Linked Data API

Show Search Form

Search Results

147411
unstar this property registered interest false more like this
star this property date less than 2014-11-10more like thismore than 2014-11-10
star this property answering body
Attorney General more like this
star this property answering dept id 88 more like this
star this property answering dept short name Attorney General more like this
star this property answering dept sort name Attorney General more like this
star this property hansard heading Sentencing: Appeals more like this
star this property house id 1 more like this
star this property legislature
25259
unstar this property pref label House of Commons more like this
star this property question text To ask the Attorney General, what the offence committed was in each case in which the sentence was considered to be unduly lenient but not altered by the Court of Appeal in the last five years; and what the reason for not increasing the sentence was in each case. more like this
star this property tabling member constituency Shipley more like this
star this property tabling member printed
Philip Davies more like this
star this property uin 213917 more like this
star this property answer
answer
unstar this property is ministerial correction false more like this
unstar this property date of answer less than 2014-11-19more like thismore than 2014-11-19
star this property answer text <p>The information requested is detailed below.</p><p> </p><p>2010</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td><p>Offence</p></td><td><p>Reason for not altering sentence</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Conspiracy to supply controlled drug of Class B</p></td><td><p>Double jeopardy significant; not in the interests of justice.</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Wounding with intent</p></td><td><p>Substantial lapse of time since the offence was committed; Young age of the offender.</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Conspiracy to traffic persons for the purpose of sexual exploitation</p></td><td><p>Offender’s poor mental health</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Grievous bodily harm with intent</p></td><td><p>Double jeopardy significant; not in the interests of justice.</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Grievous bodily harm with intent</p></td><td><p>Double jeopardy significant; not in the interests of justice</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>2011</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td><p>Offence</p></td><td><p>Reason for not altering sentence</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>robbery</p></td><td><p>Fully complying with the terms of the suspended sentence order - not in the interests of justice.</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Wounding with intent</p></td><td><p>Compassionate grounds; offender's brother had very recently committed suicide.</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Sexual assault</p></td><td><p>Double jeopardy significant; not in the interests of justice</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>2012</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td><p>Offence</p></td><td><p>Reason for not altering sentence</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Cheating the Public Revenue</p></td><td><p>Offender’s poor health</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Grievous bodily harm with intent</p></td><td><p>Compassionate grounds; fully complying with the terms of the suspended sentence order – not in the interests of justice.</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Producing a class B drug; possession with intent to supply a class B drug x 3; possession with intent to supply a class C drug; possession of a class C drug.</p></td><td><p>Fully complying with the terms of the suspended sentence order; exemplary character – not in the interests of justice.</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>2013</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td><p>Offence</p></td><td><p>Reason for not altering sentence</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Burglary</p></td><td><p>Fully complying with the terms of the suspended sentence order – not in the interests of justice.</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Conspiracy to defraud</p></td><td><p>Double jeopardy significant; good progress made during detention in a Young Offenders’ Institute – not in the interests of justice.</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>2014</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td><p>Offence</p></td><td><p>Reason for not altering sentence</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Conspiracy to defraud</p></td><td><p>Double jeopardy significant; offender’s mental health</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Arson</p></td><td><p>Fully complying with the terms of the suspended sentence order; offender in the early stages of pregnancy – not in the interests of justice.</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p>
star this property answering member constituency South Swindon more like this
star this property answering member printed Mr Robert Buckland more like this
star this property question first answered
less than 2014-11-19T12:47:03.07Zmore like thismore than 2014-11-19T12:47:03.07Z
star this property answering member
4106
star this property label Biography information for Robert Buckland more like this
star this property tabling member
1565
unstar this property label Biography information for Philip Davies remove filter
147412
unstar this property registered interest false more like this
star this property date less than 2014-11-10more like thismore than 2014-11-10
star this property answering body
Attorney General more like this
star this property answering dept id 88 more like this
star this property answering dept short name Attorney General more like this
star this property answering dept sort name Attorney General more like this
star this property hansard heading Sentencing: Appeals more like this
star this property house id 1 more like this
star this property legislature
25259
unstar this property pref label House of Commons more like this
star this property question text To ask the Attorney General, what the reason was for not pursuing each case of sentences considered to be unduly lenient but not pursued in the Court of Appeal in the last five years; and what the offence committed in each case was. more like this
