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

1150843

registered interest
date	21/10/2019
answering body	Ministry of Justice
answering dept id	54
answering dept short name	Justice
answering dept sort name	Justice
hansard heading	Legal Representation: Coroners
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps he is taking to ensure greater equality between the amount spent on legal representation by (a) families who are publicly funded and (b) mental health trusts at inquests following the death of a relative in a mental health unit.
tabling member constituency	Worsley and Eccles South
tabling member printed	Barbara Keeley
uin	2731
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 24/10/2019 answer text <p>Legal aid is available for advice and assistance for all inquests, subject to a means and merits test. Inquests follow an inquisitorial process and legal aid support for representation is not typically applicable. Exceptional Case Funding may be available where certain inquests require legal representation. The Government wants to ensure that the bereaved are placed at the heart of the inquisitorial process and is taking forward a number of measures announced in the recent Review of Legal Aid for Inquests to make the inquest process more sympathetic to the needs of bereaved families; the Government also has work underway looking at the prevention of deaths of people who are in the care of the state.</p> answering member constituency Aldridge-Brownhills answering member printed Wendy Morton question first answered 24/10/2019 15:22:26 answering member 4358 label Biography information for Wendy Morton
tabling member	1588 label Biography information for Barbara Keeley

1150692

registered interest
date	18/10/2019
answering body	Ministry of Justice
answering dept id	54
answering dept short name	Justice
answering dept sort name	Justice
hansard heading	Prisoners' Release: Universal Credit
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on arrangements for prisoners to apply for universal credit (a) prior to and (b) no later than their release from custody.
tabling member constituency	East Hampshire
tabling member printed	Mr Damian Hinds
uin	1903
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 28/10/2019 answer text <p>Ministry of Justice and Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) ministers regularly meet, the last time being in July 2019, and will meet again soon. In the July meeting, both departments were keen to progress work to better prepare prisoners for release, including improving access to Universal Credit.</p><p> </p><p>The DWP has piloted a number of changes that will support offenders making claims prior to release. We are working closely with the DWP to take forward the learning from these pilots. One area that the pilots highlighted was the important role that dedicated DWP Prison Work Coaches play in our prison system to ensure access to Universal Credit. We continue to work with DWP to help support these work coaches, and to ensure they have both the right physical environment and information on and access to prisoners required for efficient working.</p><p> </p><p>In July 2019, we published the National Partnership Agreement with the DWP. This sets out how the departments will collaborate to improve access to Universal Credit for prison leavers to ensure they have timely access to financial support on release.</p> answering member constituency South East Cambridgeshire answering member printed Lucy Frazer question first answered 28/10/2019 17:26:32 answering member 4517 label Biography information for Lucy Frazer
tabling member	3969 label Biography information for Damian Hinds

1150362

registered interest
date	17/10/2019
answering body	Ministry of Justice
answering dept id	54
answering dept short name	Justice
answering dept sort name	Justice
hansard heading	Ministry of Justice: Public Expenditure
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to his oral contribution at the Justice Select Committee on 16 October 2019, what the total funding applied for by the Department was in the Spending Round 2019.
tabling member constituency	Leeds East
tabling member printed	Richard Burgon
uin	1747
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 22/10/2019 answer text <p>In our Spending Round 2019 request, the Ministry of Justice sought funding for the department’s key priorities. This included funding to prepare for Brexit, to ensure the effective operation of the courts and tribunals system, to deliver a strong probation service, and to support a prisons system which provides decent and safe accommodation, and reduces reoffending.</p><p> </p><p>The Ministry was successful in securing a 4.9% real term increase in our fiscal resource funding for the next financial year, having agreed a settlement of £8.142bn. In addition to our resource budget we also agreed a capital settlement for 2020-21 of £620m.</p><p> </p><p>We have subsequently agreed additional funding for 2020-21 of £156m to further invest in custodial maintenance. Our revised settlement for 2020-21 is £8.198bn fiscal resource and £720m capital. We are now in the process of setting internal budget allocations to ensure this budget delivers our priorities as effectively as possible.</p> answering member constituency Croydon South answering member printed Chris Philp question first answered 22/10/2019 15:07:25 answering member 4503 label Biography information for Chris Philp
tabling member	4493 label Biography information for Richard Burgon

