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

1472637

registered interest
date	22/06/2022
answering body	Ministry of Justice
answering dept id	54
answering dept short name	Justice
answering dept sort name	Justice
hansard heading	Criminal Liability
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to the Law Commission’s discussion paper, entitled Criminal Liability: Insanity and Automatism, published on 23 July 2013, if his Department will conduct a review into the use of automatism as a legal defence.
tabling member constituency	Huddersfield
tabling member printed	Mr Barry Sheerman
uin	23229
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 30/06/2022 answer text <p>The government is grateful to the Law Commission for their discussion paper on “Criminal Liability: Insanity and Automatism” published in 2013. The government has noted their proposals and has no immediate plans to conduct a further review as the defence of automatism is used so rarely, however, we have not ruled out the possibility of reform in the future. We keep the law in this area under appraisal alongside related law on insanity and unfitness to plead.</p> answering member constituency South Suffolk answering member printed James Cartlidge grouped question UIN 23230 question first answered 30/06/2022 13:23:28 answering member 4519 label Biography information for James Cartlidge
tabling member	411 label Biography information for Mr Barry Sheerman

1472638

registered interest
date	22/06/2022
answering body	Ministry of Justice
answering dept id	54
answering dept short name	Justice
answering dept sort name	Justice
hansard heading	Criminal Liability
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to the Answer of 20 June 2022 to Question 17873 on Criminal Liability, for what reasons his Department has no plans to bring forward reform to the use of automatism as a legal defence.
tabling member constituency	Huddersfield
tabling member printed	Mr Barry Sheerman
uin	23230
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 30/06/2022 answer text <p>The government is grateful to the Law Commission for their discussion paper on “Criminal Liability: Insanity and Automatism” published in 2013. The government has noted their proposals and has no immediate plans to conduct a further review as the defence of automatism is used so rarely, however, we have not ruled out the possibility of reform in the future. We keep the law in this area under appraisal alongside related law on insanity and unfitness to plead.</p> answering member constituency South Suffolk answering member printed James Cartlidge grouped question UIN 23229 question first answered 30/06/2022 13:23:28 answering member 4519 label Biography information for James Cartlidge
tabling member	411 label Biography information for Mr Barry Sheerman

1472640

registered interest
date	22/06/2022
answering body	Ministry of Justice
answering dept id	54
answering dept short name	Justice
answering dept sort name	Justice
hansard heading	Expert Evidence: Health Professions
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps he is taking to help ensure that evidence provided to (a) Government and (b) legal proceedings from medical witnesses is of a high standard.
tabling member constituency	Huddersfield
tabling member printed	Mr Barry Sheerman
uin	23231
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 30/06/2022 answer text <p>There is currently dedicated legislation, that is underpinned by detailed guidance and protocols for each jurisdiction in the courts, to govern the admissibility of expert medical evidence. These procedures include opportunities for any unreliable evidence to be challenged and, if necessary, be excluded by the court.</p> answering member constituency South Suffolk answering member printed James Cartlidge question first answered 30/06/2022 13:25:10 answering member 4519 label Biography information for James Cartlidge
tabling member	411 label Biography information for Mr Barry Sheerman

1470240

registered interest
date	14/06/2022
answering body	Ministry of Justice
answering dept id	54
answering dept short name	Justice
answering dept sort name	Justice
hansard heading	Criminal Liability
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether his Department has plans to reconsider the recommendations in the Law Commission's report, Criminal Liability: Insanity and Automatism, published in 2013.
tabling member constituency	Huddersfield
tabling member printed	Mr Barry Sheerman
uin	17873
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 20/06/2022 answer text <p>The Government has considered the proposals in the Law Commission’s 2013 discussion paper.</p><p>Whilst we note the Law Commission’s proposals on the potential to update the law in this area, we have no immediate plans to bring forward legislative proposals in relation to this rarely-used defence. However, we continue to keep this, and the wider and related law on unfitness to plead, under review.</p> answering member constituency South Suffolk answering member printed James Cartlidge question first answered 20/06/2022 14:56:20 answering member 4519 label Biography information for James Cartlidge
tabling member	411 label Biography information for Mr Barry Sheerman

1464550

registered interest
date	19/05/2022
answering body	Ministry of Justice
answering dept id	54
answering dept short name	Justice
answering dept sort name	Justice
hansard heading	Roads: Accidents
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if he will take steps to ensure that road crash victims and their families receive adequate compensation and support following a successful defence of automatism.
tabling member constituency	Huddersfield
tabling member printed	Mr Barry Sheerman
uin	5346
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 26/05/2022 answer text <p>Automatism is a lawful defence in both civil and criminal cases and, where no agreement on liability and compensation for those injured in a road crash can be reached between a claimant and defendant, the courts will decide each case on its merits. Therefore, the Government currently has no plans to make changes in this area.</p> answering member constituency South Suffolk answering member printed James Cartlidge question first answered 26/05/2022 13:18:36 answering member 4519 label Biography information for James Cartlidge
tabling member	411 label Biography information for Mr Barry Sheerman

