Linked Data API

Show Search Form

Search Results

1150584
registered interest false more like this
date less than 2019-10-17more like thismore than 2019-10-17
answering body
Ministry of Justice more like this
answering dept id 54 more like this
answering dept short name Justice more like this
answering dept sort name Justice more like this
hansard heading Ministry of Justice: Pay more like this
house id 1 more like this
legislature
25259
pref label House of Commons more like this
question text To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether the pay system in his Department has been changed to take account of the Employment Appeal Tribunal ruling on Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council v Mr G Willetts and Others on holiday pay and voluntary overtime; and whether affected workers in his Department have been given back pay as a result of that ruling. more like this
tabling member constituency Glasgow South West more like this
tabling member printed
Chris Stephens more like this
uin 1733 more like this
answer
answer
is ministerial correction false more like this
date of answer less than 2019-10-22more like thismore than 2019-10-22
answer text <p>The Ministry of Justice (HMPPS, HMCTS, CICA, LAA, and OPG) pay system has been updated in response to the tribunal case to meet the requirement for holiday pay and overtime. Affected staff have received arrears backdated to 1 March 2016.</p> more like this
answering member constituency Croydon South remove filter
answering member printed Chris Philp more like this
question first answered
remove maximum value filtermore like thismore than 2019-10-22T14:52:21.327Z
answering member
4503
label Biography information for Chris Philp more like this
tabling member
4463
label Biography information for Chris Stephens more like this
1149966
registered interest false more like this
date less than 2019-10-16more like thismore than 2019-10-16
answering body
Ministry of Justice more like this
answering dept id 54 more like this
answering dept short name Justice more like this
answering dept sort name Justice more like this
hansard heading Suspended Sentences: Electronic Tagging more like this
house id 1 more like this
legislature
25259
pref label House of Commons more like this
question text To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many people serving suspended sentences were made subject to an electronic monitoring condition, broken down by offence; and on how many occasions was that condition breached in each of the last five years. more like this
tabling member constituency Kettering more like this
tabling member printed
Mr Philip Hollobone more like this
uin 942 more like this
answer
answer
is ministerial correction false more like this
date of answer less than 2019-10-21more like thismore than 2019-10-21
answer text <p>Electronic Monitoring (EM), both of curfews and using satellite enabled tags to monitor an individual’s whereabouts, is a vital tool in protecting the public and robustly monitoring offenders in the community. It supports probation staff and the police in managing offenders and defendants safely in the community, delivering the orders of the court and helping to tackle the problems which lead to offending.</p><p>The below table shows the number of suspended sentence orders with an EM requirement by offence type. Data is only available from 2016.</p><p>Summary motoringÈ</p><p>Violence against the personÈNon-compliance of ordersÈFailed Bail condition È</p><p>Failed Bail condition È</p><table><tbody><tr><td><p>Suspended sentence orders with an electronic monitoring requirement by offence type(1)</p></td><td><p>2016/17</p></td><td><p>2017/18</p></td><td><p>2018/19</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Criminal damage and arson</p></td><td><p>241</p></td><td><p>172</p></td><td><p>117</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Drug offences</p></td><td><p>1021</p></td><td><p>906</p></td><td><p>764</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Fraud offences</p></td><td><p>461</p></td><td><p>389</p></td><td><p>284</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Miscellaneous crimes against society</p></td><td><p>1093</p></td><td><p>952</p></td><td><p>664</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Offence not recorded</p></td><td><p>83</p></td><td><p>46</p></td><td><p>23</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Possession of weapons</p></td><td><p>538</p></td><td><p>561</p></td><td><p>656</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Public order offences</p></td><td><p>312</p></td><td><p>295</p></td><td><p>259</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Robbery</p></td><td><p>546</p></td><td><p>579</p></td><td><p>470</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Sexual offences</p></td><td><p>214</p></td><td><p>239</p></td><td><p>183</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Summary motoring</p></td><td><p>1141</p></td><td><p>1045</p></td><td><p>761</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Theft offences</p></td><td><p>1093</p></td><td><p>886</p></td><td><p>495</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Violence against the person</p></td><td><p>2030</p></td><td><p>1647</p></td><td><p>1312</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Non-compliance of orders</p></td><td><p>1064</p></td><td><p>896</p></td><td><p>701</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Failed Bail condition</p></td><td><p>140</p></td><td><p>114</p></td><td><p>61</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Total</p></td><td><p>9977</p></td><td><p>8727</p></td><td><p>6750</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p>The below table shows the number of tagged subjects who failed to comply with their suspended sentence order electronic monitoring requirement at least once. Data on compliance is only available for completed suspended sentence orders.</p><table><tbody><tr><td><p> </p></td><td><p>2016/17(3)</p></td><td><p>2017/18</p></td><td><p>2018/19</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Total completed suspended sentence orders with an electronic monitoring requirement with equip install(2)(3)</p></td><td><p>7421</p></td><td><p>8193</p></td><td><p>6430</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Compliance</p></td><td><p>2585</p></td><td><p>3040</p></td><td><p>2666</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Non-compliance</p></td><td><p>4836</p></td><td><p>5153</p></td><td><p>3764</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p>2016/17(3) 2017/18 2018/19</p><p>Total completed suspended sentence orders with an electronic monitoring requirement with equip install(2)(3) 7421 8193 6430</p><p>Compliance 2585 3040 2666</p><p>Non-compliance 4836 5153 3764</p><p> </p><p>(1) Derived from electronic monitoring new starts files</p><p>(2) Derived from number of completions of orders with equipment on</p><p>(3) Electronic monitoring completions data only available from June 2016 onwards. A person may have more than one completion.