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

1038535

	registered interest
	date	09/01/2019
	answering body	Attorney General
	answering dept id	88
	answering dept short name	Attorney General
	answering dept sort name	Attorney General
	hansard heading	Brexit
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Attorney General, if he will provide a written statement to the House on the legal implications of any potential changes the Government may negotiate to the Withdrawal Agreement with the EU in relation to the sovereignty of decision-making by Parliament on the Northern Irish backstop.
	tabling member constituency	Birkenhead
	tabling member printed	Frank Field
	uin	206758
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 14/01/2019 answer text <p>The Government understands the legitimate desire of Parliament to understand the legal implications of the Withdrawal Agreement. I have today written to the Prime Minister about an exchange of letters between the Prime Minister and the Presidents of the European Council and the European Commission. Given the exceptional circumstances surrounding the vote on the Withdrawal Agreement and the Government's commitment to provide Parliament with information to assist it to understand the Agreement, I have agreed that this letter should be published</p><p>It is available online <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/letter-from-the-attorney-general-to-the-prime-minister-on-the-northern-ireland-protocol" target="_blank">here</a> and copies have been deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.</p><p> </p><p> </p> answering member constituency Torridge and West Devon answering member printed Mr Geoffrey Cox question first answered 14/01/2019 17:37:33 answering member 1508 label Biography information for Sir Geoffrey Cox
	tabling member	478 label Biography information for Lord Field of Birkenhead

1046116

	registered interest
	date	23/01/2019
	answering body	Attorney General
	answering dept id	88
	answering dept short name	Attorney General
	answering dept sort name	Attorney General
	hansard heading	Prosecutions
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Attorney General, what discussions he has had with the Director of Public Prosecutions on the potential effect of the UK leaving the EU on the effective prosecution of criminals.
	tabling member constituency	Slough
	tabling member printed	Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi
	uin	211357
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 28/01/2019 answer text <p>The United Kingdom and the European Union have agreed the outline terms of a comprehensive future security relationship including law enforcement, criminal justice, and judicial cooperation.</p><p>I have regular meetings and briefings with the Director of Public Prosecutions and senior officials of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). A significant amount of planning for EU Exit has taken place and the CPS is making preparations for both for the implementation period or for an exit without a deal.</p> answering member constituency Torridge and West Devon answering member printed Mr Geoffrey Cox question first answered 28/01/2019 14:47:55 answering member 1508 label Biography information for Sir Geoffrey Cox
	tabling member	4638 label Biography information for Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi

939882

	registered interest
	date	12/07/2018
	answering body	Attorney General
	answering dept id	88
	answering dept short name	Attorney General
	answering dept sort name	Attorney General
	hansard heading	Magistrates' Courts: Convictions
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Attorney General, with reference to tables three and seven of the Crown Prosecution Service Annual Report 2016-17, what the reasons are for conviction rates in Magistrates Courts being higher than those in Crown Court; and what assessment his Department has made of the reasons for defendants having a 25 per cent greater chance of acquittal at a Crown Court than at a Magistrates Court.
	tabling member constituency	Scunthorpe
	tabling member printed	Nic Dakin
	uin	163550
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 25/07/2018 answer text <p>The latest annual report and accounts are now available on the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) Website. The table below shows that, during each of the last four most recently available years, conviction rates have remained stable in both magistrates’ courts and at the Crown Court.</p><table><tbody><tr><td><p><strong>2014-2015</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2015-2016</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2016-2017</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2017-2018</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Magistrates' Courts Conviction Rate</p></td><td><p>84.2%</p></td><td><p>83.8%</p></td><td><p>84.8%</p></td><td><p>84.8%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Crown Court Conviction Rate</p></td><td><p>79.4%</p></td><td><p>79.2%</p></td><td><p>78.9%</p></td><td><p>79.9%</p></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"><p>Data Source: CPS Management Information System</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p>Cases prosecuted at magistrates’ courts tend to comprise minor or less serious offences with a greater proportion of defendants pleading guilty (78.0% during 2017-18, compared to 70.9% at the Crown Court). By way of example, motoring cases comprise over 21% of cases in the magistrates’ courts but only 2% in the Crown Court.</p><p>In contrast, a greater proportion of cases triable on indictment at the Crown Court are serious and complex in nature, and defendants are more likely to plead not guilty. During the most recent year, 16.8% of prosecutions at the Crown Court resulted in a trial, with a conviction after contest rate of 54.0%, compared to 9.1% of magistrates’ courts prosecutions and a conviction after contest rate of 62.1%.</p> answering member constituency Torridge and West Devon answering member printed Mr Geoffrey Cox question first answered 25/07/2018 08:18:50 answering member 1508 label Biography information for Sir Geoffrey Cox
	tabling member	4056 label Biography information for Nic Dakin