1150399

registered interest
date	17/10/2019
answering body	Ministry of Justice
answering dept id	54
answering dept short name	Justice
answering dept sort name	Justice
hansard heading	Social Security Benefits: Appeals
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps his Department is taking to (a) reduce the time taken for welfare benefits appeals to be heard by the tribunal service and (b) tackle the backlog of those appeals in (i) Wansbeck constituency and (ii) England.
tabling member constituency	Wansbeck
tabling member printed	Ian Lavery
uin	1671
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 23/10/2019 answer text <p>The Ministry of Justice expects appeal hearings to take place as quickly as possible and is carrying out a series of initiatives to increase capacity which will help reduce waiting times for appellants. For appellants in Wansbeck, whose closest tribunal venue is in Bedlington, if the venue receives a request for an urgent hearing, the appellant may be offered an alternative venue or a telephone hearing, where appropriate. Furthermore, triage sessions have been held on Saturdays at the Newcastle venue. This is where the tribunal panel looks at a series of cases to assess whether a decision can be made prior to the appellant’s oral hearing date or if further evidence is required before a decision can be made. This reduces the risk of a case having to be adjourned on the day of the oral hearing.</p><p> </p><p>Across the Social Security and Child Support (SSCS) jurisdiction more widely, the Department is currently in the process of recruiting more judicial office holders. In 2018, 232 medical members and 118 disability-qualified members were additionally appointed to the SSCS jurisdiction and an extra 129 fee-paid judges have recently been appointed. The SSCS jurisdiction will also benefit from 112 salaried judges and 170 fee-paid judges being recruited across tribunals more widely. In addition, HMCTS are also developing a new digital system with the view to enabling speedier processing of appeals and a better service for all parties to the proceedings.</p> answering member constituency Croydon South answering member printed Chris Philp question first answered 23/10/2019 16:58:32 answering member 4503 label Biography information for Chris Philp
tabling member	4139 label Biography information for Ian Lavery

1150584

registered interest
date	17/10/2019
answering body	Ministry of Justice
answering dept id	54
answering dept short name	Justice
answering dept sort name	Justice
hansard heading	Ministry of Justice: Pay
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether the pay system in his Department has been changed to take account of the Employment Appeal Tribunal ruling on Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council v Mr G Willetts and Others on holiday pay and voluntary overtime; and whether affected workers in his Department have been given back pay as a result of that ruling.
tabling member constituency	Glasgow South West
tabling member printed	Chris Stephens
uin	1733
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 22/10/2019 answer text <p>The Ministry of Justice (HMPPS, HMCTS, CICA, LAA, and OPG) pay system has been updated in response to the tribunal case to meet the requirement for holiday pay and overtime. Affected staff have received arrears backdated to 1 March 2016.</p> answering member constituency Croydon South answering member printed Chris Philp question first answered 22/10/2019 14:52:21 answering member 4503 label Biography information for Chris Philp
tabling member	4463 label Biography information for Chris Stephens