star this property tabling member constituency Shipley more like this
star this property tabling member printed
Philip Davies more like this
star this property uin 214032 more like this
star this property answer
answer
unstar this property is ministerial correction false more like this
unstar this property date of answer less than 2014-11-19more like thismore than 2014-11-19
star this property answer text <p>This information is not collated centrally and obtaining it would require my office to manually consider each file over the last 5 years which would involve a disproportionate cost.</p><p> </p> more like this
star this property answering member constituency South Swindon more like this
star this property answering member printed Mr Robert Buckland more like this
star this property question first answered
less than 2014-11-19T10:51:03.55Zmore like thismore than 2014-11-19T10:51:03.55Z
star this property answering member
4106
star this property label Biography information for Robert Buckland more like this
star this property tabling member
1565
unstar this property label Biography information for Philip Davies remove filter
147413
unstar this property registered interest false more like this
star this property date less than 2014-11-10more like thismore than 2014-11-10
star this property answering body
Attorney General more like this
star this property answering dept id 88 more like this
star this property answering dept short name Attorney General more like this
star this property answering dept sort name Attorney General more like this
star this property hansard heading Sentencing: Appeals more like this
star this property house id 1 more like this
star this property legislature
25259
unstar this property pref label House of Commons more like this
star this property question text To ask the Attorney General, what the reason was for withdrawing each case following an application to the Court of Appeal for a review of an unduly lenient sentence in each of the last 10 years; and what the offence committed in each case was. more like this
star this property tabling member constituency Shipley more like this
star this property tabling member printed
Philip Davies more like this
star this property uin 214033 more like this
star this property answer
answer
unstar this property is ministerial correction false more like this
unstar this property date of answer less than 2014-11-19more like thismore than 2014-11-19
star this property answer text <p>The information requested is detailed below.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>2014</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td><p>Offence</p></td><td><p>Reason</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Conspiracy to defraud; converting criminal property; entering into an arrangement to facilitate the acquisition of criminal property.</p></td><td><p>Offender fully complying with the terms of the suspended sentence order. Not in the public interest to proceed.</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Attempted arson</p></td><td><p>Offender deported before ULS hearing</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Attempted robbery; possessing a prohibited firearm</p></td><td><p>Offender fully complying with the terms of the suspended sentence order. Not in the public interest to proceed.</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>2013</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td><p>Offence</p></td><td><p>Reason</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Manslaughter; conspiracy to rob</p></td><td><p>Review of additional material – sentence would not be increased.</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Arson with intent to endanger life.</p></td><td><p>Review of additional material – sentence would not be increased.</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Conspiracy to rob; conspiracy to kidnap; Conspiracy to possess an imitation firearm; Conspiracy to commit false imprisonment; Conspiracy to blackmail</p></td><td><p>Review of additional material – sentence would not be increased.</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Child cruelty</p></td><td><p>Review of additional material – not in the public interest to proceed.</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Child cruelty</p></td><td><p>As above</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Robbery</p></td><td><p>Offender fully complying with the terms of the suspended sentence order. Not in the public interest to proceed.</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Robbery</p></td><td><p>Offender fully complying with the terms of the suspended sentence order. Not in the public interest to proceed.</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Robbery</p></td><td><p>Offender fully complying with the terms of the suspended sentence order. Not in the public interest to proceed.</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Robbery</p></td><td><p>Suspended sentence order activated before the ULS hearing.</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>2012</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td><p>Offence</p></td><td><p>Reason</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Incest and indecency with a child</p></td><td><p>Offender fully complying with the terms of the suspended sentence order. Not in the public interest to proceed.</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Possession of a prohibited firearm; breach of restraining order; criminal damage</p></td><td><p>Successful appeal against conviction.</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Indecent assault of a child under 13 years old; indecent assault of a male.</p></td><td><p>Review of additional material – sentence would not be increased.</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Wounding with intent</p></td><td><p>Sentence amended before ULS hearing.</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Indecent assault on a male under the age of 16</p></td><td><p>Review of additional material – not in the public interest to proceed.</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Indecent assault</p></td><td><p>Review of additional material – sentence would not be increased.</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>2011</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td><p>Offence</p></td><td><p>Reason</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Conspiracy to defraud</p></td><td><p>Review of additional material – sentence would not be increased.