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

1137373

registered interest
date	08/07/2019
answering body	Ministry of Justice
answering dept id	54
answering dept short name	Justice
answering dept sort name	Justice
hansard heading	Alternatives to Prosecution
house id	2
legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
question text	To ask Her Majesty's Government why they introduced community resolution orders as informal punishments for low-level offences in 2014; who was responsible for their introduction; and whether their use was approved by the Home Secretary.
tabling member printed	Baroness Gould of Potternewton
uin	HL16980
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 22/07/2019 answer text <p>Out of Court Disposals (OOCDs) allow police to deal quickly and proportionately with low-level offending without recourse to the courts. One type of OOCD is community resolution. This is a non-statutory disposal that can be administered by police forces when the offender accepts responsibility for the offence, and in most cases, where the victim has agreed that they do not want more formal action taken.</p><p> </p><p>‘Community resolution’ is a nationally recognised term for a disposal which has been in use by police for some years, and prior to 2014. In 2014, following consultation, the Ministry of Justice identified support for community resolution as part of a simplified framework for OOCDs in which all disposals had conditions attached.</p><p> </p><p>The College of Policing hold guidance on the use of community resolutions:</p><p>http://library.college.police.uk/docs/appref/Community-Resolutions-Incorporating-RJ-Final-Aug-2012-2.pdf (this was also summarised as part of a quick reference guide published by Ministry of Justice in 2013: https://www.yjlc.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/MoJ-Quick-reference-guides-out-of-court-disposals-2013.pdf).</p><p> </p><p>Individual decisions around the appropriateness of issuing an OOCD are an operational matter for police.</p><p> </p><p>Typically, a Constable, Police Community Support Officer or Police Staff Investigator can decide to issue a community resolution, in accordance with Authorised Professional Practice, gravity matrices and local force policies which inform decision making.</p><p> </p><p>Police and partners have a range of measures in place to ensure appropriate use of Out of Court Disposals. Supervisors are expected to check decision-making of their staff regularly. Out of Court Disposal scrutiny panels are also in place with external representation - these review in detail a selection of cases to determine whether the method of disposal is considered appropriate, based on a review of the information/evidence available to the decision maker at the time.</p><p> </p><p>Government works closely with the National Police Chief’s Council (NPCC) whose Charging and Out of Court Disposals strategy (2017-2021) sets out their position and support for forces around OOCDs. We publish data and pay attention to trends in the use of Out of Court Disposals on an ongoing basis.</p> answering member printed Lord Keen of Elie grouped question UIN HL16981 HL16982 question first answered 22/07/2019 16:15:38 answering member 4538 label Biography information for Lord Keen of Elie
tabling member	3573 label Biography information for Baroness Gould of Potternewton

1137374

registered interest
date	08/07/2019
answering body	Ministry of Justice
answering dept id	54
answering dept short name	Justice
answering dept sort name	Justice
hansard heading	Alternatives to Prosecution
house id	2
legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
question text	To ask Her Majesty's Government what guidance they provide to police forces in England and Wales on the criteria for determining whether a person should be subject to a community resolution order rather than an alternative punishment; and who determines whether or not to use a community resolution order.
tabling member printed	Baroness Gould of Potternewton
uin	HL16981
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 22/07/2019 answer text <p>Out of Court Disposals (OOCDs) allow police to deal quickly and proportionately with low-level offending without recourse to the courts. One type of OOCD is community resolution. This is a non-statutory disposal that can be administered by police forces when the offender accepts responsibility for the offence, and in most cases, where the victim has agreed that they do not want more formal action taken.</p><p> </p><p>‘Community resolution’ is a nationally recognised term for a disposal which has been in use by police for some years, and prior to 2014. In 2014, following consultation, the Ministry of Justice identified support for community resolution as part of a simplified framework for OOCDs in which all disposals had conditions attached.</p><p> </p><p>The College of Policing hold guidance on the use of community resolutions:</p><p>http://library.college.police.uk/docs/appref/Community-Resolutions-Incorporating-RJ-Final-Aug-2012-2.pdf (this was also summarised as part of a quick reference guide published by Ministry of Justice in 2013: https://www.yjlc.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/MoJ-Quick-reference-guides-out-of-court-disposals-2013.pdf).</p><p> </p><p>Individual decisions around the appropriateness of issuing an OOCD are an operational matter for police.</p><p> </p><p>Typically, a Constable, Police Community Support Officer or Police Staff Investigator can decide to issue a community resolution, in accordance with Authorised Professional Practice, gravity matrices and local force policies which inform decision making.</p><p> </p><p>Police and partners have a range of measures in place to ensure appropriate use of Out of Court Disposals. Supervisors are expected to check decision-making of their staff regularly. Out of Court Disposal scrutiny panels are also in place with external representation - these review in detail a selection of cases to determine whether the method of disposal is considered appropriate, based on a review of the information/evidence available to the decision maker at the time.</p><p> </p><p>Government works closely with the National Police Chief’s Council (NPCC) whose Charging and Out of Court Disposals strategy (2017-2021) sets out their position and support for forces around OOCDs. We publish data and pay attention to trends in the use of Out of Court Disposals on an ongoing basis.</p> answering member printed Lord Keen of Elie grouped question UIN HL16980 HL16982 question first answered 22/07/2019 16:15:38 answering member 4538 label Biography information for Lord Keen of Elie
tabling member	3573 label Biography information for Baroness Gould of Potternewton