1149864

registered interest
date	16/10/2019
answering body	Ministry of Justice
answering dept id	54
answering dept short name	Justice
answering dept sort name	Justice
hansard heading	Ministry of Justice: Energy Supply
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to the Answer of 2 October 2019 to Question 291004 and to the Answer of 1 October 2019 to Question 290324, if he will introduce the same policy as the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and switch to an electricity provider that supplies electricity solely from renewable resources within the next 12 months; and for what reason his Department has not already ensured its electricity is supplied solely from renewable resources.
tabling member constituency	Scunthorpe
tabling member printed	Nic Dakin
uin	1004
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 21/10/2019 answer text <p>Government departments are mandated to use Crown Commercial Services (CCS) Energy frameworks for the supply of electricity. EDF is the current supplier and the current arrangement lasts until March 2022.</p><p> </p><p>We are exploring with CCS how to increase the percentage of energy sourced from renewables. This includes the feasibility of changing the current percentage mix, the costs of securing matched renewable energy through obtaining Renewable Energy Guarantees of Origination (REGOs), and the timescales for doing so.</p><p> </p><p>To date the Department has prioritised energy efficiency and spend to save investment on its estate. But as part of the MoJ’s commitment to achieve net zero by 2050 or sooner, the Department is exploring options for increased on-site renewable energy generation, and low and no carbon energy supply.</p> answering member constituency Croydon South answering member printed Chris Philp question first answered 21/10/2019 14:46:13 answering member 4503 label Biography information for Chris Philp
tabling member	4056 label Biography information for Nic Dakin

1149966

registered interest
date	16/10/2019
answering body	Ministry of Justice
answering dept id	54
answering dept short name	Justice
answering dept sort name	Justice
hansard heading	Suspended Sentences: Electronic Tagging
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many people serving suspended sentences were made subject to an electronic monitoring condition, broken down by offence; and on how many occasions was that condition breached in each of the last five years.
tabling member constituency	Kettering
tabling member printed	Mr Philip Hollobone
uin	942
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 21/10/2019 answer text <p>Electronic Monitoring (EM), both of curfews and using satellite enabled tags to monitor an individual’s whereabouts, is a vital tool in protecting the public and robustly monitoring offenders in the community. It supports probation staff and the police in managing offenders and defendants safely in the community, delivering the orders of the court and helping to tackle the problems which lead to offending.</p><p>The below table shows the number of suspended sentence orders with an EM requirement by offence type. Data is only available from 2016.</p><p>Summary motoringÈ</p><p>Violence against the personÈNon-compliance of ordersÈFailed Bail condition È</p><p>Failed Bail condition È</p><table><tbody><tr><td><p>Suspended sentence orders with an electronic monitoring requirement by offence type(1)</p></td><td><p>2016/17</p></td><td><p>2017/18</p></td><td><p>2018/19</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Criminal damage and arson</p></td><td><p>241</p></td><td><p>172</p></td><td><p>117</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Drug offences</p></td><td><p>1021</p></td><td><p>906</p></td><td><p>764</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Fraud offences</p></td><td><p>461</p></td><td><p>389</p></td><td><p>284</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Miscellaneous crimes against society</p></td><td><p>1093</p></td><td><p>952</p></td><td><p>664</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Offence not recorded</p></td><td><p>83</p></td><td><p>46</p></td><td><p>23</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Possession of