> </p><p>£2,313k</p></td><td><p> </p><p> </p><p>£3,651k</p></td><td><p> </p><p> </p><p>£4,008k</p></td><td><p> </p><p> </p><p>£3,548k</p></td><td><p> </p><p> </p><p>£4,167k</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p> answering member constituency Kenilworth and Southam answering member printed Jeremy Wright question first answered 01/09/2014 14:06:48 answering member 1560 label Biography information for Sir Jeremy Wright
	tabling member	1536 label Biography information for Emily Thornberry