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

174050

registered interest
date	15/01/2015
answering body	Ministry of Justice
answering dept id	54
answering dept short name	Justice
answering dept sort name	Justice
hansard heading	Sentencing
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many and what proportion of offenders were sentenced to a custodial sentence for each offence by each magistrates' court in the latest year for which figures are available.
tabling member constituency	Shipley
tabling member printed	Philip Davies
uin	221000
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 22/01/2015 answer text <p>The information you have requested cannot be extracted from our raw data due to the extensive nature of what you have requested. I will therefore write to my honourable Friend as soon as it is available.</p> answering member constituency Hemel Hempstead answering member printed Mike Penning grouped question UIN 221001 question first answered 22/01/2015 17:37:04 answering member 1528 label Biography information for Sir Mike Penning
tabling member	1565 label Biography information for Sir Philip Davies

174051

registered interest
date	15/01/2015
answering body	Ministry of Justice
answering dept id	54
answering dept short name	Justice
answering dept sort name	Justice
hansard heading	Sentencing
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many offenders were sentenced to a custodial sentence of 12 months or less for each offence by each Crown Court in the latest year for which figures are available.
tabling member constituency	Shipley
tabling member printed	Philip Davies
uin	221001
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 22/01/2015 answer text <p>The information you have requested cannot be extracted from our raw data due to the extensive nature of what you have requested. I will therefore write to my honourable Friend as soon as it is available.</p> answering member constituency Hemel Hempstead answering member printed Mike Penning grouped question UIN 221000 question first answered 22/01/2015 17:37:05 answering member 1528 label Biography information for Sir Mike Penning
tabling member	1565 label Biography information for Sir Philip Davies

155538

registered interest
date	11/11/2014
answering body	Ministry of Justice
answering dept id	54
answering dept short name	Justice
answering dept sort name	Justice
hansard heading	Sentencing
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what the highest number of offences taken into consideration for an offender has been (a) on one sentencing occasion and (b) over that offender's whole offending history.
tabling member constituency	Shipley
tabling member printed	Philip Davies
uin	214184
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 21/11/2014 answer text <p>The court has discretion as to how sentences should be served. The independent Sentencing Council issued a guideline, <em>Offences Taken Into Consideration and Totality</em>, which all courts must follow so that there is a consistency of approach. The court has discretion as to whether or not to take offences into consideration (TICs), but where it does so the court should pass a total sentence which reflects all offending behaviour. The sentence must be just and proportionate and must not exceed the statutory maximum for the convicted offence. The guideline also says that there is no inflexible rule governing whether sentences should be structured as concurrent or consecutive components but, again, the overriding principle is that the overall sentence must be just and proportionate.</p><p>The Ministry of Justice Court Proceeding Database holds information on offences provided by the statute under which proceedings are brought but not all the specific circumstances of each case. Data on offences taken into consideration are not available from the information provided centrally to the Ministry of Justice. This detailed information is not reported to Justice Statistical Analytical Services due to their size and complexity and as such, it can only be obtained at disproportionate cost.</p><p> </p><p>The Ministry of Justice’s extract of the Police National Computer (PNC) from which MoJ uses to publish official statistics on offenders’ criminal histories, while it holds information on those offenders who were cautioned or convicted for recordable offences in England and Wales, it does not in all (most) cases record data on’ disposal qualifiers’ the variable which allows us to identify concurrent prison sentences served.</p><p> </p><p>Data on concurrent prison sentences served is therefore incomplete and unreliable. To provide the information requested, we would be required to contact all the courts in England and Wales and asking them to search individual case files in order to establish whether they hold information on concurrent prison sentences. To collate the information you require, would incur disproportionate cost.</p> answering member constituency Hemel Hempstead answering member printed Mike Penning grouped question UIN 214185 question first answered 21/11/2014 14:27:00 answering member 1528 label Biography information for Sir Mike Penning
tabling member	1565 label Biography information for Sir Philip Davies