942982

	registered interest
	date	17/07/2018
	answering body	Attorney General
	answering dept id	88
	answering dept short name	Attorney General
	answering dept sort name	Attorney General
	hansard heading	National Fund
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Attorney General, if he will seek the release of money from the National Fund in order to set up a fund for good causes.
	tabling member constituency	Croydon North
	tabling member printed	Mr Steve Reed
	uin	165032
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 23/07/2018 answer text <p>The National Fund was created in 1928 with the purpose of paying off the entire national debt. At present the fund cannot be used unless it completely clears the national debt, due to the terms of the fund’s charitable trust.</p><p>On 22 May 2018 my predecessor made an application to the High Court to vary the terms of the charitable trust so that the National Fund can be used to help pay down the national debt.</p><p>It is now for the High Court to decide whether the terms of the charitable trust should be varied. If the application is successful the money in the fund will be paid over to the National Debt Commissioners towards the reduction of the national debt.</p><p>I consider that applying the fund in reduction of the national debt is the correct approach. This approach maintains the original charitable purpose of the national fund, namely the reduction of the national debt and it honours the original intention of the donors as a result of whose generosity the fund exists.</p><p>We await a hearing date from the High Court.</p> answering member constituency Torridge and West Devon answering member printed Mr Geoffrey Cox grouped question UIN 165033 question first answered 23/07/2018 09:29:57 answering member 1508 label Biography information for Sir Geoffrey Cox
	tabling member	4268 label Biography information for Steve Reed

942984

	registered interest
	date	17/07/2018
	answering body	Attorney General
	answering dept id	88
	answering dept short name	Attorney General
	answering dept sort name	Attorney General
	hansard heading	National Fund
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Attorney General, what progress he has made in his application to the High Court to release the money held by the National Fund.
	tabling member constituency	Croydon North
	tabling member printed	Mr Steve Reed
	uin	165033
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 23/07/2018 answer text <p>The National Fund was created in 1928 with the purpose of paying off the entire national debt. At present the fund cannot be used unless it completely clears the national debt, due to the terms of the fund’s charitable trust.</p><p>On 22 May 2018 my predecessor made an application to the High Court to vary the terms of the charitable trust so that the National Fund can be used to help pay down the national debt.</p><p>It is now for the High Court to decide whether the terms of the charitable trust should be varied. If the application is successful the money in the fund will be paid over to the National Debt Commissioners towards the reduction of the national debt.</p><p>I consider that applying the fund in reduction of the national debt is the correct approach. This approach maintains the original charitable purpose of the national fund, namely the reduction of the national debt and it honours the original intention of the donors as a result of whose generosity the fund exists.</p><p>We await a hearing date from the High Court.</p> answering member constituency Torridge and West Devon answering member printed Mr Geoffrey Cox grouped question UIN 165032 question first answered 23/07/2018 09:29:57 answering member 1508 label Biography information for Sir Geoffrey Cox
	tabling member	4268 label Biography information for Steve Reed

