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 attachment file name title
tabling member	label

Search

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

155539

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	Prison Sentences
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 concurrent prison sentences served by one offender at any one time was in each of the last five years.
tabling member constituency	Shipley
tabling member printed	Philip Davies
uin	214185
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 21/11/2014 answer text <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 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 214184 question first answered 21/11/2014 14:26:59 answering member 1528 label Biography information for Sir Mike Penning
tabling member	1565 label Biography information for Sir Philip Davies

155540

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	Domestic Abuse
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 cases in courts marked as domestic violence incidents related to (a) male perpetrators against female partners and (b) all other forms of domestic violence in the latest period for which figures are available.
tabling member constituency	Shipley
tabling member printed	Philip Davies
uin	214191
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 21/11/2014 answer text <p /> <p>This government is committed to tackling domestic violence and abuse and to delivering a better response for the victims of these appalling crimes.</p><p> </p><p>We have ring-fenced £40 million for victims’ services; 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; placed Domestic Homicide Reviews on a statutory footing to make sure lessons are learnt from individual tragedies; criminalised forced marriage and consulted on the creation of a single criminal offence of domestic abuse.</p><p> </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 those proceeded against, found guilty and sentenced for offences involving domestic violence, such as threatening behaviour, violence or abuse between adults are not separately identified in the data reported centrally to the Ministry of Justice. Furthermore, it is not possible to separately identify the relationship between defendant and victim, and their gender. 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> answering member constituency Hemel Hempstead answering member printed Mike Penning question first answered 21/11/2014 14:41:48 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

147615

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	Confiscation Orders
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many cars have been confiscated by order of a court under section 143 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 in each of the last five years.
tabling member constituency	Shipley
tabling member printed	Philip Davies
uin	214091
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 20/11/2014 answer text <p><strong></strong></p><p /> <p>Section 143 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 allows the courts to make an order depriving an offender of his rights to articles used, or intended to be used, for the purpose of committing an offence. In specified circumstances a court may order an offender to be deprived of a vehicle under this power. Decisions whether to impose forfeiture orders in individual cases are a matter solely for our independent courts.</p><p> </p><p>The number of cars ordered to be forfeit is not centrally recorded. In 2013 the courts ordered the forfeiture of a vehicle, ship or aircraft in respect of 164 offenders, excluding summary motoring offences. Reliable information for previous years is not available.</p> answering member constituency Hemel Hempstead answering member printed Mike Penning question first answered 20/11/2014 17:19:54 answering member 1528 label Biography information for Sir Mike Penning
tabling member	1565 label Biography information for Sir Philip Davies

147621

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	Courts
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps he has taken to ensure that victims are made aware in a timely manner of court hearings relating to their case.
tabling member constituency	Shipley
tabling member printed	Philip Davies
uin	213925
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 20/11/2014 answer text <p /> <p>The Government’s new Victims’ Code sets out the support and information victims of crime can expect to receive from agencies at every stage of the criminal justice process. Priority victims – victims of the most serious crime, vulnerable or intimidated and persistently targeted victims – are entitled to receive enhanced support and services.</p><p> </p><p>The Victims’ Code outlines that victims are entitled to be informed of the date, time and location of the first court hearing by the police within 5 working days from when they receive this information and 1 working day for priority victims. If the case progresses to trial, the Witness Care Unit should notify victims of court hearings within 1 working day of receiving the information from the court.</p><p> </p><p>Criminal justice agencies have updated their guidance for operational staff, which outlines their duties under the new Victims’ Code. The Government has made a commitment to monitor criminal justice agencies’ compliance with the Victims’ Code and in “Our Commitment to Victims,” launched on 15 September 2014, we announced that criminal justice agencies will publish information on how they have improved services for victims from April 2015.</p> answering member constituency Hemel Hempstead answering member printed Mike Penning question first answered 20/11/2014 17:11:57 answering member 1528 label Biography information for Sir Mike Penning
tabling member	1565 label Biography information for Sir Philip Davies

