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 previous answer version answering member constituency answering member printed answering member
tabling member	label

Search

175968

registered interest
date	27/01/2015
answering body	Ministry of Justice
answering dept id	54
answering dept short name	Justice
answering dept sort name	Justice
hansard heading	Domestic Abuse: Sentencing
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many victims of domestic violence have been imprisoned for contempt of court in the last five years.
tabling member constituency	Feltham and Heston
tabling member printed	Seema Malhotra
uin	222123
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 03/02/2015 answer text <p /> <p>Domestic violence and abuse is a dreadful crime and has no place in our society. Tackling it has been one of this Government’s top priorities. We are determined to support victims in rebuilding their lives and reporting these crimes, and to make sure perpetrators are brought to justice. We have piloted and rolled out Clare's Law and domestic violence protection orders; extended the definition of domestic abuse to cover controlling behaviour and teenage relationships; run two successful campaigns to challenge perceptions of abuse; and placed Domestic Homicide Reviews on a statutory footing to make sure lessons are learned from individual tragedies. More recently we have added an amendment to the Serious Crime Bill at Commons Committee stage to create a new offence of domestic abuse.</p><p> </p><p>Information held centrally by the Ministry of Justice on the Court Proceedings Database does not include the circumstances behind each case beyond the description provided in the statute. It is not possible separately to identify from this centrally held information how many people imprisoned for contempt of court have also been victims of a crime. This detailed information may be held on court records but is not reported centrally to the Ministry of Justice. As such, the information requested could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.</p> answering member constituency Hemel Hempstead answering member printed Mike Penning question first answered 03/02/2015 17:50:01 answering member 1528 label Biography information for Sir Mike Penning
tabling member	4253 label Biography information for Seema Malhotra

175971

registered interest
date	27/01/2015
answering body	Ministry of Justice
answering dept id	54
answering dept short name	Justice
answering dept sort name	Justice
hansard heading	Driving under Influence
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many people were (a) breathalysed and (b) convicted of driving while under the influence of alcohol in December in each of the last five years.
tabling member constituency	Strangford
tabling member printed	Jim Shannon
uin	222116
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 03/02/2015 answer text <p /> <p>Driving offences can have very serious and sometimes devastating consequences for victims and their families. That is why the Government is toughened the law by closing loopholes relating to breath tests conducted by the police.</p><p> </p><p>The number of breath tests carried out by police in England and Wales between 2008 and 2012, the latest year available, and the number of tests that were positive or refused is set out in the table below. For reporting purposes the Home Office does not differentiate between ‘positive’ and ‘refused’ breathe tests. If an individual refuses a breath test, this is an offence which carries the same maximum penalty as a positive breath test.</p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td><p><strong>Year</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Number of breath tests</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Positive/Refused</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2008</p></td><td><p>711,658</p></td><td><p>91,666</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2009</p></td><td><p>815,290</p></td><td><p>93,348</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2010</p></td><td><p>736,846</p></td><td><p>84,436</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2011</p></td><td><p>685,992</p></td><td><p>80,761</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2012</p></td><td><p>682,558</p></td><td><p>75,868</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p>The table below sets out the total number of offenders found guilty of drink driving offences in England and Wales per year between 2009 and 2013 (the latest year available) and in December of each year.</p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td><p><strong>Year</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Total number of offences </strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Of which December =</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2009</p></td><td><p>68,335</p></td><td><p>5,041</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2010</p></td><td><p>53,305</p></td><td><p>3,823</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2011</p></td><td><p>50,320</p></td><td><p>3,774</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2012</p></td><td><p>50,192</p></td><td><p>3,498</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2013</p></td><td><p>47,844</p></td><td><p>3,645</p></td></tr></tbody></table> answering member constituency Hemel Hempstead answering member printed Mike Penning question first answered 03/02/2015 17:15:39 answering member 1528 label Biography information for Sir Mike Penning
tabling member	4131 label Biography information for Jim Shannon