155541

registered interest
date	11/11/2014
answering body	Ministry of Justice
answering dept id	54
answering dept short name	Justice
answering dept sort name	Justice
hansard heading	Sentencing
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many and what proportion of custodial sentences for a second or subsequent offence were handed down to run concurrently with another custodial sentence in each of the last four years.
tabling member constituency	Shipley
tabling member printed	Philip Davies
uin	214192
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 21/11/2014 answer text <p /> <p>Whilst crime is falling, sentences are getting more severe. Under this Government fewer individuals are entering the criminal justice system for the first time but those who do offend are more likely to go to prison, and for longer.</p><p> </p><p>The court has discretion as to how sentences should be served. The independent Sentencing Council issued a guideline, <em>Offences Taken Into Consideration and Totality</em>, which all courts must follow so that there is a consistency of approach. The guideline says that there is no inflexible rule governing whether sentences should be structured as concurrent or consecutive components but the overriding principle is that the overall sentence must be just and proportionate.</p><p> </p><p>The general approach on whether sentences should be served consecutively or concurrently as it applies to determinate custodial sentences, is that concurrent sentences will ordinarily be appropriate where the offences arise out of the same incident, or where there is a series of offences of the same or similar kind. Consecutive sentences will normally be appropriate where the offences arise out of unrelated facts or incidents, the offences are of a similar kind but the overall criminality will not be sufficiently reflected by concurrent sentences, or where one or more offences qualifies for a minimum sentence and concurrent sentences would improperly undermine that minimum. The guideline deals in more detail with various circumstances including where the offender is serving an existing custodial sentence and is being sentenced to custody for another offence.</p><p> </p><p>The information requested is complex and needs to be extracted from raw data, formatted and checked. This will take some time and I will therefore write to my honourable Friend as soon as it is available.</p> answering member constituency Hemel Hempstead answering member printed Mike Penning grouped question UIN 214193 question first answered 21/11/2014 14:44:50 answering member 1528 label Biography information for Sir Mike Penning
tabling member	1565 label Biography information for Sir Philip Davies

155542

registered interest
date	11/11/2014
answering body	Ministry of Justice
answering dept id	54
answering dept short name	Justice
answering dept sort name	Justice
hansard heading	Sentencing
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many and what proportion of offenders being sentenced to a custodial sentence for a second or subsequent offence were given a concurrent custodial sentence in each of the last four years.
tabling member constituency	Shipley
tabling member printed	Philip Davies
uin	214193
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 21/11/2014 answer text <p>Whilst crime is falling, sentences are getting more severe. Under this Government fewer individuals are entering the criminal justice system for the first time but those who do offend are more likely to go to prison, and for longer.</p><p> </p><p>The court has discretion as to how sentences should be served. The independent Sentencing Council issued a guideline, <em>Offences Taken Into Consideration and Totality</em>, which all courts must follow so that there is a consistency of approach. The guideline says that there is no inflexible rule governing whether sentences should be structured as concurrent or consecutive components but the overriding principle is that the overall sentence must be just and proportionate.</p><p> </p><p>The general approach on whether sentences should be served consecutively or concurrently as it applies to determinate custodial sentences, is that concurrent sentences will ordinarily be appropriate where the offences arise out of the same incident, or where there is a series of offences of the same or similar kind. Consecutive sentences will normally be appropriate where the offences arise out of unrelated facts or incidents, the offences are of a similar kind but the overall criminality will not be sufficiently reflected by concurrent sentences, or where one or more offences qualifies for a minimum sentence and concurrent sentences would improperly undermine that minimum. The guideline deals in more detail with various circumstances including where the offender is serving an existing custodial sentence and is being sentenced to custody for another offence.</p><p> </p><p>The information requested is complex and needs to be extracted from raw data, formatted and checked. This will take some time and I will therefore write to my honourable Friend as soon as it is available.</p> answering member constituency Hemel Hempstead answering member printed Mike Penning grouped question UIN 214192 question first answered 21/11/2014 14:44:51 answering member 1528 label Biography information for Sir Mike Penning
tabling member	1565 label Biography information for Sir Philip Davies

