Linked Data API

Show Search Form

Search Results

348262
registered interest false more like this
date remove maximum value filtermore like thismore than 2015-06-03
answering body
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs more like this
answering dept id 13 remove filter
answering dept short name Environment, Food and Rural Affairs more like this
answering dept sort name Environment, Food and Rural Affairs more like this
hansard heading Pets: Imports 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 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, how many prosecutions were brought forward for (a) the illegal import of pets under the Trade in Animals and Related Products Regulations 2011 and (b) knowingly presenting fraudulent information in relation to the import of pets under the Non-Commercial Movement of Pet Animals Order 2011. more like this
tabling member constituency Tiverton and Honiton more like this
tabling member printed
Neil Parish more like this
uin 981 more like this
answer
answer
is ministerial correction false remove filter
date of answer less than 2015-06-09more like thismore than 2015-06-09
answer text <p>The Non-Commercial Movement of Pet Animals Order 2011 and the Trade in Animals and Related Products Regulation 2011 are enforced by Local Authorities.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>In line with obligations under Section 80 of the Animal Health Act 1981 information is provided by Local Authorities to the Animal and Plant Health Agency on proceedings under this Act. This includes information on the number of prosecutions secured under the Trade in Animals and Related Products Regulations 2011 and the Non-Commercial Movement of Pet Animals Order 2011.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Details of the nature of the offences are not recorded centrally.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>The number of prosecutions is set out in the table below.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Prosecutions for illegally importing pet animals for sale may also be brought under legislation governing consumer protection, the sale of pet animals and the importation of rabies susceptible animals.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td><p><strong>Year</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Trade in Animals and Related Products Regulations 2011</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Non-Commercial Movement of Pet Animals Order 2011</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2011</p></td><td><p>0</p></td><td><p>N/A</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2012</p></td><td><p>0</p></td><td><p>0</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2013</p></td><td><p>1</p></td><td><p>3</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2014</p></td><td><p>0</p></td><td><p>2</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p>
answering member constituency Camborne and Redruth more like this
answering member printed George Eustice more like this
question first answered
less than 2015-06-09T12:58:42.03Zmore like thismore than 2015-06-09T12:58:42.03Z
answering member
3934
label Biography information for George Eustice more like this
tabling member
4072
label Biography information for Neil Parish more like this
348327
registered interest false more like this
date remove maximum value filtermore like thismore than 2015-06-03
answering body
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs more like this
answering dept id 13 remove filter
answering dept short name Environment, Food and Rural Affairs more like this
answering dept sort name Environment, Food and Rural Affairs more like this
hansard heading Dangerous Dogs 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 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, how many people were (a) proceeded against and (b) convicted of offences under section 3(1) of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 in England in a (i) public and (ii) private place between 13 May 2014 and 31 December 2014. more like this
tabling member constituency Penistone and Stocksbridge more like this
tabling member printed
Angela Smith more like this
uin 1010 more like this
answer
answer
is ministerial correction false remove filter
date of answer less than 2015-06-09more like thismore than 2015-06-09
answer text <p>The number of defendants proceeded against at magistrates’ courts and found guilty at all courts of offences under Section 3 and 3(1) of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 can be viewed in Table 1 and Section 2 of the Dogs Act 1871, in England in 2014, can be viewed in Table 2.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Criminal justice statistics for 2015 are planned for publication in spring 2016.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Centrally held data cannot separately identify whether or not an attack took place in a public or a private place. This information may be held in individual court files, which could only be inspected at disproportionate cost.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>With regard to the calendar split, no defendants were proceeded against at magistrates’ courts on the enhanced offences until June 2014; hence data for May has been retained together and a split from June to December presented.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Meanwhile, data reported to the Ministry of Justice, and held on the Court Proceedings Database, pertaining to criminal cases which were concluded at all courts in England and Wales between 20 October 2014 and 31 December 2014 (latest currently available) indicate that none of the Criminal Behaviour Orders (CBOs) issued were as a result of a conviction for a criminal offence specifically relating to dogs under the anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policy Act 2014.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>The Ministry of Justice holds no information centrally on Community Protection Notices or injunctions related to powers under this Act.