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

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

76987

	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	Magistrates' Courts
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Attorney General, how many and what proportion of cases at the magistrates' court in (a) 2013-14 and (b) each of the previous five financial years were subject to a (i) decision by the prosecution to discontinue the case, (ii) decision in committal proceedings to discharge the defendant, (iii) decision by the magistrate to dismiss the case on grounds of no case to answer and (iv) dismissal after trial.
	tabling member constituency	Islington South and Finsbury
	tabling member printed	Emily Thornberry
	uin	205185
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 16/07/2014 answer text <p>The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) maintains a central record of the outcomes of prosecutions, on a defendant basis, at magistrates' courts. Prosecution outcomes comprise convictions; guilty pleas, convictions after trial and cases proved in the absence of the defendant. Unsuccessful outcomes represent all other outcomes and include prosecutions dropped (discontinuances, withdrawals, prosecutions stayed and no evidence offered), discharged committals, dismissals and administrative finalisations.</p><p>The table below shows the volume and proportion of defendants whose proceedings were discontinued by way of a written notice under Section 23 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, discharged at committal, dismissed no case to answer by magistrates and dismissed after a full trial, in each of the last six years.</p><table><tbody><tr><td><p> </p></td><td><p><strong>2008-2009</strong></p></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>(i) Discontinued</p></td><td><p>30,226</p></td><td><p>30,665</p></td><td><p>32,532</p></td><td><p>30,217</p></td><td><p>26,600</p></td><td><p>23,083</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>% Discontinued</p></td><td><p>3.3%</p></td><td><p>3.5%</p></td><td><p>3.9%</p></td><td><p>3.8%</p></td><td><p>3.8%</p></td><td><p>3.6%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>(ii) Discharged</p><p>Committal</p></td><td><p>1,984</p></td><td><p>2,252</p></td><td><p>1,690</p></td><td><p>1,308</p></td><td><p>1,270</p></td><td><p>308</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>% Discharged</p><p>Committal</p></td><td><p>0.2%</p></td><td><p>0.3%</p></td><td><p>0.2%</p></td><td><p>0.2%</p></td><td><p>0.2%</p></td><td><p>0.0%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>(iii) Dismissed No</p><p>Case To Answer</p></td><td><p>1,707</p></td><td><p>1,605</p></td><td><p>1,525</p></td><td><p>1,362</p></td><td><p>1,224</p></td><td><p>1,433</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>% Dismissed No</p><p>Case to Answer</p></td><td><p>0.2%</p></td><td><p>0.2%</p></td><td><p>0.2%</p></td><td><p>0.2%</p></td><td><p>0.2%</p></td><td><p>0.2%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>(iv) Dismissed</p><p>After Full Trial</p></td><td><p>18,682</p></td><td><p>20,322</p></td><td><p>19,517</p></td><td><p>17,681</p></td><td><p>17,168</p></td><td><p>17,805</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>% Dismissed</p><p>After Full Trial</p></td><td><p>2.0%</p></td><td><p>2.3%</p></td><td><p>2.3%</p></td><td><p>2.2%</p></td><td><p>2.5%</p></td><td><p>2.8%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>TOTAL </strong></p><p><strong>PROSECUTED</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>928,708</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>872,585</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>840,983</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>787,547</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>700,423</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>633,306</strong></p></td></tr></tbody></table><p>Data Source: CPS Case Management Information System</p><p> </p> answering member constituency Kenilworth and Southam answering member printed Jeremy Wright question first answered 16/07/2014 15:24:05 answering member 1560 label Biography information for Sir Jeremy Wright
	tabling member	1536 label Biography information for Emily Thornberry