</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Robbery and aggravated vehicle taking</p></td><td><p>Review of additional material – sentence would not be increased.</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Manslaughter</p></td><td><p>Review of additional material – sentence would not be increased.</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Wounding with intent</p></td><td><p>Review of additional material – sentence would not be increased.</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>2010</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td><p>Offence</p></td><td><p>Reason</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Possessing a controlled drug of Class A with intent; Possessing criminal property; Converting criminal property</p></td><td><p>Review of additional material – sentence would not be increased.</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Conspiracy to damage property being reckless as to whether life is endangered</p></td><td><p>Review of additional material – sentence would not be increased.</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Conspiracy to damage property being reckless as to whether life is endangered</p></td><td><p>Review of additional material – sentence would not be increased.</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Conspiracy to damage property being reckless as to whether life is endangered</p></td><td><p>Review of additional material – sentence would not be increased.</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Conspiracy to supply drugs</p></td><td><p>Review of additional material – sentence would not be increased.</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Conspiracy to supply drugs</p></td><td><p>Review of additional material – sentence would not be increased.</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Harbouring, concealing, carrying or dealing with goods contrary to section 170 (1) (b)</p><p>of customs and excise management act 1979</p></td><td><p>Review of additional material – sentence would not be increased</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Robbery &amp; handling stolen goods</p></td><td><p>Review of additional material – sentence would not be increased.</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Possessing Class A drug with intent to supply &amp; supply of Class A drug</p></td><td><p>Offender fully complying with the terms of Community Order. Not in the public interest to proceed.</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Burglary</p></td><td><p>Offender sentenced to a custodial sentence for breaching Community Order. New sentence not unduly lenient.</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Perverting the course of justice</p></td><td><p>Offender fully complying with the terms of Community Order. Not in the public interest to proceed.</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>assault by penetration &amp; sexual assault</p></td><td><p>Review of additional material – sentence would not be increased.</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>2009</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td><p>Offence</p></td><td><p>Reason</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Robbery</p></td><td><p>Review of additional material – sentence would not be increased.</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Manslaughter</p></td><td><p>Review of additional material – sentence would not be increased.</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Causing or inciting a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity; Sexual assault of a child under 13; Rape of a child under 13</p></td><td><p>Review of additional material – sentence would not be increased.</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Possession with intent to supply Class A drugs (Cocaine) and Production of Class C (Cannabis)</p></td><td><p>Offender sentenced to a custodial sentence after breaching Community Order. New sentence not unduly lenient.</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Possession of Cocaine with intent to supply; Cultivating Cannabis; Abstracting electricity</p></td><td><p>Review of additional material – sentence would not be increased.</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Robbery &amp; Possessing an imitation firearm</p></td><td><p>Review of additional material – sentence would not be increased.</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>This information for 2005-2008 is not collated centrally and obtaining it would require my office to manually consider each file over this 4 year period which would incur a disproportionate cost.</p><p> </p>
star this property answering member constituency South Swindon more like this
star this property answering member printed Mr Robert Buckland more like this
star this property question first answered
less than 2014-11-19T11:02:15.693Zmore like thismore than 2014-11-19T11:02:15.693Z
star this property answering member
4106
star this property label Biography information for Robert Buckland more like this
star this property tabling member
1565
unstar this property label Biography information for Philip Davies remove filter
156150
unstar this property registered interest false more like this
star this property date less than 2014-11-18more like thismore than 2014-11-18
star this property answering body
Attorney General more like this
star this property answering dept id 88 more like this
star this property answering dept short name Attorney General more like this
star this property answering dept sort name Attorney General more like this
star this property hansard heading Prosecutions more like this
star this property house id 1 more like this
star this property legislature
25259
unstar this property pref label House of Commons more like this
star this property question text To ask the Attorney General, if he will bring forward proposals to introduce a right of appeal against a charging decision of the Crown Prosecution Service on the grounds that it is unduly lenient. more like this
star this property tabling member constituency Shipley more like this
star this property tabling member printed
Philip Davies more like this
star this property uin 214940 more like this
star this property answer
answer
unstar this property is ministerial correction false more like this
unstar this property date of answer less than 2014-11-25more like thismore than 2014-11-25