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p><strong>Table 1</strong></p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td><p><strong>Defendants proceeded against at magistrates courts and found guilty at all courts of offences under selected sections of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, England, 2014 <sup>(1)(2)</sup></strong></p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td><p><strong>Legislation</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Outcome</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>January </strong></p><p><strong>To</strong></p><p><strong>May</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>June</strong></p><p><strong>To</strong></p><p><strong>December</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Total</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Section 3(1) Dangerous Dogs Act 1991</p></td><td><p>Proceeded</p><p>Against</p><p>Found</p><p>Guilty</p></td><td><p>444</p><p> </p><p>325</p></td><td><p>718</p><p> </p><p>553</p></td><td><p>1,163</p><p> </p><p>878</p><p> </p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Section 3 Dangerous Dogs Act 1991</p></td><td><p>Proceeded</p><p>Against</p><p>Found</p><p>Guilty</p></td><td><p><strong>-</strong></p><p> </p><p><strong>-</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>3</strong></p><p> </p><p>2</p></td><td><p>3</p><p> </p><p>2</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>(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.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>(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.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Source: Justice Statistics Analytical Services - Ministry of Justice. Ref: 271-15 PQC 1009 - 1010 &amp; 1013</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p><strong>Table 2</strong></p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td colspan="2"><p><strong>Defendants proceeded against at magistrates courts and found guilty at all courts of offences under the Dogs Act 1871, England, 2014 <sup>(1)(2)</sup></strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>Proceeded against</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Found guilty</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>59</p></td><td><p>10</p></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"><p> </p><p>(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.</p></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"><p> </p><p>(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.</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p> </p><p>Source: Justice Statistics Analytical Services - Ministry of Justice. Ref: 271-15 PQC 101</p>
answering member constituency Camborne and Redruth more like this
answering member printed George Eustice more like this
grouped question UIN
1009 more like this
1012 more like this
1013 more like this
1014 more like this
question first answered
less than 2015-06-09T12:16:55.503Zmore like thisremove minimum value filter
answering member
3934
label Biography information for George Eustice more like this
tabling member
1564
label Biography information for Angela Smith more like this
348328
registered interest false more like this
date remove maximum value filtermore like thismore than 2015-06-03
answering body
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs more like this
answering dept id 13 remove filter
answering dept short name Environment, Food and Rural Affairs more like this
answering dept sort name Environment, Food and Rural Affairs more like this
hansard heading Dangerous Dogs 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 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, how many (a) Community Protection Notices, (b) injunctions and (c) Criminal Behaviour Orders have been served for dog-related offences under the Anti-social Behaviour Crime and Policing Act 2014 since 20 October 2014. more like this
tabling member constituency Penistone and Stocksbridge more like this
tabling member printed
Angela Smith more like this
uin 1012 more like this
answer
answer
is ministerial correction false remove filter
date of answer less than 2015-06-09more like thismore than 2015-06-09
answer text <p>The number of defendants proceeded against at magistrates’ courts and found guilty at all courts of offences under Section 3 and 3(1) of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 can be viewed in Table 1 and Section 2 of the Dogs Act 1871, in England in 2014, can be viewed in Table 2.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Criminal justice statistics for 2015 are planned for publication in spring 2016.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Centrally held data cannot separately identify whether or not an attack took place in a public or a private place. This information may be held in individual court files, which could only be inspected at disproportionate cost.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>With regard to the calendar split, no defendants were proceeded against at magistrates’ courts on the enhanced offences until June 2014; hence data for May has been retained together and a split from June to December presented.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Meanwhile, data reported to the Ministry of Justice, and held on the Court Proceedings Database, pertaining to criminal cases which were concluded at all courts in England and Wales between 20 October 2014 and 31 December 2014 (latest currently available) indicate that none of the Criminal Behaviour Orders (CBOs) issued were as a result of a conviction for a criminal offence specifically relating to dogs under the anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policy Act 2014.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>The Ministry of Justice holds no information centrally on Community Protection Notices or injunctions related to powers under this Act.