176126

registered interest
date	27/01/2015
answering body	Home Office
answering dept id	1
answering dept short name	Home Office
answering dept sort name	Home Office
hansard heading	Asylum: Scotland
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what steps she is taking to ensure that asylum seekers resident in Scotland are able to submit evidence on their claim to offices in Scotland.
tabling member constituency	Kilmarnock and Loudoun
tabling member printed	Cathy Jamieson
uin	222152
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 04/02/2015 answer text <p>The changes to the further submissions process only apply to failed asylum seekers whose claims have already been carefully considered and refused and, where applicable, had any appeal against that decision rejected by an <br>independent court. Asylum seekers who are yet to receive a decision on their claim are unaffected by the new arrangements. They are given every opportunity to disclose all relevant evidence and remain able to submit it by post or at <br>offices in Scotland.<br><br>Home Office officials meet asylum partners on a regular basis through the National Asylum Stakeholders Forum (NASF) and several sub-groups of this forum. The Government is familiar with the range of views about the asylum <br>system and how it is operated and these views were considered when developing this policy change. NASF were notified of the change in a letter dated 13 January and Home Office officials met partners on 22 January to discuss their <br>concerns. We will continue to discuss these issues with partners and have scheduled forthcoming meetings for this purpose. We are not aware of any direct approach from Scottish stakeholders.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p> answering member constituency Hemel Hempstead answering member printed Mike Penning grouped question UIN 222153 222154 question first answered 04/02/2015 12:47:57 answering member 1528 label Biography information for Sir Mike Penning previous answer version 42089 answering member constituency Old Bexley and Sidcup answering member printed James Brokenshire answering member 1530
tabling member	4011 label Biography information for Cathy Jamieson

176127

registered interest
date	27/01/2015
answering body	Home Office
answering dept id	1
answering dept short name	Home Office
answering dept sort name	Home Office
hansard heading	Asylum: Scotland
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what assessment she has made of the effect on asylum seekers in Scotland of the recent changes to rules which provide that evidence related to asylum claims must be submitted in Liverpool.
tabling member constituency	Kilmarnock and Loudoun
tabling member printed	Cathy Jamieson
uin	222153
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 04/02/2015 answer text <p>The changes to the further submissions process only apply to failed asylum seekers whose claims have already been carefully considered and refused and, where applicable, had any appeal against that decision rejected by an <br>independent court. Asylum seekers who are yet to receive a decision on their claim are unaffected by the new arrangements. They are given every opportunity to disclose all relevant evidence and remain able to submit it by post or at <br>offices in Scotland.<br><br>Home Office officials meet asylum partners on a regular basis through the National Asylum Stakeholders Forum (NASF) and several sub-groups of this forum. The Government is familiar with the range of views about the asylum <br>system and how it is operated and these views were considered when developing this policy change. NASF were notified of the change in a letter dated 13 January and Home Office officials met partners on 22 January to discuss their <br>concerns. We will continue to discuss these issues with partners and have scheduled forthcoming meetings for this purpose. We are not aware of any direct approach from Scottish stakeholders.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p> answering member constituency Hemel Hempstead answering member printed Mike Penning grouped question UIN 222152 222154 question first answered 04/02/2015 12:47:57 answering member 1528 label Biography information for Sir Mike Penning previous answer version 42091 answering member constituency Old Bexley and Sidcup answering member printed James Brokenshire answering member 1530
tabling member	4011 label Biography information for Cathy Jamieson

176128

registered interest
date	27/01/2015
answering body	Home Office
answering dept id	1
answering dept short name	Home Office
answering dept sort name	Home Office
hansard heading	Asylum: Liverpool
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what representations she has received about the rule change which means that asylum seekers must submit claims in Liverpool.
tabling member constituency	Kilmarnock and Loudoun
tabling member printed	Cathy Jamieson
uin	222154
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 04/02/2015 answer text <p>The changes to the further submissions process only apply to failed asylum seekers whose claims have already been carefully considered and refused and, where applicable, had any appeal against that decision rejected by an <br>independent court. Asylum seekers who are yet to receive a decision on their claim are unaffected by the new arrangements. They are given every opportunity to disclose all relevant evidence and remain able to submit it by post or at <br>offices in Scotland.<br><br>Home Office officials meet asylum partners on a regular basis through the National Asylum Stakeholders Forum (NASF) and several sub-groups of this forum. The Government is familiar with the range of views about the asylum <br>system and how it is operated and these views were considered when developing this policy change. NASF were notified of the change in a letter dated 13 January and Home Office officials met partners on 22 January to discuss their <br>concerns. We will continue to discuss these issues with partners and have scheduled forthcoming meetings for this purpose. We are not aware of any direct approach from Scottish stakeholders.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p> answering member constituency Hemel Hempstead answering member printed Mike Penning grouped question UIN 222152 222153 question first answered 04/02/2015 12:47:57 answering member 1528 label Biography information for Sir Mike Penning previous answer version 42092 answering member constituency Old Bexley and Sidcup answering member printed James Brokenshire answering member 1530
tabling member	4011 label Biography information for Cathy Jamieson