1137375

registered interest
date	08/07/2019
answering body	Ministry of Justice
answering dept id	54
answering dept short name	Justice
answering dept sort name	Justice
hansard heading	Alternatives to Prosecution
house id	2
legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
question text	To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of reports that community resolution orders are being used for more serious offences than originally intended; and what plans they have to prevent such orders being used for anything other than low-level crimes.
tabling member printed	Baroness Gould of Potternewton
uin	HL16982
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 22/07/2019 answer text <p>Out of Court Disposals (OOCDs) allow police to deal quickly and proportionately with low-level offending without recourse to the courts. One type of OOCD is community resolution. This is a non-statutory disposal that can be administered by police forces when the offender accepts responsibility for the offence, and in most cases, where the victim has agreed that they do not want more formal action taken.</p><p> </p><p>‘Community resolution’ is a nationally recognised term for a disposal which has been in use by police for some years, and prior to 2014. In 2014, following consultation, the Ministry of Justice identified support for community resolution as part of a simplified framework for OOCDs in which all disposals had conditions attached.</p><p> </p><p>The College of Policing hold guidance on the use of community resolutions:</p><p>http://library.college.police.uk/docs/appref/Community-Resolutions-Incorporating-RJ-Final-Aug-2012-2.pdf (this was also summarised as part of a quick reference guide published by Ministry of Justice in 2013: https://www.yjlc.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/MoJ-Quick-reference-guides-out-of-court-disposals-2013.pdf).</p><p> </p><p>Individual decisions around the appropriateness of issuing an OOCD are an operational matter for police.</p><p> </p><p>Typically, a Constable, Police Community Support Officer or Police Staff Investigator can decide to issue a community resolution, in accordance with Authorised Professional Practice, gravity matrices and local force policies which inform decision making.</p><p> </p><p>Police and partners have a range of measures in place to ensure appropriate use of Out of Court Disposals. Supervisors are expected to check decision-making of their staff regularly. Out of Court Disposal scrutiny panels are also in place with external representation - these review in detail a selection of cases to determine whether the method of disposal is considered appropriate, based on a review of the information/evidence available to the decision maker at the time.</p><p> </p><p>Government works closely with the National Police Chief’s Council (NPCC) whose Charging and Out of Court Disposals strategy (2017-2021) sets out their position and support for forces around OOCDs. We publish data and pay attention to trends in the use of Out of Court Disposals on an ongoing basis.</p> answering member printed Lord Keen of Elie grouped question UIN HL16980 HL16981 question first answered 22/07/2019 16:15:38 answering member 4538 label Biography information for Lord Keen of Elie
tabling member	3573 label Biography information for Baroness Gould of Potternewton

1137549

registered interest
date	08/07/2019
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 the target waiting time is for benefit tribunals; and what the timeframe is for that target to be met.
tabling member constituency	North Tyneside
tabling member printed	Mary Glindon
uin	274534
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 17/07/2019 answer text <p>The Ministry of Justice has not set a target waiting time for benefit appeals to be heard in the Social Security and Child Support (SSCS) jurisdiction. This is because waiting times fluctuate geographically owing to a number of factors including venue capacity, the volumes of benefit decisions made locally, the complexity of the case and the availability of panel members. Furthermore, the listing of appeals, including consideration of whether a hearing should be expedited, is a function of the Tribunal’s judiciary. There are also no targets for staffing levels for medical members, disability qualified members or judges in the SSCS jurisdiction. Levels are set based on forecast receipts to the SSCS jurisdiction, outstanding workload, and venue capacity.</p><p> </p><p>HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HCMTS) is taking positive steps to reduce the waiting time for appeals to be heard in the SSCS jurisdiction. 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 100 salaried judges and 170 fee-paid judges being recruited across tribunals more widely. In addition, HMCTS is developing a new digital system with a view to enabling speedier processing of appeals and a better service for all parties to the proceedings. Case-management “triage” sessions are also being conducted, with the aim of reducing the number of cases that need to progress to an oral hearing.</p> answering member constituency Blackpool North and Cleveleys answering member printed Paul Maynard grouped question UIN 274535 question first answered 17/07/2019 17:10:49 answering member 3926 label Biography information for Paul Maynard
tabling member	4126 label Biography information for Mary Glindon