147633

registered interest
date	10/11/2014
answering body	Ministry of Justice
answering dept id	54
answering dept short name	Justice
answering dept sort name	Justice
hansard heading	Sentencing
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many times a sentence has been altered under section 155 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 in the last five years; and what the (a) offence, (b) sentencing variation and (c) reason for the sentence being altered was in each case.
tabling member constituency	Shipley
tabling member printed	Philip Davies
uin	213938
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 15/01/2015 answer text <p /> <p>Section 155 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Courts Act 2000 provides for the Crown Court to vary or rescind a sentence imposed, or other order made, by the Crown Court within 56 days of the original sentence being made. The power to vary is primarily to rectify small technical errors and not to allow for a fundamental change of mind.</p><p>The number of sentences which were varied in Crown Court trials the last five years is as follows:</p><table><tbody><tr><td colspan="6"><p><strong>Number of Crown Court sentences recorded as replaced on CREST, by offence group</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>Offence Group</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>09/10</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>10/11</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>11/12</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>12/13</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>13/14</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Burglary</p></td><td><p>120</p></td><td><p>189</p></td><td><p>182</p></td><td><p>220</p></td><td><p>129</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Criminal damage</p></td><td><p>25</p></td><td><p>34</p></td><td><p>22</p></td><td><p>26</p></td><td><p>13</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Drug offences</p></td><td><p>304</p></td><td><p>436</p></td><td><p>495</p></td><td><p>472</p></td><td><p>407</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Fraud and forgery</p></td><td><p>199</p></td><td><p>333</p></td><td><p>312</p></td><td><p>349</p></td><td><p>228</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Indictable motoring offences</p></td><td><p>35</p></td><td><p>34</p></td><td><p>42</p></td><td><p>33</p></td><td><p>24</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Other indictable offences</p></td><td><p>344</p></td><td><p>488</p></td><td><p>604</p></td><td><p>359</p></td><td><p>294</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Robbery</p></td><td><p>125</p></td><td><p>147</p></td><td><p>164</p></td><td><p>130</p></td><td><p>97</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Sexual offences</p></td><td><p>313</p></td><td><p>243</p></td><td><p>236</p></td><td><p>284</p></td><td><p>191</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Summary Motoring Offences</p></td><td><p>9</p></td><td><p>18</p></td><td><p>7</p></td><td><p>5</p></td><td><p>2</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Summary Non-motoring Offences</p></td><td><p>52</p></td><td><p>99</p></td><td><p>104</p></td><td><p>67</p></td><td><p>99</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Theft and handling stolen goods</p></td><td><p>193</p></td><td><p>282</p></td><td><p>303</p></td><td><p>205</p></td><td><p>256</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Unknown</p></td><td><p>72</p></td><td><p>122</p></td><td><p>60</p></td><td><p>44</p></td><td><p>36</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Violence against the person</p></td><td><p>282</p></td><td><p>387</p></td><td><p>390</p></td><td><p>302</p></td><td><p>268</p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>Total</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2,073</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2,812</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2,921</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2,496</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2,044</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p> </p></td><td><p> </p></td><td><p> </p></td><td><p> </p></td><td><p> </p></td><td><p> </p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong><em>Notes:</em></strong></p></td><td><p> </p></td><td><p> </p></td><td><p> </p></td><td><p> </p></td><td><p> </p></td></tr><tr><td colspan="6"><p>1. The above figures only relate to cases committed or sent for trial.</p></td></tr><tr><td colspan="6"><p>2. The above figures relate to actual sentences replaced; they do not relate to the number of defendants involved.</p></td></tr><tr><td colspan="6"><p>3. The data were extracted from CREST, the Crown Court case management system specifically to answer this question.</p></td></tr><tr><td colspan="6"><p>4. The data are management information and not subject to the same level of checks as Official Statistics.</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p>The fact a sentence has been replaced is recorded on the Crown Court case management system, CREST. Whilst the new sentence will also be recorded it is not possible to link the two for every offence to calculate the variation. The reason for the sentence being varied is not recorded on CREST and can only be found by manually checking case files at disproportionate cost.</p> answering member constituency Hemel Hempstead answering member printed Mike Penning question first answered 15/01/2015 16:09:51 answering member 1528 label Biography information for Sir Mike Penning
tabling member	1565 label Biography information for Sir Philip Davies