176138

registered interest
date	27/01/2015
answering body	Home Office
answering dept id	1
answering dept short name	Home Office
answering dept sort name	Home Office
hansard heading	Social Media
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many requests there have been to social media companies under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 in the last two years; and on how many occasions the information requested was (a) supplied and (b) refused.
tabling member constituency	Dwyfor Meirionnydd
tabling member printed	Mr Elfyn Llwyd
uin	222191
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 04/02/2015 answer text <p>Investigatory powers, including interception, communications data and surveillance, are fundamental to investigating crime, safeguarding national security and protecting the public. The use of these powers is subject to <br>stringent safeguards and is primarily regulated by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. <br><br>The Interception of Communications Commissioner provides robust, independent oversight of the use of interception and communications data and provides reports to the Prime Minister, which are published and laid in Parliament. <br>These reports includes statistics on public authorities’ use of interception and communications data powers, and his 2013 report contained more statistics than ever before. <br><br>It would not be appropriate to provide further details about the companies to which requests have been made, and their responses to such requests, as this would damage national security and efforts to fight serious crime.</p><p> </p> answering member constituency Hemel Hempstead answering member printed Mike Penning question first answered 04/02/2015 12:40:56 answering member 1528 label Biography information for Sir Mike Penning
tabling member	549 label Biography information for Mr Elfyn Llwyd

176139

registered interest
date	27/01/2015
answering body	Ministry of Justice
answering dept id	54
answering dept short name	Justice
answering dept sort name	Justice
hansard heading	Computer Misuse Act 1990
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many (a) prosecutions and (b) convictions there have been under the Computer Misuse Act 1990 in each year since it entered into force.
tabling member constituency	Dwyfor Meirionnydd
tabling member printed	Mr Elfyn Llwyd
uin	222192
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 04/02/2015 answer text <p /> <p>The Government is absolutely clear that abusive or threatening behaviour, stalking or harassment, are totally unacceptable, whether online or offline. A number of offences may be committed by misusing the internet or social media in this way, in particular under section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 or section 127 of the Communications Act 2003. Changes to the law in the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill will help to ensure that people who commit those offences are prosecuted and properly punished.</p><p> </p><p>Stalking causes misery for victims. That is why in 2012 we added to the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 two new specific offences of stalking (section 2A) and stalking involving fear of violence or serious alarm or distress (section 4A), the latter of which is punishable by up to five years in prison, or a fine, or both. Online stalking or harassment could amount to one of these offences if it is carried out as part of a ‘course of conduct’ which amounts to stalking, and could amount to the more serious offence if that course of conduct puts someone in fear of violence, or if it causes them serious alarm or distress which has a substantial adverse effect on their usual day-to-day activities</p><p> </p><p>The number of defendants proceeded against at magistrates' courts and found</p><p>guilty at all courts for offences relating to the Computer Misuse Act 1990,</p><p>from 1990 to 2013 (latest data available), can be viewed in the table.</p><p> </p><p>Information held centrally by the Ministry of Justice on the Court Proceedings Database does not include the circumstances behind each case beyond the description provided in the statute. It is not possible to separately identify from this centrally held information convictions and sentences involving the use or misuse of social media, or cyber crime. This detailed information may be held on the court record but due to the size and complexity is not reported centrally to the MoJ. As such, the information requested can only be obtained at disproportionate cost.