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p><strong>Table 1</strong></p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td><p><strong>Defendants proceeded against at magistrates courts and found guilty at all courts of offences under selected sections of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, England, 2014 <sup>(1)(2)</sup></strong></p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td><p><strong>Legislation</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Outcome</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>January </strong></p><p><strong>To</strong></p><p><strong>May</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>June</strong></p><p><strong>To</strong></p><p><strong>December</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Total</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Section 3(1) Dangerous Dogs Act 1991</p></td><td><p>Proceeded</p><p>Against</p><p>Found</p><p>Guilty</p></td><td><p>444</p><p> </p><p>325</p></td><td><p>718</p><p> </p><p>553</p></td><td><p>1,163</p><p> </p><p>878</p><p> </p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Section 3 Dangerous Dogs Act 1991</p></td><td><p>Proceeded</p><p>Against</p><p>Found</p><p>Guilty</p></td><td><p><strong>-</strong></p><p> </p><p><strong>-</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>3</strong></p><p> </p><p>2</p></td><td><p>3</p><p> </p><p>2</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>(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.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>(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.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Source: Justice Statistics Analytical Services - Ministry of Justice. Ref: 271-15 PQC 1009 - 1010 &amp; 1013</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p><strong>Table 2</strong></p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td colspan="2"><p><strong>Defendants proceeded against at magistrates courts and found guilty at all courts of offences under the Dogs Act 1871, England, 2014 <sup>(1)(2)</sup></strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>Proceeded against</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Found guilty</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>59</p></td><td><p>10</p></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"><p> </p><p>(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.</p></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"><p> </p><p>(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.</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p> </p><p>Source: Justice Statistics Analytical Services - Ministry of Justice. Ref: 271-15 PQC 101</p>
answering member constituency Camborne and Redruth more like this
answering member printed George Eustice more like this
grouped question UIN
1009 more like this
1010 more like this
1013 more like this
1014 more like this
question first answered
less than 2015-06-09T12:16:55.753Zmore like thismore than 2015-06-09T12:16:55.753Z
answering member
3934
label Biography information for George Eustice more like this
tabling member
1564
label Biography information for Angela Smith more like this
348329
registered interest false more like this
date remove maximum value filtermore like thismore than 2015-06-03
answering body
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs more like this
answering dept id 13 remove filter
answering dept short name Environment, Food and Rural Affairs more like this
answering dept sort name Environment, Food and Rural Affairs more like this
hansard heading Dangerous Dogs 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 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, how many people were (a) proceeded against and (b) convicted of an offence under section 3 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 in England for allowing a dog to attack an assistance dog between 13 May 2014 and 13 May 2015. more like this
tabling member constituency Penistone and Stocksbridge more like this
tabling member printed
Angela Smith more like this
uin 1013 more like this
answer
answer
is ministerial correction false remove filter
date of answer less than 2015-06-09more like thismore than 2015-06-09
answer text <p>The number of defendants proceeded against at magistrates’ courts and found guilty at all courts of offences under Section 3 and 3(1) of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 can be viewed in Table 1 and Section 2 of the Dogs Act 1871, in England in 2014, can be viewed in Table 2.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Criminal justice statistics for 2015 are planned for publication in spring 2016.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Centrally held data cannot separately identify whether or not an attack took place in a public or a private place. This information may be held in individual court files, which could only be inspected at disproportionate cost.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>With regard to the calendar split, no defendants were proceeded against at magistrates’ courts on the enhanced offences until June 2014; hence data for May has been retained together and a split from June to December presented.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Meanwhile, data reported to the Ministry of Justice, and held on the Court Proceedings Database, pertaining to criminal cases which were concluded at all courts in England and Wales between 20 October 2014 and 31 December 2014 (latest currently available) indicate that none of the Criminal Behaviour Orders (CBOs) issued were as a result of a conviction for a criminal offence specifically relating to dogs under the anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policy Act 2014.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>The Ministry of Justice holds no information centrally on Community Protection Notices or injunctions related to powers under this Act.