947496

	registered interest
	date	24/07/2018
	answering body	Attorney General
	answering dept id	88
	answering dept short name	Attorney General
	answering dept sort name	Attorney General
	hansard heading	Jon Venables and Robert Thompson
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Attorney General, with reference to the injunction granted by the Family Division of 22 June 2001 in respect of Jon Venables and Robert Thompson, what applications to vary that decision have been made and on behalf of whom; how such applications were funded; and what grounds were given in support of each such application.
	tabling member constituency	Knowsley
	tabling member printed	Mr George Howarth
	uin	167865
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 14/09/2018 answer text <p>In 2010, Jon Venables was arrested and charged, under his new identity, with offences relating to the viewing of child pornography. On 21 June 2010, in the context of those criminal proceedings, Mr Justice Bean amended the Injunction so as to prohibit the publication of information revealed in proceedings in open court, insofar as such information would be likely to lead to the identification of (a) Venables’ then-current name; (b) the address at which he was living immediately before his recall to prison in February 2010; (c) the location at which he was, at that time, being held in custody; or (d) his then-current appearance.</p><p>Those amendments resulted from an application by Counsel for Jon Venables on the basis that revealing such information would be likely to lead to the identification of Jon Venables. I am unable to say how this application was funded because the variation was sought by a third party</p><p>At a hearing at the Central Criminal Court on 23 July 2010 Mr Justice Bean varied the order, on the application of media organisations, to permit disclosure of the county in which Venables was living before his recall to custody. The purpose of this was to enable identification of the relevant police force and probation service involved in his supervision. I am unable to say how this application was funded because the variation was not sought by this office. At the same time, an application by News Group and Mirror Group Newspapers, who opposed the continued prohibition of the publication of Jon Venables’ new name, was heard and rejected.</p><p>On 31 August 2012, on the application of the Secretary of State for Justice, the High Court amended the terms of the Injunction. This application would have been funded by central government. The amendment was made to ensure it prohibited any publication of a person purporting to be identified or depicted as Venables or Thompson.</p><p>On 7 February 2018, Venables was sentenced to three years and four months’ imprisonment for three offences of making indecent photographs of children and one offence of possession of a paedophile manual. On 7 February, on the application of Jon Venables, Mr Justice Edis amended the Injunction to permit reporting of information heard in public at the hearing, though the amendments were such that the Injunction continues to protect the new identity and appearance of Venables and certain information which might be used to identify him. I am unable to say how this application was funded beause the varation was not sought by this office</p><p>There is an application currently before the Family Court brought by Mr Ralph Stephen Bulger and Mr James Patrick Bulger to vary the Injunction. Various grounds have been provided in support of this application, and it is anticipated these grounds will be finalised in the applicants’ written submissions required to be filed in this case by 23 November 2018. I am unable to say how this application is funded because the variation is not sought by this office.</p> answering member constituency Torridge and West Devon answering member printed Mr Geoffrey Cox question first answered 14/09/2018 08:37:40 answering member 1508 label Biography information for Sir Geoffrey Cox
	tabling member	481 label Biography information for Sir George Howarth

947499

	registered interest
	date	24/07/2018
	answering body	Attorney General
	answering dept id	88
	answering dept short name	Attorney General
	answering dept sort name	Attorney General
	hansard heading	Jon Venables and Robert Thompson
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Attorney General, with reference to the injunction granted by the Family Division of 22 June 2001 in respect of Jon Venables and Robert Thompson, how many allegations for breach of that injunction have been received by his Department; on what dates and on behalf of whom such allegations were received; how communication of such allegations was funded; and what grounds were given in support of each such allegation.
	tabling member constituency	Knowsley
	tabling member printed	Mr George Howarth
	uin	167866
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 14/09/2018 answer text <table><tbody><tr><td><p><strong>Year</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Number of referrals for alleged breaches of the order</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2018</p></td><td><p>25</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2017</p></td><td><p>12</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2016</p></td><td><p>1</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2015</p></td><td><p>1</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2014</p></td><td><p>2</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2013</p></td><td><p>32</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2012</p></td><td><p>0</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2011</p></td><td><p>1</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2010</p></td><td><p>1</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2009-2003</p></td><td><p>0</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2002</p></td><td><p>1</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2001</p></td><td><p>1</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p>Allegations about breaches of the injunction protecting the identities of Jon Venables and Robert Thompson can be received from anybody, including members of the public, employers and law enforcement agencies. We are not aware of how they are funded if they are. Referrals are most often made on the basis that the injunction has been breached by the sharing of prohibited images or information purporting to identify Venables or his whereabouts.</p> answering member constituency Torridge and West Devon answering member printed Mr Geoffrey Cox question first answered 14/09/2018 08:43:37 answering member 1508 label Biography information for Sir Geoffrey Cox
	tabling member	481 label Biography information for Sir George Howarth