</p><p> </p><p>Court proceedings data for 2014 are planned for publication in May 2015.</p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td colspan="3">Defendants proceeded against at magistrates' court and found guilty at all courts for offences relating to the Computer Misuse Act 1990, England &amp; Wales, 1990-2013<sup>(1)(2)</sup></td></tr><tr><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td>Year</td><td>Proceeded<br> Against</td><td>Found<br> Guilty<sup>(3)</sup></td></tr><tr><td>1990</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>1991</td><td>1</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>1992</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>1993</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>1994</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>1995</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>1996</td><td>2</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>1997</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>1998</td><td>16</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>1999</td><td>13</td><td>11</td></tr><tr><td>2000</td><td>19</td><td>15</td></tr><tr><td>2001</td><td>25</td><td>31</td></tr><tr><td>2002</td><td>18</td><td>14</td></tr><tr><td>2003</td><td>19</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>2004</td><td>21</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td>2005</td><td>24</td><td>16</td></tr><tr><td>2006</td><td>25</td><td>18</td></tr><tr><td>2007</td><td>19</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td>2008<sup>(4)</sup></td><td>17</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td>2009</td><td>19</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td>2010</td><td>10</td><td>18</td></tr><tr><td>2011</td><td>11</td><td>11</td></tr><tr><td>2012</td><td>25</td><td>27</td></tr><tr><td>2013</td><td>55</td><td>40</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>339</td><td>262</td></tr><tr><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td>(-) Nil</td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">(1) The figures given in the table relate to persons for whom these offences were the principal offences for which they were dealt with. When a defendant has been found guilty of two or more offences it is the offence for which the heaviest penalty is imposed. Where the same disposal is imposed for two or more offences, the offence selected is the offence for which the statutory maximum penalty is the most severe.</td></tr><tr><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">(2) Every effort is made to ensure that the figures presented are accurate and complete. However, it is important to note that these data have been extracted from large administrative data systems generated by the courts and police forces. As a consequence, care should be taken to ensure data collection processes and their inevitable limitations are taken into account when those data are used.</td></tr><tr><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">(3) The number of defendants found guilty in a particular year may exceed the number proceeded against as the proceedings in the magistrates' court took place in an earlier year and the defendants were found guilty at the Crown Court in the following year; or the defendants were found guilty of a different offence to that for which they were originally proceeded against.</td></tr><tr><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">(4) Excludes data for Cardiff magistrates' court for April, July and August 2008.</td></tr><tr><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">Source: Justice Statistics Analytical Services - Ministry of Justice.</td></tr><tr><td>PQ 222192</td><td> </td><td> </td></tr></tbody></table> answering member constituency Hemel Hempstead answering member printed Mike Penning grouped question UIN 222193 222194 question first answered 04/02/2015 18:01:41 answering member 1528 label Biography information for Sir Mike Penning
tabling member	549 label Biography information for Mr Elfyn Llwyd

