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 question first answered question first ministerially corrected answering member label previous answer version answering member constituency answering member printed answering member label
tabling member	label

Search

100080

	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	Judicial Review
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Attorney General, how many judicial reviews there were involving Government departments according to records held by the (a) Treasury Solicitor and (b) Administrative Court Office in each of the last four years; and how many such reviews were upheld in whole or in part in each such year.
	tabling member constituency	Hammersmith
	tabling member printed	Mr Andy Slaughter
	uin	211271
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 28/10/2014 answer text <p>The Treasury Solicitor’s Department holds records relating only to those cases in which it has acted. The Treasury Solicitor represents most, but not all, government departments in litigation. For example, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs normally conducts its own litigation. According to records held by the Treasury Solicitor, the number of judicial reviews involving government departments in which it has acted in each of the last four years is as follows:</p><p>2010 – 8,566</p><p>2011 – 9,603</p><p>2012 – 10,274</p><p>2013 – 16,449</p><p>Information relating to how many of those reviews were upheld in whole or in part in each year is not held centrally and could not be created without incurring disproportionate cost.</p><p><del class="ministerial">The Administrative Court Office does not collate the information requested centrally and determining the number of reviews and how many such reviews were upheld in whole or in part would incur a disproportionate cost.</del></p><p><ins class="ministerial">The information requested in respect of the Administrative Court Office is published online at <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/267408/additional-court-tables-2012.xls" target="_blank">https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/267408/additional-court-tables-2012.xls</a> . The 2013 data is not currently available.</ins></p> answering member constituency South Swindon answering member printed Mr Robert Buckland question first answered 28/10/2014 15:10:43 question first ministerially corrected 05/01/2015 17:35:17 answering member 4106 label Biography information for Sir Robert Buckland previous answer version 24759 answering member constituency South Swindon answering member printed Mr Robert Buckland answering member 4106 label Biography information for Sir Robert Buckland
	tabling member	1516 label Biography information for Andy Slaughter

77457

	registered interest
	date	11/07/2014
	answering body	Attorney General
	answering dept id	88
	answering dept short name	Attorney General
	answering dept sort name	Attorney General
	hansard heading	Children: Prosecutions
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Attorney General, how many children with mental health difficulties have been prosecuted by the Crown Prosecution Service in England and Wales in each year since 2010.
	tabling member constituency	Barnsley Central
	tabling member printed	Dan Jarvis
	uin	205395
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 16/07/2014 answer text <p>The Crown Prosecution Service does not maintain a central record of the number of defendants, including those identified as children, with mental health difficulties who have been prosecuted. To obtain details of the number of cases where such circumstances apply would require a manual exercise of reviewing individual case files to be undertaken at a disproportionate cost.</p><p> </p> answering member constituency South Swindon answering member printed Mr Robert Buckland question first answered 16/07/2014 15:46:37 answering member 4106 label Biography information for Sir Robert Buckland
	tabling member	4243 label Biography information for Dan Jarvis

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

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

76978

	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	CPS Direct
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Attorney General, in how many and what proportion of CPS Direct-charged cases the charge was subsequently (a) varied, (b) dropped pre-trial, (c) subject to a prosecution decision to offer no evidence at trial and (d) dismissed by the court in 2013-14 and each of the three preceding years.
	tabling member constituency	Islington South and Finsbury
	tabling member printed	Emily Thornberry
	uin	205153
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 17/07/2014 answer text <p>The CPS holds no central records of the number of cases where one, or more, charge was varied subsequent to a charging decision made by CPS Direct.</p><p>The proportion of cases dropped by the CPS in cases where the original charging decision was made by CPS Direct is as follows:</p><table><tbody><tr><td>Year</td><td>2010-2011</td><td>2011-2012</td><td>2012-13</td><td>2013-14</td></tr><tr><td>No of dropped CPSD cases charged</td><td>19,107</td><td>17,423</td><td>14,959</td><td>22,944</td></tr><tr><td>% of CPSD Charged cases dropped</td><td>15.90%</td><td>15.30%</td><td>14.90%</td><td>14.30%</td></tr></tbody></table><p>No record is held of the number of cases where the prosecution decided to offer no evidence specifically at trial.</p><p>The table below shows the number and proportion of prosecutions where the original charging decision was made by CPS Direct which subsequently resulted in a judge directed acquittal or the court dismissing the case at trial, either of its own motion, or on a defence submission of no case to answer, without hearing evidence for the defence.</p><table><tbody><tr><td><table><tbody><tr><td>Year</td><td>2010-2011</td><td>2011-2012</td><td>2012-13</td><td>2013-14</td></tr><tr><td>No of CPSD cases - JDA or NCTA</td><td>512</td><td>531</td><td>444</td><td>760</td></tr><tr><td>% of CPSD Charged cases - JDA or NCTA</td><td>0.40%</td><td>0.50%</td><td>0.40%</td><td>0.50%</td></tr></tbody></table></td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr></tbody></table><p><br>Note. JDA – Judge Directed Acquittal, NCTA – No Case to Answer</p><p>Included here are cases where an acceptable guilty plea was submitted for one or more charges and the prosecution proceeded on other charges which resulted in a judge directed acquittal or a verdict of no case to answer.</p><p> </p> answering member constituency South Swindon answering member printed Mr Robert Buckland question first answered 17/07/2014 16:12:07 answering member 4106 label Biography information for Sir Robert Buckland
	tabling member	1536 label Biography information for Emily Thornberry