weapons</p></td><td><p>538</p></td><td><p>561</p></td><td><p>656</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Public order offences</p></td><td><p>312</p></td><td><p>295</p></td><td><p>259</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Robbery</p></td><td><p>546</p></td><td><p>579</p></td><td><p>470</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Sexual offences</p></td><td><p>214</p></td><td><p>239</p></td><td><p>183</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Summary motoring</p></td><td><p>1141</p></td><td><p>1045</p></td><td><p>761</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Theft offences</p></td><td><p>1093</p></td><td><p>886</p></td><td><p>495</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Violence against the person</p></td><td><p>2030</p></td><td><p>1647</p></td><td><p>1312</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Non-compliance of orders</p></td><td><p>1064</p></td><td><p>896</p></td><td><p>701</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Failed Bail condition</p></td><td><p>140</p></td><td><p>114</p></td><td><p>61</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Total</p></td><td><p>9977</p></td><td><p>8727</p></td><td><p>6750</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p>The below table shows the number of tagged subjects who failed to comply with their suspended sentence order electronic monitoring requirement at least once. Data on compliance is only available for completed suspended sentence orders.</p><table><tbody><tr><td><p> </p></td><td><p>2016/17(3)</p></td><td><p>2017/18</p></td><td><p>2018/19</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Total completed suspended sentence orders with an electronic monitoring requirement with equip install(2)(3)</p></td><td><p>7421</p></td><td><p>8193</p></td><td><p>6430</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Compliance</p></td><td><p>2585</p></td><td><p>3040</p></td><td><p>2666</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Non-compliance</p></td><td><p>4836</p></td><td><p>5153</p></td><td><p>3764</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p>2016/17(3) 2017/18 2018/19</p><p>Total completed suspended sentence orders with an electronic monitoring requirement with equip install(2)(3) 7421 8193 6430</p><p>Compliance 2585 3040 2666</p><p>Non-compliance 4836 5153 3764</p><p> </p><p>(1) Derived from electronic monitoring new starts files</p><p>(2) Derived from number of completions of orders with equipment on</p><p>(3) Electronic monitoring completions data only available from June 2016 onwards. A person may have more than one completion.</p><p> </p><p>Some orders are for multiple offences, in these cases orders have been assigned to first offence type recorded on the orders.</p><p>Note for reference: Failed bail conditions = not surrendering to bail, and non-compliance of orders = BREACH OF ACTION PLAN ORDER, Breach of Criminal Behaviour Order, Breach of Restraining order, Failure to attend supervision appointments, Failure to comply with Notification Requirements, FAILURE TO NOTIFY OF CHANGE OF CIRCUMSTANCES etc.</p><p>If a subject on tag does not comply with an Electronic Monitoring condition or requirement, for example by being absent during curfew hours or tampering with a tag, an instantaneous alert is generated that is sent to Electronic Monitoring Services (EMS). The appropriate authorities decide, based on the evidence, whether the non-compliance event constitutes a breach and if so what action should be taken. The nature of breaches vary, and not all non-compliance events are classed as formal breaches requiring further action – for example, if the subject was at hospital or in custody at the time, and therefore unable to return to their curfew location in time for their curfew. While the majority of non-compliance events will generate an alert than can lead to a breach there are a range of other circumstances that can lead to breach action being taken.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p> answering member constituency Croydon South answering member printed Chris Philp question first answered 21/10/2019 16:11:12 answering member 4503 label Biography information for Chris Philp
tabling member	1537 label Biography information for Mr Philip Hollobone