176140

registered interest
date	27/01/2015
answering body	Ministry of Justice
answering dept id	54
answering dept short name	Justice
answering dept sort name	Justice
hansard heading	Social Media: Misuse
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many people were (a) charged, (b) convicted and (c) sentenced to custody following a conviction involving misuse of social media in the most recent year for which figures are available; and what offences they were (i) charged with, (ii) convicted of and (iii) sentenced for.
tabling member constituency	Dwyfor Meirionnydd
tabling member printed	Mr Elfyn Llwyd
uin	222193
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 04/02/2015 answer text <p>The Government is absolutely clear that abusive or threatening behaviour, stalking or harassment, are totally unacceptable, whether online or offline. A number of offences may be committed by misusing the internet or social media in this way, in particular under section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 or section 127 of the Communications Act 2003. Changes to the law in the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill will help to ensure that people who commit those offences are prosecuted and properly punished.</p><p> </p><p>Stalking causes misery for victims. That is why in 2012 we added to the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 two new specific offences of stalking (section 2A) and stalking involving fear of violence or serious alarm or distress (section 4A), the latter of which is punishable by up to five years in prison, or a fine, or both. Online stalking or harassment could amount to one of these offences if it is carried out as part of a ‘course of conduct’ which amounts to stalking, and could amount to the more serious offence if that course of conduct puts someone in fear of violence, or if it causes them serious alarm or distress which has a substantial adverse effect on their usual day-to-day activities</p><p> </p><p>The number of defendants proceeded against at magistrates' courts and found</p><p>guilty at all courts for offences relating to the Computer Misuse Act 1990,</p><p>from 1990 to 2013 (latest data available), can be viewed in the table.</p><p> </p><p>Information held centrally by the Ministry of Justice on the Court Proceedings Database does not include the circumstances behind each case beyond the description provided in the statute. It is not possible to separately identify from this centrally held information convictions and sentences involving the use or misuse of social media, or cyber crime. This detailed information may be held on the court record but due to the size and complexity is not reported centrally to the MoJ. As such, the information requested can only be obtained at disproportionate cost.</p><p> </p><p>Court proceedings data for 2014 are planned for publication in May 2015.</p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td colspan="3">Defendants proceeded against at magistrates' court and found guilty at all courts for offences relating to the Computer Misuse Act 1990, England &amp; Wales, 1990-2013<sup>(1)(2)</sup></td></tr><tr><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td>Year</td><td>Proceeded<br> Against</td><td>Found<br> Guilty<sup>(3)</sup></td></tr><tr><td>1990</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>1991</td><td>1</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>1992</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>1993</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>1994</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>1995</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>1996</td><td>2</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>1997</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>1998</td><td>16</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>1999</td><td>13</td><td>11</td></tr><tr><td>2000</td><td>19</td><td>15</td></tr><tr><td>2001</td><td>25</td><td>31</td></tr><tr><td>2002</td><td>18</td><td>14</td></tr><tr><td>2003</td><td>19</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>2004</td><td>21</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td>2005</td><td>24</td><td>16</td></tr><tr><td>2006</td><td>25</td><td>18</td></tr><tr><td>2007</td><td>19</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td>2008<sup>(4)</sup></td><td>17</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td>2009</td><td>19</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td>2010</td><td>10</td><td>18</td></tr><tr><td>2011</td><td>11</td><td>11</td></tr><tr><td>2012</td><td>25</td><td>27</td></tr><tr><td>2013</td><td>55</td><td>40</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>339</td><td>262</td></tr><tr><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td>(-) Nil</td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">(1) The figures given in the table relate to persons for whom these offences were the principal offences for which they were dealt with. When a defendant has been found guilty of two or more offences it is the offence for which the heaviest penalty is imposed. Where the same disposal is imposed for two or more offences, the offence selected is the offence for which the statutory maximum penalty is the most severe.</td></tr><tr><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">(2) Every effort is made to ensure that the figures presented are accurate and complete. However, it is important to note that these data have been extracted from large administrative data systems generated by the courts and police forces. As a consequence, care should be taken to ensure data collection processes and their inevitable limitations are taken into account when those data are used.</td></tr><tr><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">(3) The number of defendants found guilty in a particular year may exceed the number proceeded against as the proceedings in the magistrates' court took place in an earlier year and the defendants were found guilty at the Crown Court in the following year; or the defendants were found guilty of a different offence to that for which they were originally proceeded against.</td></tr><tr><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">(4) Excludes data for Cardiff magistrates' court for April, July and August 2008.</td></tr><tr><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">Source: Justice Statistics Analytical Services - Ministry of Justice.</td></tr><tr><td>PQ 222192</td><td> </td><td> </td></tr></tbody></table> answering member constituency Hemel Hempstead answering member printed Mike Penning grouped question UIN 222192 222194 question first answered 04/02/2015 18:01:42 answering member 1528 label Biography information for Sir Mike Penning
tabling member	549 label Biography information for Mr Elfyn Llwyd