1136198

registered interest
date	02/07/2019
answering body	Ministry of Justice
answering dept id	54
answering dept short name	Justice
answering dept sort name	Justice
hansard heading	Courts
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many sitting days in courts were presided over by a recorder in (a) England, (b) Greater London and (c) Greater Manchester in (i) each of the last three financial years and (ii) the 2019-20 financial year.
tabling member constituency	Bolton South East
tabling member printed	Yasmin Qureshi
uin	272170
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 02/08/2019 answer text <p>The number of sittings days sat by recorders in the last three financial years in the requested locations are set out in the table below. These figures cover sitting days by recorders in County, Family and Crown Courts.</p><table><tbody><tr><td><p> </p></td><td><p>1 April 2016 to 31 March 2017</p></td><td><p>1 April 2017 to 31 March 2018</p></td><td><p>1 April 2018 to 31 December 2018<sup>1</sup></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>England</p></td><td><p>30,769</p></td><td><p>30,459</p></td><td><p>16,801</p></td><td><p> </p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Greater London</p></td><td><p>9,578</p></td><td><p>8,907</p></td><td><p>4,566</p></td><td><p> </p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Greater Manchester</p></td><td><p>1,522</p></td><td><p>1,720</p></td><td><p>907</p></td><td><p> </p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p><sup>1 </sup>Note these figures are only for nine months as opposed to the twelve months in the columns for 2016/17 and 2017/18. This is because the latest published data only runs to December 2018 and under the Code of Practice for Official Statistics we cannot provide any more recent data until that data (covering 2019) has been published. The data for 2019 will be published in June 2020.</p><p> </p><p>The latest published data is available here. <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/civil-justice-statistics-quarterly-january-to-march-2019" target="_blank">https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/civil-justice-statistics-quarterly-january-to-march-2019</a>. It is part of the Royal Courts of Justice Annual Tables (which contain at Table 5.2 a breakdown of sitting days by type of work and level of judge)</p><p> </p><p>The data source for these figures are a number of operational systems and as such are liable to change and may not reflect previously published statistics.</p><p> </p><p>Last year Crown Court trial waiting times were at their lowest since 2014, with this year’s allocation of sitting days reflecting this.</p> answering member constituency Charnwood answering member printed Edward Argar question first answered 02/08/2019 14:31:06 answering member 4362 label Biography information for Edward Argar
tabling member	3924 label Biography information for Yasmin Qureshi

1133904

registered interest
date	21/06/2019
answering body	Ministry of Justice
answering dept id	54
answering dept short name	Justice
answering dept sort name	Justice
hansard heading	Terrorism: Manchester Arena
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether businesses that have been adversely affected by the Manchester bombing of 22 May 2017 are entitled to support through the victim's compensation scheme.
tabling member constituency	Salford and Eccles
tabling member printed	Rebecca Long Bailey
uin	267752
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 29/07/2019 answer text <p>The purpose of the statutory Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme is to make compensatory awards to individual persons who have sustained a serious physical and/or mental injury as a direct result of a violent crime, and to family members of those killed. Businesses impacted by the Manchester Bombing of 22 May 2017 do not fall under the ambit of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2012.</p><p> </p><p>Crimes of violence for the purposes of the Scheme include physical and sexual assault, acts of a violent nature that cause physical injury, and threats against a person causing fear of immediate violence (in circumstances which would cause a person of reasonable firmness to be put in such fear).</p><p> </p><p>The Scheme provides for awards based upon a tariff of serious physical and mental injuries. Only injuries which are listed on the tariff can be compensated.</p> answering member constituency Charnwood answering member printed Edward Argar question first answered 29/07/2019 15:25:36 answering member 4362 label Biography information for Edward Argar
tabling member	4396 label Biography information for Rebecca Long Bailey

1133622

registered interest
date	20/06/2019
answering body	Ministry of Justice
answering dept id	54
answering dept short name	Justice
answering dept sort name	Justice
hansard heading	Youth Custody
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made the potential merits of requiring young people entering the secure system to undertake an individual assessment to ensure that (a) vulnerabilities and (b) trigger points are (i) identified and (ii) regularly reviewed in an individual care plan.
tabling member constituency	Newcastle-under-Lyme
tabling member printed	Paul Farrelly
uin	267214
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 29/07/2019 answer text <p>Professionals undertake a number of assessments on Children and Young People (CYP) when they enter the Youth Secure Estate in order to identify and review any vulnerabilities they have.</p><p> </p><p>The Comprehensive Health Assessment Tool (CHAT) provides screening and assessment for all CYP across the youth justice system, allowing for early identification of needs and requirements to support their care. An initial assessment is made before the first night in custody to assess any immediate needs or requirements, with a wide range of vulnerabilities and triggers screened for. This is followed by further physical and mental health assessments.</p><p> </p><p>In addition, the Youth Custody Service use information provided by the Youth Offending Team to determine suitability for a particular placement into either a Secure Children’s Home, a Secure Training Centre or a Young Offender Institution. When making this determination a wide range of factors are considered, including, but not limited to, risk of harm to self and others, welfare, and medical history, including mental health.</p><p> </p><p>As well as this we are working closely with the NHS on ‘Secure Stairs’, an integrated approach to strengthen the provision of health care to address the needs of young people holistically and co-ordinates services through a coherent, joined up approach. This will ensure CYP receive a full needs assessment and a tailored care and support plan.</p> answering member constituency Charnwood answering member printed Edward Argar question first answered 29/07/2019 15:24:41 answering member 4362 label Biography information for Edward Argar
tabling member	1436 label Biography information for Paul Farrelly