1149988

registered interest
date	16/10/2019
answering body	Ministry of Justice
answering dept id	54
answering dept short name	Justice
answering dept sort name	Justice
hansard heading	Offenders: Electronic Tagging
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to the Answer of 20 June 2019 to Question 267275 on Offenders: Electronic Tagging, how many events were classed as formal breaches requiring further action.
tabling member constituency	Kettering
tabling member printed	Mr Philip Hollobone
uin	943
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 21/10/2019 answer text <table><tbody><tr><td><p>Electronic monitoring, both of curfews and using satellite enabled tags to monitor an individual’s whereabouts, is a vital tool in protecting the public and robustly monitoring offenders in the community. It supports probation staff and the police in managing offenders and defendants safely in the community, delivering the orders of the court and helping to tackle the problems which lead to offending. Data that identifies the number of non-compliance events that lead to breach action is not held centrally and could only be identified at a disproportionate cost.</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p> answering member constituency South East Cambridgeshire answering member printed Lucy Frazer question first answered 21/10/2019 16:44:04 answering member 4517 label Biography information for Lucy Frazer
tabling member	1537 label Biography information for Mr Philip Hollobone

1149991

registered interest
date	16/10/2019
answering body	Ministry of Justice
answering dept id	54
answering dept short name	Justice
answering dept sort name	Justice
hansard heading	Reoffenders
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to the Answer of 03 October 2019 to Question 292174 on Re-offenders: Homicide, how many offenders under statutory supervision have been charged with serious further offences, broken down by offence, in each of the last five years.
tabling member constituency	Kettering
tabling member printed	Mr Philip Hollobone
uin	944
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 21/10/2019 answer text <p>The table below sets out the number of offenders under the statutory supervision of the NPS and CRCs who were charged with a serious further offence, broken down by offence in each of the last five years.</p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td><p>SFO offence</p></td><td><p>2014</p></td><td><p>2015</p></td><td><p>2016</p></td><td><p>2017</p></td><td><p>2018</p></td></tr><tr><td><p><em>Arson with intent to endanger life</em></p></td><td><p>15</p></td><td><p>15</p></td><td><p>16</p></td><td><p>20</p></td><td><p>18</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Assault by penetration</p></td><td><p>24</p></td><td><p>30</p></td><td><p>35</p></td><td><p>37</p></td><td><p>15</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Attempt or conspiracy to commit murder</p></td><td><p>46</p></td><td><p>54</p></td><td><p>60</p></td><td><p>85</p></td><td><p>79</p></td></tr><tr><td><p><em>Aggravated Burglary</em></p></td><td><p>24</p></td><td><p>22</p></td><td><p>41</p></td><td><p>57</p></td><td><p>35</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Causing death by dangerous/careless driving/aggravated vehicle taking</p></td><td><p>5</p></td><td><p>7</p></td><td><p>12</p></td><td><p>10</p></td><td><p>16</p></td></tr><tr><td><p><em>False imprisonment</em></p></td><td><p>11</p></td><td><p>10</p></td><td><p>25</p></td><td><p>29</p></td><td><p>17</p></td></tr><tr><td><p><em>Firearms offences including possession with intent</em></p></td><td><p>19</p></td><td><p>18</p></td><td><p>12</p></td><td><p>16</p></td><td><p>17</p></td></tr><tr><td><p><em>Kidnapping</em></p></td><td><p>23</p></td><td><p>15</p></td><td><p>14</p></td><td><p>22</p></td><td><p>28</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Manslaughter</p></td><td><p>8</p></td><td><p>5</p></td><td><p>13</p></td><td><p>16</p></td><td><p>13</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Murder</p></td><td><p>71</p></td><td><p>69</p></td><td><p>86</p></td><td><p>114</p></td><td><p>132</p></td></tr><tr><td><p><em>Offences