star this property answer text <p>Where a suspect is charged by the Crown Prosecution Service (“CPS”) with a criminal offence, there are no plans to introduce a general right of appeal relating to the offence charged on the ground that it is too lenient. There are already a number of mechanisms in place to assess the quality of prosecutors’ decision making including external reviews by Her Majesty’s Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate and internal CPS processes such as Individual Quality Assessments.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Every charging decision made by the CPS must be in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors (“the Code”). Unless the Threshold Test is applied, there must be sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction and it must be in the public interest to prosecute every offence charged. The Code requires that charges are selected which reflect the seriousness and extent of the offending, enable the case to be presented in a clear and simple way and give the courts adequate powers to sentence. The Code also makes it clear that review is a continuing process and that prosecutors must take account of any change in circumstances that develops as the case progresses.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Victims can currently exercise their rights under the CPS Victims’ Right to Review scheme. This scheme enables victims to request a review of a CPS decision made after 5<sup>th</sup> June 2013 not to bring charges, to discontinue proceedings, offer no evidence or leave certain charges to “lie on file”. In those cases where it has not been possible to resolve the issue to the victim’s satisfaction at a local level, the decision is independently reviewed.</p><p> </p>
star this property answering member constituency South Swindon more like this
star this property answering member printed Mr Robert Buckland more like this
star this property question first answered
less than 2014-11-25T11:43:01.09Zmore like thismore than 2014-11-25T11:43:01.09Z
star this property answering member
4106
star this property label Biography information for Robert Buckland more like this
star this property tabling member
1565
unstar this property label Biography information for Philip Davies remove filter
156151
unstar this property registered interest false more like this
star this property date less than 2014-11-18more like thismore than 2014-11-18
star this property answering body
Attorney General more like this
star this property answering dept id 88 more like this
star this property answering dept short name Attorney General more like this
star this property answering dept sort name Attorney General more like this
star this property hansard heading Offences against Children: Prosecutions more like this
star this property house id 1 more like this
star this property legislature
25259
unstar this property pref label House of Commons more like this
star this property question text To ask the Attorney General, how many (a) men and (b) women were prosecuted for offences covering sexual activity with a child in each of the last 10 years. more like this
star this property tabling member constituency Shipley more like this
star this property tabling member printed
Philip Davies more like this
star this property uin 215015 more like this
star this property answer
answer
unstar this property is ministerial correction false more like this
unstar this property date of answer less than 2014-11-25more like thismore than 2014-11-25
star this property answer text <p>The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) maintains a central record of the number of prosecuted defendants, flagged as child abuse and whose principal offence was categorised as a sexual offence. These data can be further disaggregated by the gender of defendants.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>During each of the last nine years, where figures are available, the number of completed prosecutions of men and women charged with sexual offences involving child abuse, is as follows:</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td><p> </p></td><td><p><strong>(a) Men</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>(b) Women</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2005-2006</p></td><td><p>3,441</p></td><td><p>53</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2006-2007</p></td><td><p>3,764</p></td><td><p>78</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2007-2008</p></td><td><p>3,866</p></td><td><p>74</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2008-2009</p></td><td><p>3,945</p></td><td><p>83</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2009-2010</p></td><td><p>4,060</p></td><td><p>77</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2010-2011</p></td><td><p>4,715</p></td><td><p>79</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2011-2012</p></td><td><p>4,571</p></td><td><p>82</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2012-2013</p></td><td><p>3,987</p></td><td><p>60</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2013-2014</p></td><td><p>4,300</p></td><td><p>67</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Data Source: CPS Management Information System – Data for 2004-2005 is not collated centrally and could only be provided at a disproportionate cost</p><p> </p>
star this property answering member constituency South Swindon more like this
star this property answering member printed Mr Robert Buckland more like this
star this property question first answered
less than 2014-11-25T11:41:28.147Zmore like thismore than 2014-11-25T11:41:28.147Z
star this property answering member
4106
star this property label Biography information for Robert Buckland more like this
star this property tabling member
1565
unstar this property label Biography information for Philip Davies remove filter
164304
unstar this property registered interest false more like this
star this property date less than 2014-11-24more like thismore than 2014-11-24
star this property answering body
Attorney General more like this
star this property answering dept id 88 more like this
star this property answering dept short name Attorney General more like this
star this property answering dept sort name Attorney General more like this
star this property hansard heading Harry Street more like this
star this property house id 1 more like this
star this property legislature
25259
unstar this property pref label House of Commons more like this