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p><strong>Table 1</strong></p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td><p><strong>Defendants proceeded against at magistrates courts and found guilty at all courts of offences under selected sections of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, England, 2014 <sup>(1)(2)</sup></strong></p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td><p><strong>Legislation</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Outcome</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>January </strong></p><p><strong>To</strong></p><p><strong>May</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>June</strong></p><p><strong>To</strong></p><p><strong>December</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Total</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Section 3(1) Dangerous Dogs Act 1991</p></td><td><p>Proceeded</p><p>Against</p><p>Found</p><p>Guilty</p></td><td><p>444</p><p> </p><p>325</p></td><td><p>718</p><p> </p><p>553</p></td><td><p>1,163</p><p> </p><p>878</p><p> </p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Section 3 Dangerous Dogs Act 1991</p></td><td><p>Proceeded</p><p>Against</p><p>Found</p><p>Guilty</p></td><td><p><strong>-</strong></p><p> </p><p><strong>-</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>3</strong></p><p> </p><p>2</p></td><td><p>3</p><p> </p><p>2</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>(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.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>(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.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Source: Justice Statistics Analytical Services - Ministry of Justice. Ref: 271-15 PQC 1009 - 1010 &amp; 1013</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p><strong>Table 2</strong></p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td colspan="2"><p><strong>Defendants proceeded against at magistrates courts and found guilty at all courts of offences under the Dogs Act 1871, England, 2014 <sup>(1)(2)</sup></strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>Proceeded against</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Found guilty</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>59</p></td><td><p>10</p></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"><p> </p><p>(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.</p></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"><p> </p><p>(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.</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p> </p><p>Source: Justice Statistics Analytical Services - Ministry of Justice. Ref: 271-15 PQC 101</p>
answering member constituency Camborne and Redruth more like this
answering member printed George Eustice more like this
grouped question UIN
1009 more like this
1010 more like this
1012 more like this
1014 more like this
question first answered
less than 2015-06-09T12:16:56.017Zmore like thismore than 2015-06-09T12:16:56.017Z
answering member
3934
label Biography information for George Eustice more like this
tabling member
1564
label Biography information for Angela Smith more like this
348330
registered interest false more like this
date remove maximum value filtermore like thismore than 2015-06-03
answering body
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs more like this
answering dept id 13 remove filter
answering dept short name Environment, Food and Rural Affairs more like this
answering dept sort name Environment, Food and Rural Affairs more like this
hansard heading Dangerous Dogs 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 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, how many people were (a) proceeded against and (b) convicted of an offence under section 2 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1871 in England in 2014. more like this
tabling member constituency Penistone and Stocksbridge more like this
tabling member printed
Angela Smith more like this
uin 1014 more like this
answer
answer
is ministerial correction false remove filter
date of answer less than 2015-06-09more like thismore than 2015-06-09
answer text <p>The number of defendants proceeded against at magistrates’ courts and found guilty at all courts of offences under Section 3 and 3(1) of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 can be viewed in Table 1 and Section 2 of the Dogs Act 1871, in England in 2014, can be viewed in Table 2.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Criminal justice statistics for 2015 are planned for publication in spring 2016.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Centrally held data cannot separately identify whether or not an attack took place in a public or a private place. This information may be held in individual court files, which could only be inspected at disproportionate cost.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>With regard to the calendar split, no defendants were proceeded against at magistrates’ courts on the enhanced offences until June 2014; hence data for May has been retained together and a split from June to December presented.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Meanwhile, data reported to the Ministry of Justice, and held on the Court Proceedings Database, pertaining to criminal cases which were concluded at all courts in England and Wales between 20 October 2014 and 31 December 2014 (latest currently available) indicate that none of the Criminal Behaviour Orders (CBOs) issued were as a result of a conviction for a criminal offence specifically relating to dogs under the anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policy Act 2014.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>The Ministry of Justice holds no information centrally on Community Protection Notices or injunctions related to powers under this Act.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p><strong>Table 1</strong></p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td><p><strong>Defendants proceeded against at magistrates courts and found guilty at all courts of offences under selected sections of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, England, 2014 <sup>(1)(2)</sup></strong></p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td><p><strong>Legislation</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Outcome</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>January </strong></p><p><strong>To</strong></p><p><strong>May</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>June</strong></p><p><strong>To</strong></p><p><strong>December</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Total</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Section 3(1) Dangerous Dogs Act 1991</p></td><td><p>Proceeded</p><p>Against</p><p>Found</p><p>Guilty</p></td><td><p>444</p><p> </p><p>325</p></td><td><p>718</p><p> </p><p>553</p></td><td><p>1,163</p><p> </p><p>878</p><p> </p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Section 3 Dangerous Dogs Act 1991</p></td><td><p>Proceeded</p><p>Against</p><p>Found</p><p>Guilty</p></td><td><p><strong>-</strong></p><p> </p><p><strong>-</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>3</strong></p><p> </p><p>2</p></td><td><p>3</p><p> </p><p>2</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>(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.