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 question first answered question first ministerially corrected answering member label previous answer version answering member constituency answering member printed answering member label
tabling member	label

Search

100080

	registered interest
	date	21/10/2014
	answering body	Attorney General
	answering dept id	88
	answering dept short name	Attorney General
	answering dept sort name	Attorney General
	hansard heading	Judicial Review
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Attorney General, how many judicial reviews there were involving Government departments according to records held by the (a) Treasury Solicitor and (b) Administrative Court Office in each of the last four years; and how many such reviews were upheld in whole or in part in each such year.
	tabling member constituency	Hammersmith
	tabling member printed	Mr Andy Slaughter
	uin	211271
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 28/10/2014 answer text <p>The Treasury Solicitor’s Department holds records relating only to those cases in which it has acted. The Treasury Solicitor represents most, but not all, government departments in litigation. For example, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs normally conducts its own litigation. According to records held by the Treasury Solicitor, the number of judicial reviews involving government departments in which it has acted in each of the last four years is as follows:</p><p>2010 – 8,566</p><p>2011 – 9,603</p><p>2012 – 10,274</p><p>2013 – 16,449</p><p>Information relating to how many of those reviews were upheld in whole or in part in each year is not held centrally and could not be created without incurring disproportionate cost.</p><p><del class="ministerial">The Administrative Court Office does not collate the information requested centrally and determining the number of reviews and how many such reviews were upheld in whole or in part would incur a disproportionate cost.</del></p><p><ins class="ministerial">The information requested in respect of the Administrative Court Office is published online at <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/267408/additional-court-tables-2012.xls" target="_blank">https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/267408/additional-court-tables-2012.xls</a> . The 2013 data is not currently available.</ins></p> answering member constituency South Swindon answering member printed Mr Robert Buckland question first answered 28/10/2014 15:10:43 question first ministerially corrected 05/01/2015 17:35:17 answering member 4106 label Biography information for Sir Robert Buckland previous answer version 24759 answering member constituency South Swindon answering member printed Mr Robert Buckland answering member 4106 label Biography information for Sir Robert Buckland
	tabling member	1516 label Biography information for Andy Slaughter

387884

	registered interest
	date	06/07/2015
	answering body	Attorney General
	answering dept id	88
	answering dept short name	Attorney General
	answering dept sort name	Attorney General
	hansard heading	Crown Prosecution Service
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Attorney General, if he will review the position of the incumbent Director of Public Prosecutions in view of the recent decision to charge Lord Janner.
	tabling member constituency	Rochdale
	tabling member printed	Simon Danczuk
	uin	5644
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 09/07/2015 answer text <p><ins class="ministerial">Decisions on whether or not to bring criminal charges are taken by prosecutors who are independent from government and independent from Parliament. I am confident of the independence and the integrity of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Alison Saunders, in making the difficult judgements the job of a prosecutor involves.</ins></p><p><ins class="ministerial">The Victims’ Right to Review, which Alison Saunders helped to bring in, allows any victim of crime who is dissatisfied with a decision taken by a prosecutor not to proceed with their case to ask for the decision to be reviewed. This review has operated as it was designed to in the case of Greville Janner.</ins></p><p><ins class="ministerial">We are world leaders in offering that safeguard for victims and since Alison Saunders has been DPP, the CPS has prosecuted and convicted more child sex offenders than ever before.</ins></p><p> </p><p><del class="ministerial">In the year to 31<sup>st </sup>December 2014, the Law Officers personally considered 469 cases and referred 128 offenders to the Court of Appeal under the unduly lenient sentence scheme. Leave was granted by the Court in 95% of cases which included some of the most serious violent and sexual offences, including murder, rape and sexual assault.</del></p><p><br /><del class="ministerial">The Attorney General’s Office publishes statistics for unduly lenient sentences at the end of the calendar year. This is to ensure that the figures are released in a consistent format and are accurate and quality assured. Unduly lenient sentences statistics for 2013 and 2014 are published on the Attorney General’s Office website - <a href="http://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/attorney-generals-office" target="_blank">www.gov.uk/government/organisations/attorney-generals-office</a>. </del></p> answering member constituency Kenilworth and Southam answering member printed Jeremy Wright question first answered 09/07/2015 12:58:22 question first ministerially corrected 09/07/2015 13:24:23 answering member 1560 label Biography information for Sir Jeremy Wright previous answer version 13176 answering member constituency Kenilworth and Southam answering member printed Jeremy Wright answering member 1560 label Biography information for Sir Jeremy Wright
	tabling member	4059 label Biography information for Simon Danczuk

524189

	registered interest
	date	09/06/2016
	answering body	Attorney General
	answering dept id	88
	answering dept short name	Attorney General
	answering dept sort name	Attorney General
	hansard heading	Gurpal Virdi
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Attorney General, how and why the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) joined the Metropolitan Police in announcing that retired police sergeant Gurpal Virdi was charged with misconduct in public office and with indecent assault on a person under 16 years; what publicity the CPS recorded as resulting at the time; when the memorandum of a conviction proved 1 April 1987 for offences on 7 November 1986 of a defendant born on 5 September 1970 with informant or complainant recorded as PC Markwick came to the attention of the CPS; what steps were taken to put right the effect of the wrong statement; when those steps were taken; and what the results of those steps were.
	tabling member constituency	Worthing West
	tabling member printed	Sir Peter Bottomley
	uin	40180
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 14/06/2016 answer text <p>A press release was issued by the Metropolitan Police Service which stated that the complainant was under 16. The CPS was not a party to this release and did not issue any other release. The CPS does not retain records of publicity resulting at the time.</p><p> </p><p>When the case was reviewed in 2014 for charging, the complainant and the witness clearly stated that the complainant had been 15 when the incident took place in 1986.<del class="ministerial"> In addition Mr Virdi also said in interview that the complainant had been 15 at the time of the incident.</del> The police summary stated that the complainant was 15. However the complainant’s date of birth and the date of his arrest were known and this mistake should not have been made.</p><p> </p><p>The CPS was supplied with the memorandum of conviction referred to on 17 September 2014.<del class="ministerial">The indictment was formally amended thereafter.</del></p><p> </p><p>No steps were taken to publicise the fact that the charge was later amended in open court to remove the assertion that the complainant was under 16.</p> answering member constituency Kenilworth and Southam answering member printed Jeremy Wright question first answered 14/06/2016 13:53:54 question first ministerially corrected 24/06/2016 09:44:08 answering member 1560 label Biography information for Sir Jeremy Wright previous answer version 3723 answering member constituency Kenilworth and Southam answering member printed Jeremy Wright answering member 1560 label Biography information for Sir Jeremy Wright
	tabling member	117 label Biography information for Sir Peter Bottomley