under the Explosive Substances Act</em></p></td><td><p>0</p></td><td><p>0</p></td><td><p>6</p></td><td><p>4</p></td><td><p>2</p></td></tr><tr><td><p><em>Other offences against the person</em></p></td><td><p>0</p></td><td><p>0</p></td><td><p>0</p></td><td><p>0</p></td><td><p>0</p></td></tr><tr><td><p><em>Other qualifying sexual offences</em></p></td><td><p>26</p></td><td><p>36</p></td><td><p>26</p></td><td><p>38</p></td><td><p>21</p></td></tr><tr><td><p><em>Other serious violent offence</em></p></td><td><p>1</p></td><td><p>1</p></td><td><p>0</p></td><td><p>3</p></td><td><p>3</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Other specified offence causing death</p></td><td><p>1</p></td><td><p>2</p></td><td><p>0</p></td><td><p>0</p></td><td><p>0</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Rape</p></td><td><p>172</p></td><td><p>217</p></td><td><p>245</p></td><td><p>242</p></td><td><p>130</p></td></tr><tr><td><p><em>Robbery with firearm</em></p></td><td><p>8</p></td><td><p>13</p></td><td><p>8</p></td><td><p>15</p></td><td><p>13</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Under 13 sexual offences including rape</p></td><td><p>27</p></td><td><p>34</p></td><td><p>25</p></td><td><p>32</p></td><td><p>23</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Total</p></td><td><p>481</p></td><td><p>548</p></td><td><p>624</p></td><td><p>740</p></td><td><p>562</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><ol><li>Data Sources and Quality. We have drawn these figures from administrative IT systems which, as with some large-scale recording systems, are subject to possible errors with data entry and processing</li><li>The NPS and CRCs are required to complete reviews on any eligible offender who has been charged with (including attempted or conspiracy to commit offences): murder manslaughter, other specified offences causing death, rape or assault by penetration, or a sexual offence against a child under 13 years of age.</li><li>Data provided for offences should in italics are “conditional” reviews completed by the NPS only when an offender has been assessed as high risk of harm during the current sentence.</li><li>Not all SFO notifications result in the completion of a reviews as charges can be reduced or dropped. Not every offender charged with a SFO is convicted.</li><li>The data represents SFO charges and not a unique count of offenders.</li></ol><p> </p><p>You have also asked for what reason the figures on the number of offenders convicted of murder, who at the time they committed the offence were being supervised on a life licence between 2016 and 2018 are different from the figures for offenders released from a life sentence for murder who went on to commit another murder while on life licence in the same period.</p><p> </p><p>The figures in PQ 267272 relate to the number of offenders being supervised on life licence, not restricted to those on life licence for a mandatory life sentence for the offence of murder, charged in the years 2016, 2017 and 2018 and subsequently convicted of murder.</p><p> </p><p>The corresponding figures stated in PQ 292174 are lower because they refer to the number of offenders released in 2016, 2017 and 2018 on life licence following a conviction for murder who have since been convicted of another murder.</p> answering member constituency South East Cambridgeshire answering member printed Lucy Frazer grouped question UIN 945 question first answered 21/10/2019 16:57:06 answering member 4517 label Biography information for Lucy Frazer
tabling member	1537 label Biography information for Mr Philip Hollobone

