Linked Data API

Show Search Form

Search Results

348329
registered interest false more like this
date less than 2015-06-03more like thismore than 2015-06-03
answering body
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs more like this
answering dept id 13 more like this
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 remove filter
uin 1013 more like this
answer
answer
is ministerial correction false more like this
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 less than 2015-06-03more like thismore than 2015-06-03
answering body
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs more like this
answering dept id 13 more like this
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 remove filter
uin 1014 more like this
answer
answer
is ministerial correction false more like this
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 less than 2015-06-03more like thismore than 2015-06-03
answering body
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs more like this
answering dept id 13 more like this
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 remove filter
uin 1037 more like this
answer
answer
is ministerial correction false more like this
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 less than 2015-06-03more like thismore than 2015-06-03
answering body
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs more like this
answering dept id 13 more like this
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 remove filter
uin 1038 more like this
answer
answer
is ministerial correction false more like this
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 less than 2015-06-03more like thismore than 2015-06-03
answering body
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs more like this
answering dept id 13 more like this
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 remove filter
uin 1039 more like this
answer
answer
is ministerial correction false more like this
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