1464551

registered interest
date	19/05/2022
answering body	Ministry of Justice
answering dept id	54
answering dept short name	Justice
answering dept sort name	Justice
hansard heading	Roads: Accidents
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what plans he has to improve access to justice for road crash victims and their families.
tabling member constituency	Huddersfield
tabling member printed	Mr Barry Sheerman
uin	5347
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 27/05/2022 answer text <p>In relation to a civil claim for personal injury, Official Injury Claim (OIC), an accessible self-service, online service, was launched in May 2021 in partnership with the Motor Insurers Bureau. This service enables those who suffer injury as a result of a road traffic accident to claim up to £5000 in damages, with or without the need for legal representation.</p><p> </p><p>The service and its accompanying guidance have been carefully designed with the claimant firmly at their heart. A dedicated telephone customer support centre is also available, with trained assistants to guide users through any questions or issues they may have about the process of completing a claim. Since May 2021, around 240,000 claims have been made on the OIC service.</p><p> </p><p>For claims above £5000 the existing Claims Portal should be used. Information about these reforms and the OIC service can be found at <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/whiplash-reform-programme-information-and-faq" target="_blank">https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/whiplash-reform-programme-information-and-faq</a>.</p> answering member constituency South Suffolk answering member printed James Cartlidge question first answered 27/05/2022 13:13:17 answering member 4519 label Biography information for James Cartlidge
tabling member	411 label Biography information for Mr Barry Sheerman

1464552

registered interest
date	19/05/2022
answering body	Ministry of Justice
answering dept id	54
answering dept short name	Justice
answering dept sort name	Justice
hansard heading	Criminal Liability
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether he has plans to reform the use of automatism as a legal defence.
tabling member constituency	Huddersfield
tabling member printed	Mr Barry Sheerman
uin	5348
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 27/05/2022 answer text <p>The Government has no current plans to bring forward legislative proposals in relation to this defence but it will be kept under review.</p> answering member constituency South Suffolk answering member printed James Cartlidge question first answered 27/05/2022 13:16:11 answering member 4519 label Biography information for James Cartlidge
tabling member	411 label Biography information for Mr Barry Sheerman

1463484

registered interest
date	17/05/2022
answering body	Ministry of Justice
answering dept id	54
answering dept short name	Justice
answering dept sort name	Justice
hansard heading	Aiding and Abetting: Miscarriages of Justice
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the rate of miscarriages of justice in relation to convictions under Joint Enterprise.
tabling member constituency	Huddersfield
tabling member printed	Mr Barry Sheerman
uin	3474
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 25/05/2022 answer text <p>No assessment has been made as the Ministry of Justice does not collate data on whether a prosecution or conviction relied on the doctrine of joint enterprise or whether an appeal in such a case resulted in a conviction being quashed or a sentence being changed. Such information may be held on court records but there are no means for this information to be collated centrally.</p> answering member constituency South Suffolk answering member printed James Cartlidge question first answered 25/05/2022 09:05:30 answering member 4519 label Biography information for James Cartlidge
tabling member	411 label Biography information for Mr Barry Sheerman