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>(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.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Source: Justice Statistics Analytical Services - Ministry of Justice. Ref: 271-15 PQC 1009 - 1010 &amp; 1013</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p><strong>Table 2</strong></p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td colspan="2"><p><strong>Defendants proceeded against at magistrates courts and found guilty at all courts of offences under the Dogs Act 1871, England, 2014 <sup>(1)(2)</sup></strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>Proceeded against</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Found guilty</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>59</p></td><td><p>10</p></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"><p> </p><p>(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.</p></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"><p> </p><p>(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.</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p> </p><p>Source: Justice Statistics Analytical Services - Ministry of Justice. Ref: 271-15 PQC 101</p>
answering member constituency Camborne and Redruth more like this
answering member printed George Eustice more like this
grouped question UIN
1009 more like this
1010 more like this
1012 more like this
1013 more like this
question first answered
less than 2015-06-09T12:16:56.323Zmore like thismore than 2015-06-09T12:16:56.323Z
answering member
3934
label Biography information for George Eustice more like this
tabling member
1564
label Biography information for Angela Smith more like this
348342
registered interest false more like this
date remove maximum value filtermore like thismore than 2015-06-03
answering body
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs more like this
answering dept id 13 remove filter
answering dept short name Environment, Food and Rural Affairs more like this
answering dept sort name Environment, Food and Rural Affairs more like this
hansard heading Animal Welfare 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 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, with reference to the statement made by the Minister of State for Farming, Food and the Marine Environment to the Western Morning News on 25 May 2015, what the scientific evidential basis is for the statement that there is not a great deal of difference in practical terms between shooting badgers and shooting other wildlife. more like this
tabling member constituency Penistone and Stocksbridge more like this
tabling member printed
Angela Smith more like this
uin 1037 more like this
answer
answer
is ministerial correction false remove filter
date of answer less than 2015-06-09more like thismore than 2015-06-09
answer text <p>The Chief Veterinary Officer has advised that based on the evidence of two annual culls, his view is that the likelihood of suffering in badgers culled by controlled shooting remains comparable with the range of outcomes reported when other culling activities, currently accepted by society, have been assessed, such as deer shooting.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>A copy of the Chief Veterinary Officer’s advice is available at</p><p> </p><p><a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/bovine-tb-chief-veterinary-officers-advice-on-outcome-of-year-2-of-the-badger-culls" target="_blank">https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/bovine-tb-chief-veterinary-officers-advice-on-outcome-of-year-2-of-the-badger-culls</a></p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p> more like this
answering member constituency Camborne and Redruth more like this
answering member printed George Eustice more like this
question first answered
less than 2015-06-09T12:20:42.047Zmore like thismore than 2015-06-09T12:20:42.047Z
answering member
3934
label Biography information for George Eustice more like this
tabling member
1564
label Biography information for Angela Smith more like this
348343
registered interest false more like this
date remove maximum value filtermore like thismore than 2015-06-03
answering body
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs more like this
answering dept id 13 remove filter
answering dept short name Environment, Food and Rural Affairs more like this
answering dept sort name Environment, Food and Rural Affairs more like this
hansard heading Bovine Tuberculosis: South West 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 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, when she plans to start the third phase of badger cull pilots in Somerset and Gloucestershire. more like this
tabling member constituency Penistone and Stocksbridge more like this
tabling member printed
Angela Smith more like this
uin 1038 more like this
answer
answer
is ministerial correction false remove filter
date of answer less than 2015-06-09more like thismore than 2015-06-09
answer text <p>Start dates have yet to be decided by the two cull companies in Gloucestershire and Somerset.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p> more like this
answering member constituency Camborne and Redruth more like this
answering member printed George Eustice more like this
question first answered
less than 2015-06-09T12:24:22.083Zmore like thismore than 2015-06-09T12:24:22.083Z
answering member
3934