1150014

registered interest
date	16/10/2019
answering body	Ministry of Justice
answering dept id	54
answering dept short name	Justice
answering dept sort name	Justice
hansard heading	Reoffenders: Homicide
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to the Answer of 3 October to Question 292174 on Re-offenders: Homicide and the Answer of 28 June 2019 to Question 267272 on Homicide, for what reason the figures on the number of offenders convicted of murder, who at the time they committed the offence were being supervised on a life licence between 2016 and 2018 are different from the figures for offenders released from a life sentence for murder who went on to commit another murder while on life licence in the same period.
tabling member constituency	Kettering
tabling member printed	Mr Philip Hollobone
uin	945
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 21/10/2019 answer text <p>The table below sets out the number of offenders under the statutory supervision of the NPS and CRCs who were charged with a serious further offence, broken down by offence in each of the last five years.</p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td><p>SFO offence</p></td><td><p>2014</p></td><td><p>2015</p></td><td><p>2016</p></td><td><p>2017</p></td><td><p>2018</p></td></tr><tr><td><p><em>Arson with intent to endanger life</em></p></td><td><p>15</p></td><td><p>15</p></td><td><p>16</p></td><td><p>20</p></td><td><p>18</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Assault by penetration</p></td><td><p>24</p></td><td><p>30</p></td><td><p>35</p></td><td><p>37</p></td><td><p>15</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Attempt or conspiracy to commit murder</p></td><td><p>46</p></td><td><p>54</p></td><td><p>60</p></td><td><p>85</p></td><td><p>79</p></td></tr><tr><td><p><em>Aggravated Burglary</em></p></td><td><p>24</p></td><td><p>22</p></td><td><p>41</p></td><td><p>57</p></td><td><p>35</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Causing death by dangerous/careless driving/aggravated vehicle taking</p></td><td><p>5</p></td><td><p>7</p></td><td><p>12</p></td><td><p>10</p></td><td><p>16</p></td></tr><tr><td><p><em>False imprisonment</em></p></td><td><p>11</p></td><td><p>10</p></td><td><p>25</p></td><td><p>29</p></td><td><p>17</p></td></tr><tr><td><p><em>Firearms offences including possession with intent</em></p></td><td><p>19</p></td><td><p>18</p></td><td><p>12</p></td><td><p>16</p></td><td><p>17</p></td></tr><tr><td><p><em>Kidnapping</em></p></td><td><p>23</p></td><td><p>15</p></td><td><p>14</p></td><td><p>22</p></td><td><p>28</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Manslaughter</p></td><td><p>8</p></td><td><p>5</p></td><td><p>13</p></td><td><p>16</p></td><td><p>13</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Murder</p></td><td><p>71</p></td><td><p>69</p></td><td><p>86</p></td><td><p>114</p></td><td><p>132</p></td></tr><tr><td><p><em>Offences under the Explosive Substances Act</em></p></td><td><p>0</p></td><td><p>0</p></td><td><p>6</p></td><td><p>4</p></td><td><p>2</p></td></tr><tr><td><p><em>Other offences against the person</em></p></td><td><p>0</p></td><td><p>0</p></td><td><p>0</p></td><td><p>0</p></td><td><p>0</p></td></tr><tr><td><p><em>Other qualifying sexual offences</em></p></td><td><p>26</p></td><td><p>36</p></td><td><p>26</p></td><td><p>38</p></td><td><p>21</p></td></tr><tr><td><p><em>Other serious violent offence</em></p></td><td><p>1</p></td><td><p>1</p></td><td><p>0</p></td><td><p>3</p></td><td><p>3</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Other specified offence causing death</p></td><td><p>1</p></td><td><p>2</p></td><td><p>0</p></td><td><p>0</p></td><td><p>0</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Rape</p></td><td><p>172</p></td><td><p>217</p></td><td><p>245</p></td><td><p>242</p></td><td><p>130</p></td></tr><tr><td><p><em>Robbery with firearm</em></p></td><td><p>8</p></td><td><p>13</p></td><td><p>8</p></td><td><p>15</p></td><td><p>13</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Under 13 sexual offences including rape</p></td><td><p>27</p></td><td><p>34</p></td><td><p>25</p></td><td><p>32</p></td><td><p>23</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Total</p></td><td><p>481</p></td><td><p>548</p></td><td><p>624</p></td><td><p>740</p></td><td><p>562</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><ol><li>Data Sources and Quality. We have drawn these figures from administrative IT systems which, as with some large-scale recording systems, are subject to possible errors with data entry and processing</li><li>The NPS and CRCs are required to complete reviews on any eligible offender who has been charged with (including attempted or conspiracy to commit offences): murder manslaughter, other specified offences causing death, rape or assault by penetration, or a sexual offence against a child under 13 years of age.</li><li>Data provided for offences should in italics are “conditional” reviews completed by the NPS only when an offender has been assessed as high risk of harm during the current sentence.</li><li>Not all SFO notifications result in the completion of a reviews as charges can be reduced or dropped. Not every offender charged with a SFO is convicted.</li><li>The data represents SFO charges and not a unique count of offenders.</li></ol><p> </p><p>You have also asked for what reason the figures on the number of offenders convicted of murder, who at the time they committed the offence were being supervised on a life licence between 2016 and 2018 are different from the figures for offenders released from a life sentence for murder who went on to commit another murder while on life licence in the same period.</p><p> </p><p>The figures in PQ 267272 relate to the number of offenders being supervised on life licence, not restricted to those on life licence for a mandatory life sentence for the offence of murder, charged in the years 2016, 2017 and 2018 and subsequently convicted of murder.</p><p> </p><p>The corresponding figures stated in PQ 292174 are lower because they refer to the number of offenders released in 2016, 2017 and 2018 on life licence following a conviction for murder who have since been convicted of another murder.</p> answering member constituency South East Cambridgeshire answering member printed Lucy Frazer grouped question UIN 944 question first answered 21/10/2019 16:57:06 answering member 4517 label Biography information for Lucy Frazer
tabling member	1537 label Biography information for Mr Philip Hollobone