99919

registered interest
date	20/10/2014
answering body	Ministry of Justice
answering dept id	54
answering dept short name	Justice
answering dept sort name	Justice
hansard heading	Burglary: Reoffenders
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, which courts did not send people with the highest number of previous convictions for burglary to prison for a further offence of burglary in each of the years since 2010.
tabling member constituency	Shipley
tabling member printed	Philip Davies
uin	211135
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 28/10/2014 answer text <p>Sentencing in individual cases is a matter for our independent judiciary, taking account of the circumstances of the case and the maximum penalty for the offence. However, when sentencing an offender the courts must treat recent and relevant previous convictions as an aggravating factor. There is also a mandatory minimum sentence of three years’ imprisonment for a third conviction for domestic burglary. The sentencing guideline for burglary aims to ensure that the effect on victims is at the centre of considerations about what sentence each offender should receive. The average custodial sentence length for domestic burglary has increased from 21.4 months in 2009 to 23.6 months in 2013.</p><p> </p><p>This Government is committed to strengthening sentences, so that they combine both punishment and requirements that are effective at preventing further offending. We are transforming rehabilitation, by bringing together the best of the public, private and voluntary sectors, and only rewarding them when they actually do reduce reoffending.</p><p> </p><p>The highest number of previous convictions for burglary by an offender who was convicted of a further burglary offence and not sentenced to immediate custody for the further offence by court or Local Justice Area (LJA) in England and Wales, from the 12 months ending March 2010 to the 12 months ending March 2014, is given in Table 1.</p><p> </p><p>The offenders concerned (and one of the two offenders in 2010, is the same offender in 2011 and 2013) have long offending histories, and they have received immediate custodial sentences for most of their burglary convictions, the vast majority of which were not for domestic burglary.</p><p>Table 1: The highest number<sup>1</sup> of previous convictions for burglary by an offender who was convicted of a further burglary offence and not sentenced to immediate custody for the further offence<sup>3</sup> by court or Local Justice Area (LJA) in England and Wales, 12 months ending March 2010 to 12 months ending March 2014.</p><table><tbody><tr><td><p><strong><em>12 months ending March </em></strong></p></td><td><p><strong><em>Court </em></strong></p></td><td><p><strong><em>Number<sup>1 </sup>of previous convictions</em></strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><em>2010</em></p></td><td><p><em>Sussex</em><em> (Western) Local Justice Area &amp; Horseferry Road Magistrates Court</em></p></td><td><p><em>61,61</em></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><em>2011</em></p></td><td><p><em>Bristol Local Justice Area</em></p></td><td><p><em>64</em></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><em>2012</em></p></td><td><p><em>Manchester</em><em> Magistrates Court</em></p></td><td><p><em>47</em></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><em>2013<sup>*</sup></em></p></td><td><p><em>Central London Local Justice Area </em></p></td><td><p><em>65</em></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><em>2014</em></p></td><td><p><em>South East Surrey Local Justice Area</em></p></td><td><p><em>52</em></p></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"><p><strong><em>Source</em></strong><em>: Ministry of Justice, Police National Computer (PNC)</em></p></td><td><p><strong><em> </em></strong></p></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><p><em>1. Number of previous convictions are counts of the number of separate occasions an offender has previously been convicted of burglary.</em></p></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><p><em>2. All data have been taken from the MoJ extract of the Police National Computer. This includes details of all convictions, cautions, reprimands or warnings given for recordable offences (see www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2000/1139/schedule/made for definition). It is therefore possible that some offenders presented in the table above have previously also received convictions for offences not recorded on the PNC.</em></p></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><p><em>3. An offender may have had previous convictions for which they received an immediate custodial sentence</em></p></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"><p><em>* One of the two offenders in 2010 is also the relevant offender</em></p><p><em> in 2011 and 2013.</em></p></td><td><p><em> </em></p></td></tr></tbody></table> answering member constituency Hemel Hempstead answering member printed Mike Penning question first answered 28/10/2014 14:16:43 answering member 1528 label Biography information for Sir Mike Penning
tabling member	1565 label Biography information for Sir Philip Davies

91194

registered interest
date	09/09/2014
answering body	Ministry of Justice
answering dept id	54
answering dept short name	Justice
answering dept sort name	Justice
hansard heading	Drugs: Misuse
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 convicted of a single offence of possession of class C drugs received (a) a discharge, (b) a fine, (c) a community order, (d) a suspended prison sentence and (e) an immediate prison sentence in the most recent year for which figures are available.
tabling member constituency	Shipley
tabling member printed	Philip Davies
uin	208715
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 14/10/2014 answer text <p>Drug offending is serious in itself and drug abuse also underlies a huge volume of acquisitive and violent crime which can blight communities. The independent Sentencing Council issued a sentencing guideline on drug offences, effective from February 2012, which brought sentencing guidance together for the first time to help to ensure consistent and proportionate sentencing for all drug offences that come before courts.</p><p> </p><p>Simple cautions are a non-statutory disposal available to the police to dispose of any offence committed by an adult and designed for dealing with low level, mainly first time offending.</p><p> </p><p>The Ministry of Justice issues guidance on the process to be followed by the police when they are administering simple cautions for adult offenders. The latest guidance, issued in November 2013 following the Simple Cautions Review, states that the use of a simple caution for possession of class A drugs should only be given in exceptional cases following authorisation by a senior police officer. These will be cases where there were exceptional circumstances which would mean that it was not in the public interest to prosecute.</p><p> </p><p>The Government is legislating in the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill to place statutory restrictions on the use of cautions for certain serious offences.</p><p> </p><p>The number and proportion of offenders that were sentenced at all courts of a single offence of possession for class A, B and C drugs by sentence outcome in 2013, England and Wales can be viewed in the table below.</p><p> </p><p>The number of people cautioned for possession of class A, class B and class C drugs, in England and Wales, from 2009 to 2013 (latest data available) is accessible through the Ministry of Justice website and can be viewed through the following link:</p><p><a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/311319/8-outcomes-by-offence.xls" target="_blank">https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/311319/8-outcomes-by-offence.xls</a>. Under the heading “Drug Offences” there are links to tables containing information relation to possession of class A, class B and class C drugs, including the number of cautions, from 2009-2013.</p><p> </p> answering member constituency Hemel Hempstead answering member printed Mike Penning grouped question UIN 208577 208710 208720 question first answered 14/10/2014 13:44:22 answering member 1528 label Biography information for Sir Mike Penning attachment 1 file name 208577, 208720, 208715, 208710 table.xls title Number of offenders sentenced
tabling member	1565 label Biography information for Sir Philip Davies

91195

registered interest
date	09/09/2014
answering body	Ministry of Justice
answering dept id	54
answering dept short name	Justice
answering dept sort name	Justice
hansard heading	Fines: Surcharges
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how much in victim surcharge has been (a) imposed and (b) collected in cases involving Crown Court sentences of imprisonment since 1 October 2012.
tabling member constituency	Shipley
tabling member printed	Philip Davies
uin	208712
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 13/10/2014 answer text <p>It is not possible to identify the amounts of victim surcharge imposed and collected which just relates to impositions made in the Crown Court or in relation to custodial sentences. This information could only be provided a disproportionate cost by carrying out a manual check of all financial impositions.</p> answering member constituency Hemel Hempstead answering member printed Mike Penning grouped question UIN 208705 question first answered 13/10/2014 15:05:24 answering member 1528 label Biography information for Sir Mike Penning
tabling member	1565 label Biography information for Sir Philip Davies