label Biography information for George Eustice more like this
tabling member
1564
label Biography information for Angela Smith more like this
348344
registered interest false more like this
date remove maximum value filtermore like thismore than 2015-06-03
answering body
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs more like this
answering dept id 13 remove filter
answering dept short name Environment, Food and Rural Affairs more like this
answering dept sort name Environment, Food and Rural Affairs more like this
hansard heading Bovine Tuberculosis: South West 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 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what plans she has to extend badger culling to areas outside the pilots in Somerset and Gloucestershire in the next 12 months. more like this
tabling member constituency Penistone and Stocksbridge more like this
tabling member printed
Angela Smith more like this
uin 1039 more like this
answer
answer
is ministerial correction false remove filter
date of answer less than 2015-06-12more like thismore than 2015-06-12
answer text <p>The Government is committed to our strategy to make England free of bovine TB, of which culling badgers in areas where the disease is rife is a key element. Options for how to proceed in extending the policy to other areas are still being considered.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p> more like this
answering member constituency Camborne and Redruth more like this
answering member printed George Eustice more like this
question first answered
less than 2015-06-12T13:25:09.353Zmore like thismore than 2015-06-12T13:25:09.353Z
answering member
3934
label Biography information for George Eustice more like this
tabling member
1564
label Biography information for Angela Smith more like this
348354
registered interest false more like this
date remove maximum value filtermore like thismore than 2015-06-03
answering body
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs more like this
answering dept id 13 remove filter
answering dept short name Environment, Food and Rural Affairs more like this
answering dept sort name Environment, Food and Rural Affairs more like this
hansard heading Animal Welfare: Circuses 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 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, when her Department plans to bring forward legislative proposals on the use of wild animals in circuses. more like this
tabling member constituency Sheffield, Heeley more like this
tabling member printed
Louise Haigh more like this
uin 1053 more like this
answer
answer
is ministerial correction false remove filter
date of answer less than 2015-06-09more like thismore than 2015-06-09
answer text <p>I refer the hon. Member to the reply previously given to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion on 2 June 2015, PQ UIN 416.</p><p> </p><p>The interim licensing scheme for the use of wild animals in travelling circuses in England came into force in January 2013. A preliminary assessment by Defra of the effectiveness of the licensing scheme was undertaken after the first set of annual licences issued had expired. The preliminary review suggested that the Regulations have been effective in establishing a licensing regime that appears to be ensuring compliance with the agreed welfare requirements of the Regulations for wild animals in travelling circuses. A full evaluation of the licensing scheme will be carried out, if required, as part of the statutory five year review.</p><p> </p> more like this
answering member constituency Camborne and Redruth more like this
answering member printed George Eustice more like this
grouped question UIN
1054 more like this
1055 more like this
question first answered
less than 2015-06-09T12:36:56.737Zmore like thismore than 2015-06-09T12:36:56.737Z
answering member
3934
label Biography information for George Eustice more like this
tabling member
4473
label Biography information for Louise Haigh more like this
348355
registered interest false more like this
date remove maximum value filtermore like thismore than 2015-06-03
answering body
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs more like this
answering dept id 13 remove filter
answering dept short name Environment, Food and Rural Affairs more like this
answering dept sort name Environment, Food and Rural Affairs more like this
hansard heading Animal Welfare: Circuses 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 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what steps she is taking to prevent the use of wild animals in circuses. more like this
tabling member constituency Sheffield, Heeley more like this
tabling member printed
Louise Haigh more like this
uin 1054 more like this
answer
answer
is ministerial correction false remove filter
date of answer less than 2015-06-09more like thismore than 2015-06-09
answer text <p>I refer the hon. Member to the reply previously given to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion on 2 June 2015, PQ UIN 416.</p><p> </p><p>The interim licensing scheme for the use of wild animals in travelling circuses in England came into force in January 2013. A preliminary assessment by Defra of the effectiveness of the licensing scheme was undertaken after the first set of annual licences issued had expired. The preliminary review suggested that the Regulations have been effective in establishing a licensing regime that appears to be ensuring compliance with the agreed welfare requirements of the Regulations for wild animals in travelling circuses. A full evaluation of the licensing scheme will be carried out, if required, as part of the statutory five year review.</p><p> </p> more like this
answering member constituency Camborne and Redruth more like this
answering member printed George Eustice more like this
grouped question UIN
1053 more like this
1055 more like this
question first answered
less than 2015-06-09T12:36:56.843Zmore like thismore than 2015-06-09T12:36:56.843Z
answering member
3934
label Biography information for George Eustice more like this
tabling member
4473
label Biography information for Louise Haigh more like this