76988

	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	Crown Court
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Attorney General, how many and what proportion of cases at the Crown Court in (a) 2013-14 and (b) each of the previous five financial years were subject to (i) a decision by the prosecution to offer no evidence, (ii) a judge-ordered acquittal, (iii) a judge-directed acquittal and (iv) an acquittal after trial.
	tabling member constituency	Islington South and Finsbury
	tabling member printed	Emily Thornberry
	uin	205186
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 16/07/2014 answer text <p>The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) maintains a central record of the outcomes of prosecutions, on a defendant basis, at the Crown Court. Prosecution outcomes comprise convictions; guilty pleas and convictions after trial. Unsuccessful outcomes represent all other outcomes and include judge ordered acquittals (discontinuances, indictment stayed, charges left on file and no evidence offered), judge directed acquittals, acquittals after trial and administrative finalisations.</p><p>The table below shows the volume and proportion of defendants as a total of the 13 CPS Areas, where the CPS offered no evidence, where a judge ordered or directed an acquittal and where the defendant was acquitted after trial, in each of the last six years.</p><table><tbody><tr><td> </td><td><p><strong>2008-2009</strong></p></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>(i) Offer No Evidence</p></td><td><p>9,734</p></td><td><p>10,537</p></td><td><p>12,433</p></td><td><p>10,543</p></td><td><p>9,106</p></td><td><p>7,795</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>% Offer No Evidence</p></td><td><p>9.4%</p></td><td><p>9.6%</p></td><td><p>10.6%</p></td><td><p>9.8%</p></td><td><p>9.5%</p></td><td><p>8.3%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>(ii) Judge Ordered</p><p>Acquittal</p></td><td><p>12,198</p></td><td><p>12,930</p></td><td><p>14,958</p></td><td><p>12,527</p></td><td><p>11,099</p></td><td><p>10,714</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>% Judge Ordered</p><p>Acquittal</p></td><td><p>11.7%</p></td><td><p>11.7%</p></td><td><p>12.8%</p></td><td><p>11.7%</p></td><td><p>11.6%</p></td><td><p>11.5%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>(iii) Judge Directed</p><p>Acquittal</p></td><td><p>990</p></td><td><p>1,048</p></td><td><p>1,101</p></td><td><p>857</p></td><td><p>774</p></td><td><p>620</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>% Judge Directed</p><p>Acquittal</p></td><td><p>1.0%</p></td><td><p>1.0%</p></td><td><p>0.9%</p></td><td><p>0.8%</p></td><td><p>0.8%</p></td><td><p>0.7%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>(iv) Acquittal After Trial</p></td><td><p>5,703</p></td><td><p>6,316</p></td><td><p>6,810</p></td><td><p>6,290</p></td><td><p>5,998</p></td><td><p>5,584</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>% Acquittal After Trial</p></td><td><p>5.5%</p></td><td><p>5.7%</p></td><td><p>5.8%</p></td><td><p>5.9%</p></td><td><p>6.3%</p></td><td><p>6.0%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>TOTAL </strong></p><p><strong>PROSECUTED</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>103,890</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>110,146</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>116,898</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>107,244</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>95,862</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>93,446</strong></p></td></tr></tbody></table><p>Data Source: CPS Case Management Information System</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p> answering member constituency Kenilworth and Southam answering member printed Jeremy Wright question first answered 16/07/2014 15:21:23 answering member 1560 label Biography information for Sir Jeremy Wright
	tabling member	1536 label Biography information for Emily Thornberry

76992

	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	Crown Prosecution Service
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Attorney General, what steps he plans to take in response to the funding of HM Chief Inspectorate of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) in his Annual Report 2013-14, page 4 that the background of continuing resource reductions is now having an impact on the ability of the CPS to deliver effectively across the whole range of its activity.
	tabling member constituency	Islington South and Finsbury
	tabling member printed	Emily Thornberry
	uin	205211
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 16/07/2014 answer text <p>The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has a comprehensive cost reduction strategy to 2015-16 that is fully aligned to, and supports, CPS priorities and objectives. The strategy will ensure that the department meets the SR2013 savings targets.</p><p>In their annual report for 2013-14 the Inspectorate acknowledged that CPS had improved its performance on serious and complex cases and also highlighted CPS success in hate crime cases and those involving violence against women and girls. The report was largely based on cases completed more than a year ago and more recent data shows performance improvements across the board since then. For example, magistrates' courts are seeing more guilty pleas and fewer cases dropped while the Crown Courts are showing increasing conviction rates – now at 81% across England and Wales. The challenges mentioned in the report are being addressed but they should be seen in the context of an improving prosecution service across the country.</p><p> </p> answering member constituency Kenilworth and Southam answering member printed Jeremy Wright question first answered 16/07/2014 15:11:39 answering member 1560 label Biography information for Sir Jeremy Wright previous answer version 10485 answering member constituency Kenilworth and Southam answering member printed Jeremy Wright answering member 1560 label Biography information for Sir Jeremy Wright
	tabling member	1536 label Biography information for Emily Thornberry