1463366

registered interest
date	16/05/2022
answering body	Ministry of Justice
answering dept id	54
answering dept short name	Justice
answering dept sort name	Justice
hansard heading	Aiding and Abetting
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of Joint Enterprise as a doctrine of criminal law.
tabling member constituency	Huddersfield
tabling member printed	Mr Barry Sheerman
uin	2368
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 24/05/2022 answer text <p>The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not undertaken any recent assessment, nor does it have any forthcoming plans, to reform the law on joint enterprise. The Government continues to be of the view that it is for our independent courts to interpret the change to the law on joint enterprise which resulted from the Supreme Court’s decision in <em>R v Jogee</em>, a change that affected a narrow element of the law in this area, specifically that on parasitic accessory liability<em>. </em>The Government will, however, keep the law in this area under review.</p><p>The Ministry of Justice only collects information on how many defendants are prosecuted and convicted of specific criminal offences in any given year. Information is not collated on whether a prosecution or conviction relied on the doctrine of joint enterprise, nor is information collated in relation to appeals involving a case of joint enterprise. Such information may be held on court records but there is no means for this information to be collated centrally.</p><p>The Government is committed to ensuring that the Criminal Justice System (CJS) treats all those who encounter it fairly – including neurodivergent individuals. That is why the Ministry of Justice commissioned HM Inspectorate of Prisons and HM Inspectorate of Probation, with support from HM Inspectorate of Constabulary, Fire and Rescue Services (HMICFRS), to undertake an independent review of neurodiversity in the criminal justice system in December 2020. The main recommendation resulting from that review was to develop an overarching strategy together with people with personal experience of neurodivergence. Additionally, the Ministry of Justice also contributed to the Department of Health and Social Care’s refreshed cross-Government Autism Strategy to ensure that it included work to improve data capture on autism, and to increase – through training and awareness – the ability of prison and probation staff to better understand and support these individuals.</p><p>In sentencing an individual convicted of a crime, who may also have a mental health disorder, the courts must consider the circumstances of the offender’s case, including their culpability, the harm they caused or intended to cause, and any aggravating and mitigating factors. The courts have a statutory duty to follow any relevant sentencing guidelines and in 2020, the Sentencing Council for England and Wales published a new definitive <a href="https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/overarching-guides/magistrates-court/item/sentencing-offenders-with-mental-disorders-developmental-disorders-or-neurological-impairments" target="_blank">guideline</a> for sentencing offenders with mental health and developmental disorders and neurological impairments following public consultation. This guideline stipulates that, when assessing whether an offender’s impairment or disorder will have any impact on sentencing, the court should take an individualistic approach and focus on the issues in the case, recognising that levels of impairment caused by any condition will vary significantly between individuals.</p> answering member constituency South Suffolk answering member printed James Cartlidge grouped question UIN 2369 2370 2371 question first answered 24/05/2022 09:30:58 answering member 4519 label Biography information for James Cartlidge
tabling member	411 label Biography information for Mr Barry Sheerman

1463367

registered interest
date	16/05/2022
answering body	Ministry of Justice
answering dept id	54
answering dept short name	Justice
answering dept sort name	Justice
hansard heading	Aiding and Abetting: Appeals
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many people have had their convictions under Joint Enterprise overturned since 2010.
tabling member constituency	Huddersfield
tabling member printed	Mr Barry Sheerman
uin	2369
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 24/05/2022 answer text <p>The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not undertaken any recent assessment, nor does it have any forthcoming plans, to reform the law on joint enterprise. The Government continues to be of the view that it is for our independent courts to interpret the change to the law on joint enterprise which resulted from the Supreme Court’s decision in <em>R v Jogee</em>, a change that affected a narrow element of the law in this area, specifically that on parasitic accessory liability<em>. </em>The Government will, however, keep the law in this area under review.</p><p>The Ministry of Justice only collects information on how many defendants are prosecuted and convicted of specific criminal offences in any given year. Information is not collated on whether a prosecution or conviction relied on the doctrine of joint enterprise, nor is information collated in relation to appeals involving a case of joint enterprise. Such information may be held on court records but there is no means for this information to be collated centrally.</p><p>The Government is committed to ensuring that the Criminal Justice System (CJS) treats all those who encounter it fairly – including neurodivergent individuals. That is why the Ministry of Justice commissioned HM Inspectorate of Prisons and HM Inspectorate of Probation, with support from HM Inspectorate of Constabulary, Fire and Rescue Services (HMICFRS), to undertake an independent review of neurodiversity in the criminal justice system in December 2020. The main recommendation resulting from that review was to develop an overarching strategy together with people with personal experience of neurodivergence. Additionally, the Ministry of Justice also contributed to the Department of Health and Social Care’s refreshed cross-Government Autism Strategy to ensure that it included work to improve data capture on autism, and to increase – through training and awareness – the ability of prison and probation staff to better understand and support these individuals.</p><p>In sentencing an individual convicted of a crime, who may also have a mental health disorder, the courts must consider the circumstances of the offender’s case, including their culpability, the harm they caused or intended to cause, and any aggravating and mitigating factors. The courts have a statutory duty to follow any relevant sentencing guidelines and in 2020, the Sentencing Council for England and Wales published a new definitive <a href="https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/overarching-guides/magistrates-court/item/sentencing-offenders-with-mental-disorders-developmental-disorders-or-neurological-impairments" target="_blank">guideline</a> for sentencing offenders with mental health and developmental disorders and neurological impairments following public consultation. This guideline stipulates that, when assessing whether an offender’s impairment or disorder will have any impact on sentencing, the court should take an individualistic approach and focus on the issues in the case, recognising that levels of impairment caused by any condition will vary significantly between individuals.</p> answering member constituency South Suffolk answering member printed James Cartlidge grouped question UIN 2368 2370 2371 question first answered 24/05/2022 09:30:58 answering member 4519 label Biography information for James Cartlidge
tabling member	411 label Biography information for Mr Barry Sheerman