176141

registered interest
date	27/01/2015
answering body	Ministry of Justice
answering dept id	54
answering dept short name	Justice
answering dept sort name	Justice
hansard heading	Cybercrime
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what proportion of people convicted under sections 2A or 4A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 used social media or cyber crime to harass or stalk their victims.
tabling member constituency	Dwyfor Meirionnydd
tabling member printed	Mr Elfyn Llwyd
uin	222194
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 04/02/2015 answer text <p>The Government is absolutely clear that abusive or threatening behaviour, stalking or harassment, are totally unacceptable, whether online or offline. A number of offences may be committed by misusing the internet or social media in this way, in particular under section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 or section 127 of the Communications Act 2003. Changes to the law in the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill will help to ensure that people who commit those offences are prosecuted and properly punished.</p><p> </p><p>Stalking causes misery for victims. That is why in 2012 we added to the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 two new specific offences of stalking (section 2A) and stalking involving fear of violence or serious alarm or distress (section 4A), the latter of which is punishable by up to five years in prison, or a fine, or both. Online stalking or harassment could amount to one of these offences if it is carried out as part of a ‘course of conduct’ which amounts to stalking, and could amount to the more serious offence if that course of conduct puts someone in fear of violence, or if it causes them serious alarm or distress which has a substantial adverse effect on their usual day-to-day activities</p><p> </p><p>The number of defendants proceeded against at magistrates' courts and found</p><p>guilty at all courts for offences relating to the Computer Misuse Act 1990,</p><p>from 1990 to 2013 (latest data available), can be viewed in the table.</p><p> </p><p>Information held centrally by the Ministry of Justice on the Court Proceedings Database does not include the circumstances behind each case beyond the description provided in the statute. It is not possible to separately identify from this centrally held information convictions and sentences involving the use or misuse of social media, or cyber crime. This detailed information may be held on the court record but due to the size and complexity is not reported centrally to the MoJ. As such, the information requested can only be obtained at disproportionate cost.</p><p> </p><p>Court proceedings data for 2014 are planned for publication in May 2015.</p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td colspan="3">Defendants proceeded against at magistrates' court and found guilty at all courts for offences relating to the Computer Misuse Act 1990, England &amp; Wales, 1990-2013<sup>(1)(2)</sup></td></tr><tr><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td>Year</td><td>Proceeded<br> Against</td><td>Found<br> Guilty<sup>(3)</sup></td></tr><tr><td>1990</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>1991</td><td>1</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>1992</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>1993</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>1994</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>1995</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>1996</td><td>2</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>1997</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>1998</td><td>16</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>1999</td><td>13</td><td>11</td></tr><tr><td>2000</td><td>19</td><td>15</td></tr><tr><td>2001</td><td>25</td><td>31</td></tr><tr><td>2002</td><td>18</td><td>14</td></tr><tr><td>2003</td><td>19</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>2004</td><td>21</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td>2005</td><td>24</td><td>16</td></tr><tr><td>2006</td><td>25</td><td>18</td></tr><tr><td>2007</td><td>19</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td>2008<sup>(4)</sup></td><td>17</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td>2009</td><td>19</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td>2010</td><td>10</td><td>18</td></tr><tr><td>2011</td><td>11</td><td>11</td></tr><tr><td>2012</td><td>25</td><td>27</td></tr><tr><td>2013</td><td>55</td><td>40</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>339</td><td>262</td></tr><tr><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td>(-) Nil</td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">(1) The figures given in the table relate to persons for whom these offences were the principal offences for which they were dealt with. When a defendant has been found guilty of two or more offences it is the offence for which the heaviest penalty is imposed. Where the same disposal is imposed for two or more offences, the offence selected is the offence for which the statutory maximum penalty is the most severe.</td></tr><tr><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">(2) Every effort is made to ensure that the figures presented are accurate and complete. However, it is important to note that these data have been extracted from large administrative data systems generated by the courts and police forces. As a consequence, care should be taken to ensure data collection processes and their inevitable limitations are taken into account when those data are used.</td></tr><tr><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">(3) The number of defendants found guilty in a particular year may exceed the number proceeded against as the proceedings in the magistrates' court took place in an earlier year and the defendants were found guilty at the Crown Court in the following year; or the defendants were found guilty of a different offence to that for which they were originally proceeded against.</td></tr><tr><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">(4) Excludes data for Cardiff magistrates' court for April, July and August 2008.</td></tr><tr><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">Source: Justice Statistics Analytical Services - Ministry of Justice.</td></tr><tr><td>PQ 222192</td><td> </td><td> </td></tr></tbody></table> answering member constituency Hemel Hempstead answering member printed Mike Penning grouped question UIN 222192 222193 question first answered 04/02/2015 18:01:42 answering member 1528 label Biography information for Sir Mike Penning
tabling member	549 label Biography information for Mr Elfyn Llwyd

176143

registered interest
date	27/01/2015
answering body	Home Office
answering dept id	1
answering dept short name	Home Office
answering dept sort name	Home Office
hansard heading	Immigration Controls
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what assessment her Department has made of the potential merits of its Border Security Assessment being conducted at the level of individual countries rather than on a uniform basis.
tabling member constituency	Caerphilly
tabling member printed	Wayne David
uin	222258
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 04/02/2015 answer text <p>The Home Office keeps its visa regimes under regular review. Regimes are assessed on a country by country basis. The Home Office takes various factors into account when assessing regimes. These include the immigration, crime and <br>security risks posed by each country.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p> answering member constituency Hemel Hempstead answering member printed Mike Penning question first answered 04/02/2015 12:46:51 answering member 1528 label Biography information for Sir Mike Penning previous answer version 42085 answering member constituency Old Bexley and Sidcup answering member printed James Brokenshire answering member 1530
tabling member	1398 label Biography information for Wayne David