947500

	registered interest
	date	24/07/2018
	answering body	Attorney General
	answering dept id	88
	answering dept short name	Attorney General
	answering dept sort name	Attorney General
	hansard heading	Jon Venables and Robert Thompson
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Attorney General, with reference to the injunction granted by the Family Division on 22 June 2001 in respect of Jon Venables and Robert Thompson, what costs were incurred by his and other government departments in respect of matters relating to that injunction, including any amounts paid by way of the fees of any counsel and other disbursements.
	tabling member constituency	Knowsley
	tabling member printed	Mr George Howarth
	uin	167867
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 14/09/2018 answer text <p>This question refers to costs incurred over a considerable period of time. The Government Legal Department (‘GLD’) has carried out a reasonable and proportionate interrogation of its digital records and has ascertained that the following costs have been incurred (all figures given exclude VAT):</p><p>(1) On matters relating to applications to vary the Injunction:</p><ul><li>The Attorney General’s Office (AGO) incurred £16,767.40 on time spent by GLD, plus £19,990.01 on counsel’s fees and other disbursements.</li><li>The Ministry of Justice incurred £432.00 on time spent by GLD on matters relating to the current application to vary the Injunction.</li></ul><p>(2) On matters relating to breaches of the Injunction:</p><ul><li>AGO incurred £33,620.90 on time spent by GLD, plus £30,240.36 on counsel’s fees and other disbursements.</li></ul><p>(3) On matters relating to the application of the Secretary of State for Justice in 2012 to vary the Injunction:</p><ul><li>The Ministry of Justice incurred £2,479.10 on time spent by GLD, plus £8,546.40 on counsel’s fees and other disbursements.</li></ul><p> </p><p>These figures do not include any internal costs incurred by individual government departments in terms of time spent by their officials in matters relating to the Injunction.</p> answering member constituency Torridge and West Devon answering member printed Mr Geoffrey Cox question first answered 14/09/2018 08:45:47 answering member 1508 label Biography information for Sir Geoffrey Cox
	tabling member	481 label Biography information for Sir George Howarth

947502

	registered interest
	date	24/07/2018
	answering body	Attorney General
	answering dept id	88
	answering dept short name	Attorney General
	answering dept sort name	Attorney General
	hansard heading	Jon Venables and Robert Thompson
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Attorney General, with reference to the injunction granted by the Family Division on 22 June 2001 in respect of Jon Venables and Robert Thompson, what data security policies and procedures apply to his and other government departments and all counsel instructed in connection with that injunction, including communicating information by email; and what role his Department's Data Protection Officer and the data protection officers of other government departments play in instructing counsel in regard to data protection.
	tabling member constituency	Knowsley
	tabling member printed	Mr George Howarth
	uin	167868
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 14/09/2018 answer text <p>The Attorney General’s Office and the Government Legal Department are bound by statutory obligations and act in accordance with publicly available policies on the gov.uk website, as well as the Subject Access Code of Practice published by the Information Commissioner’s Office, which is available <a href="https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisations/documents/2259722/subject-access-code-of-practice.pdf" target="_blank">here</a>.</p><p>The Attorney General’s guidelines on information security and government work that are followed by external counsel doing government work are available <a href="https://www.gov.uk/guidance/attorney-generals-guidelines-on-information-security-and-government-work" target="_blank">here</a>.</p><p>Guidance for handling protectively marked material that is followed by external counsel is available <a href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/725211/Handling_of_Protectively_Marked_Material_Guide_for_Counsel_July_2018.pdf" target="_blank">here</a>.</p><p>The Attorney General’s Office also has an internal Office Security Policy which is not published, because it contains very specific security information about the office necessary to protect information and staff which it would not be appropriate to publish.</p><p>External counsel that do government work are data controllers in their own right with all the attendant responsibilities that entails. They are members of a professionally regulated body and formally undertake to maintain the integrity of the data that they handle.</p> answering member constituency Torridge and West Devon answering member printed Mr Geoffrey Cox question first answered 14/09/2018 13:45:45 answering member 1508 label Biography information for Sir Geoffrey Cox
	tabling member	481 label Biography information for Sir George Howarth

964761

	registered interest
	date	03/09/2018
	answering body	Attorney General
	answering dept id	88
	answering dept short name	Attorney General
	answering dept sort name	Attorney General
	hansard heading	Vote Leave
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Attorney General, what discussion he had with First Treasury Counsel in advance of agreeing to act for the Electoral Commission in Vote Leave Ltd's appeal against their recent findings against that organisation; and if he will make a statement.
	tabling member constituency	Bournemouth West
	tabling member printed	Conor Burns
	uin	169266
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 18/09/2018 answer text <p>The Attorney General does not advise the Electoral Commission who are an independent body and will take their own legal advice. The Attorney General is therefore not representing the Electoral Commission in any proceedings and has not held a discussion with First Treasury Counsel on this basis.</p> answering member constituency Torridge and West Devon answering member printed Mr Geoffrey Cox question first answered 18/09/2018 11:03:09 answering member 1508 label Biography information for Sir Geoffrey Cox
	tabling member	3922 label Biography information for Sir Conor Burns