76982

	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	Criminal Proceedings
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Attorney General, what proportion of cases were charged by (a) the police, (b) the Crown Prosecution Service and (c) another agency in (i) 2013-14 and (ii) each of the previous three financial years.
	tabling member constituency	Islington South and Finsbury
	tabling member printed	Emily Thornberry
	uin	205182
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 17/07/2014 answer text <p> </p><p>The Director's Guidance on Charging, issued under the provisions of S37A of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE), sets out the requirements for police officers and prosecutors during the investigation and prosecution of criminal cases, including those offences which the police and the CPS are responsible for the charge decision.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Under these arrangements the police are responsible for the charge decision in approximately 70% of all cases, with the CPS retaining the decision to charge in the remaining 30% of cases which are the most complex and serious. The CPS is responsible for making the charging decisions in cases brought by other agencies such as DWP, HMRC and DEFRA.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>The proportions for the last three years are as follows:</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td><p> </p></td><td><p><strong>Police Charged</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>CPS Charged</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2011-2012</p></td><td><p>68.4%</p></td><td><p>31.6%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2012-2013</p></td><td><p>71.0%</p></td><td><p>29.0%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2013-2014</p></td><td><p>69.0%</p></td><td><p>31.0%</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p> answering member constituency South Swindon answering member printed Mr Robert Buckland question first answered 17/07/2014 16:29:15 answering member 4106 label Biography information for Sir Robert Buckland
	tabling member	1536 label Biography information for Emily Thornberry

76985

	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	Criminal Proceedings
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Attorney General, what proportion of police-charged cases in each of the last three financial years were subsequently subject to a (a) decision by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to vary the charge, (b) decision by the CPS to drop the charge, (c) decision by the CPS to offer no evidence, (d) dismissal by the court on grounds of no-case to answer and (e) dismissal by the court after trial.
	tabling member constituency	Islington South and Finsbury
	tabling member printed	Emily Thornberry
	uin	205184
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 17/07/2014 answer text <p>The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) does not hold data that would allow the identification of individual charges that had been varied at any point from the original charge.</p><p>The proportion of Police charged cases that resulted in the other requested outcomes are as follows:</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>Dropped (includes offered no evidence)</p></td><td><p>7.7%</p></td><td><p>8.1%</p></td><td><p>8.3%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Offered no evidence</p></td><td><p>2.1%</p></td><td><p>2.5%</p></td><td><p>2.6%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>No case to answer (incl. mixed pleas)</p></td><td><p>0.1%</p></td><td><p>0.1%</p></td><td><p>0.2%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Dismissed after summary trial (incl. mixed pleas)</p></td><td><p>1.8%</p></td><td><p>2.1%</p></td><td><p>2.4%</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p> answering member constituency South Swindon answering member printed Mr Robert Buckland question first answered 17/07/2014 16:05:41 answering member 4106 label Biography information for Sir Robert Buckland
	tabling member	1536 label Biography information for Emily Thornberry

76989

	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	Convictions
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Attorney General, what the conviction rates were in the magistrates' courts for cases prosecuted by (a) Crown prosecutors and (b) paralegals in each of the last five years.
	tabling member constituency	Islington South and Finsbury
	tabling member printed	Emily Thornberry
	uin	205187
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 17/07/2014 answer text <p> </p><p>The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) does not maintain a central record of the number or outcome of prosecutions conducted by Crown Prosecutors or Associate Prosecutors (paralegals) in magistrates' courts. To obtain details of the conviction rates for each would require a manual exercise of reviewing individual case files to be undertaken at a disproportionate cost.</p><p> </p> answering member constituency South Swindon answering member printed Mr Robert Buckland question first answered 17/07/2014 16:28:19 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

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