star this property question text To ask the Attorney General, for what reasons the Crown Prosecution Service decided not to proceed with some of the charges against Harry Street during hearings in his case at Birmingham Crown Court in October 2014. more like this
star this property tabling member constituency Shipley more like this
star this property tabling member printed
Philip Davies more like this
star this property uin 215700 more like this
star this property answer
answer
unstar this property is ministerial correction false more like this
unstar this property date of answer less than 2014-12-01more like thismore than 2014-12-01
star this property answer text <p>On 6 October 2014 the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) accepted guilty pleas to one count of making an explosive substance, three counts of possessing a prohibited firearm and one count of putting a person in fear of violence by harassment. The pleas were accepted on the basis that if Harry Street’s mental health ever deteriorated to the same extent it had in 1978 he was undoubtedly capable of deploying the weapons.</p><p>The decision not to proceed with the four remaining counts was taken in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors which provides: “Prosecutors should only accept the defendant’s plea if they think the court is able to pass a sentence that matches the seriousness of the offending”. In view of the evidence before the court, it was clear to the CPS that the sentence imposed by the court would be a restricted hospital order under section 37 and section 41 of the Mental Health Act 1983 whether he was convicted of all counts, or those which were accepted as pleas.</p><p>In making a restricted hospital order, the Learned Judge fully supported the approach taken by the CPS. The court ordered the remaining counts to lie on the file not to proceed without the leave of the court.</p><p>The decision to accept the guilty pleas on 6 October 2014 was taken following full consultation with the victims/ victims’ families for both the recent offences and the 1978 offences.</p>
star this property answering member constituency South Swindon more like this
star this property answering member printed Mr Robert Buckland more like this
star this property question first answered
less than 2014-12-01T15:05:01.247Zmore like thismore than 2014-12-01T15:05:01.247Z
star this property answering member
4106
star this property label Biography information for Robert Buckland more like this
star this property tabling member
1565
unstar this property label Biography information for Philip Davies remove filter
173955
unstar this property registered interest false more like this
star this property date less than 2015-01-15more like thismore than 2015-01-15
star this property answering body
Attorney General more like this
star this property answering dept id 88 more like this
star this property answering dept short name Attorney General more like this
star this property answering dept sort name Attorney General more like this
star this property hansard heading Stalking more like this
star this property house id 1 more like this
star this property legislature
25259
unstar this property pref label House of Commons more like this
star this property question text To ask the Attorney General, what assessment he has made of the effect of the stalking offences introduced by the implementation of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 on the number of other offences charged under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. more like this
star this property tabling member constituency Shipley more like this
star this property tabling member printed
Philip Davies more like this
star this property uin 220966 more like this
star this property answer
answer
unstar this property is ministerial correction false more like this
unstar this property date of answer less than 2015-01-22more like thismore than 2015-01-22
star this property answer text <p>The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 created two new offences of stalking by inserting new sections 2A and 4A into the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The new offences, which are not retrospective, came into force on the 25<sup>th</sup> of November 2012 and provide further options for prosecutors to consider when selecting charges. Between the introduction of the new stalking offences on the 25<sup>th</sup> of November 2012 and the end of September 2014, Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) data for stalking offences charged by prosecutors shows a steady rise. It is not possible to determine with certainty the impact that the stalking offences have had on the number of other offences charged under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.</p><p>Figures for the number of stalking and harassment charges that reached a first hearing at Magistrates’ Courts are set out in the table below:</p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td> </td><td> </td><td><p><strong>2011-2012</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2012-2013</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2013-2014</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2014-2015</strong></p><p><strong> (April - Sept 2014)</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Protection from Harassment Act 1997</p><p>{ 2(1) and (2) }</p></td><td><p>Harassment.</p></td><td><p>7,713</p></td><td><p>7,159</p></td><td><p>8,303</p></td><td><p>4,381</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Protection from Harassment Act 1997</p><p>{ 4(1) and (4) }</p></td><td><p>Harassment involving</p><p>fear of violence.</p></td><td><p>1,632</p></td><td><p>1,398</p></td><td><p>1,489</p></td><td><p>859</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Protection from Harassment Act 1997</p><p>{ 2A(1) and (4) }</p></td><td><p>Stalking with fear</p><p>/ alarm / distress.</p></td><td><p>0</p></td><td><p>72</p></td><td><p>529</p></td><td><p>319</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Protection from Harassment Act 1997</p><p>{ 4A(1)(a)(b)(i) and (5) }</p></td><td><p>Stalking involving</p><p>fear of violence.</p></td><td><p>0</p></td><td><p>9</p></td><td><p>65</p></td><td><p>59</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Protection from Harassment Act 1997</p><p>{ 4A(1)(a)(b)(ii) and (5) }</p></td><td><p>Stalking involving</p><p>serious alarm / distress.