</p><p> </p><p>Some orders are for multiple offences, in these cases orders have been assigned to first offence type recorded on the orders.</p><p>Note for reference: Failed bail conditions = not surrendering to bail, and non-compliance of orders = BREACH OF ACTION PLAN ORDER, Breach of Criminal Behaviour Order, Breach of Restraining order, Failure to attend supervision appointments, Failure to comply with Notification Requirements, FAILURE TO NOTIFY OF CHANGE OF CIRCUMSTANCES etc.</p><p>If a subject on tag does not comply with an Electronic Monitoring condition or requirement, for example by being absent during curfew hours or tampering with a tag, an instantaneous alert is generated that is sent to Electronic Monitoring Services (EMS). The appropriate authorities decide, based on the evidence, whether the non-compliance event constitutes a breach and if so what action should be taken. The nature of breaches vary, and not all non-compliance events are classed as formal breaches requiring further action – for example, if the subject was at hospital or in custody at the time, and therefore unable to return to their curfew location in time for their curfew. While the majority of non-compliance events will generate an alert than can lead to a breach there are a range of other circumstances that can lead to breach action being taken.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p>
answering member constituency Croydon South remove filter
answering member printed Chris Philp more like this
question first answered
less than 2019-10-21T16:11:12.997Zmore like thismore than 2019-10-21T16:11:12.997Z
answering member
4503
label Biography information for Chris Philp more like this
tabling member
1537
label Biography information for Mr Philip Hollobone more like this
1150034
registered interest false more like this
date less than 2019-10-16more like thismore than 2019-10-16
answering body
Ministry of Justice more like this
answering dept id 54 more like this
answering dept short name Justice more like this
answering dept sort name Justice more like this
hansard heading Probate: Software more like this
house id 1 more like this
legislature
25259
pref label House of Commons more like this
question text To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to the Answer of 2 September 2019 to Question 284794 on Probate: Computer Software, what steps he is taking to ensure applicants can give feedback on their satisfaction with the probate application process after a grant has been issued. more like this
tabling member constituency Dwyfor Meirionnydd more like this
tabling member printed
Liz Saville Roberts more like this
uin 1080 more like this
answer
answer
is ministerial correction false more like this
date of answer less than 2019-10-21more like thismore than 2019-10-21
answer text <p>Probate Services provided by Her Majesty’s Courts &amp; Tribunals Service (HMCTS) have been designed and developed incorporating user feedback. The user satisfaction rate measured at the time the customer submits their application (the point at which they finish their interaction with our online process) remains consistent at 92%.</p><p> </p><p>HMCTS welcomes customer views throughout their interaction with its services, including after the application has been made. The agency’s formal complaints and praise procedure is available for this purpose and customers can engage with it at the court, on the phone, or online at GOV.UK. Feedback is used to inform ongoing service improvement. In respect of probate HMCTS received feedback from applicants on their concerns in a number of ways. The agency has recruited more staff to address a peak of workload and is now issuing in excess of 1,000 grants a day, which has led to reductions in waiting times.</p> more like this
answering member constituency Croydon South remove filter
answering member printed Chris Philp more like this
question first answered
less than 2019-10-21T15:14:37.273Zmore like thisremove minimum value filter
answering member
4503
label Biography information for Chris Philp more like this
tabling member
4521
label Biography information for Liz Saville Roberts more like this
1149189
registered interest false more like this
date less than 2019-10-15more like thismore than 2019-10-15
answering body
Ministry of Justice more like this
answering dept id 54 more like this
answering dept short name Justice more like this
answering dept sort name Justice more like this
hansard heading Judges: Training more like this
house id 1 more like this
legislature
25259
pref label House of Commons more like this
question text To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment his Department has made of the potential merits of introducing mandatory training on memory science for judges; and whether he will introduce mandatory training on memory science for judges. more like this
tabling member constituency Scunthorpe more like this
tabling member printed
Nic Dakin more like this
uin 522 more like this
answer
answer
is ministerial correction false more like this
date of answer less than 2019-10-22more like thismore than 2019-10-22
answer text <p>Responsibility for judicial training rests with the Lord Chief Justice and with the Senior President of Tribunals (for the tribunals judiciary, under the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, in line with the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007) and is exercised through the Judicial College.</p><p>To preserve judicial independence, the judiciary and professional staff in the Judicial College are responsible for the design, content, and delivery of judicial training.</p><p>Courts and tribunals across all jurisdictions rely upon individuals accurately recalling things when giving evidence, both oral and written. The cross-jurisdictional induction and continuation seminars that deal with judicial assessment of the reliability and credibility of witnesses, refer to this during presentations and workshops.</p> more like this
answering member constituency Croydon South remove filter
answering member printed Chris Philp more like this
question first answered
less than 2019-10-22T14:44:47.083Zmore like thismore than 2019-10-22T14:44:47.083Z
answering member
4503
label Biography information for Chris Philp more like this
tabling member
4056
label Biography information for Nic Dakin more like this