</p></td><td><p>0</p></td><td><p>10</p></td><td><p>149</p></td><td><p>122</p></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"><p><strong>TOTAL HARASSMENT OFFENCES</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>9,345</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>8,648</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>10,535</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>5,740</strong></p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p>Data Source: CPS Case Management Information System</p><p><em>Notes:</em></p><p><em>1. </em><em>Whilst there is no strict legal definition of 'stalking', section 2A (3) of the </em><em> Protection from Harassment Act</em><em> 1997 sets out examples of acts or omissions which, in particular circumstances, are ones associated with stalking. These include: following, contacting, or attempting to contact a person by any means (this may be through friends, work colleagues, family or technology); or, other intrusions into the victim's privacy such as loitering in a particular place or watching or spying on a person. The effect of such</em><em> behaviour</em><em> is to curtail a victim's freedom, leaving them feeling that they constantly have to be watchful. In many cases, the conduct might appear innocent (if it were to be taken in isolation), but when carried out repeatedly so as to amount to a course of conduct, it may then cause significant alarm, harassment or distress to the victim.</em></p><p><em>2. </em><em>The table of data indicates the volume of offences charged in which a prosecution commenced at magistrates’ courts for offences of harassment. No information is held as to the number of individual defendants prosecuted, or details related to these individuals. It is often the case that an individual defendant is charged with more than one offence against the same victim.</em></p><p> </p>
star this property answering member constituency South Swindon more like this
star this property answering member printed Mr Robert Buckland more like this
star this property question first answered
less than 2015-01-22T16:24:05.237Zmore like thismore than 2015-01-22T16:24:05.237Z
star this property answering member
4106
star this property label Biography information for Robert Buckland more like this
star this property tabling member
1565
unstar this property label Biography information for Philip Davies remove filter
173956
unstar this property registered interest false more like this
star this property date less than 2015-01-15more like thismore than 2015-01-15
star this property answering body
Attorney General more like this
star this property answering dept id 88 more like this
star this property answering dept short name Attorney General more like this
star this property answering dept sort name Attorney General more like this
star this property hansard heading Stalking more like this
star this property house id 1 more like this
star this property legislature
25259
unstar this property pref label House of Commons more like this
star this property question text To ask the Attorney General, what the sex was of the (a) complainant and (b) defendant in each of the cases of stalking brought since the implementation of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012; and what the outcome was in each such case. more like this
star this property tabling member constituency Shipley more like this
star this property tabling member printed
Philip Davies more like this
star this property uin 220996 more like this
star this property answer
answer
unstar this property is ministerial correction false more like this
unstar this property date of answer less than 2015-01-21more like thismore than 2015-01-21
star this property answer text <blockquote><p> </p><p>The Crown Prosecution Service does not maintain a central record of the sex of either complainants or defendants prosecuted in cases where charges of stalking under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 have been brought. Obtaining this information would require a manual review of individual case files which would incur a disproportionate cost.</p><p> </p></blockquote> more like this
star this property answering member constituency South Swindon more like this
star this property answering member printed Mr Robert Buckland more like this
star this property question first answered
less than 2015-01-21T14:32:42.6Zmore like thismore than 2015-01-21T14:32:42.6Z
star this property answering member
4106
star this property label Biography information for Robert Buckland more like this
star this property tabling member
1565
unstar this property label Biography information for Philip Davies remove filter
177343
unstar this property registered interest false more like this
star this property date less than 2015-02-03more like thismore than 2015-02-03
star this property answering body
Attorney General more like this
star this property answering dept id 88 more like this
star this property answering dept short name Attorney General more like this
star this property answering dept sort name Attorney General more like this
star this property hansard heading Drugs: Crime more like this
star this property house id 1 more like this
star this property legislature
25259
unstar this property pref label House of Commons more like this
star this property question text To ask the Attorney General, what his Department's charging policy is on drug possession offences in relation to the quantity of each class of drug found to be in the offender's possession. more like this
star this property tabling member constituency Shipley more like this
star this property tabling member printed
Philip Davies more like this
star this property uin 223071 more like this
star this property answer
answer
unstar this property is ministerial correction false more like this
unstar this property date of answer less than 2015-02-10more like thismore than 2015-02-10
star this property answer text <p>The decision whether to prosecute a drug possession offence is made by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors. The Code requires that there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction and that a prosecution is in the public interest.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Where prosecutors are satisfied that it can be proved that a person is in possession of a controlled drug, the public interest will be determined by a number of factors, including the seriousness of the offence and the culpability of the offender. In published guidance to prosecutors on charging possession of drugs</p><p> </p><p>( <a href="http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/d_to_g/drug_offences/" target="_blank">http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/d_to_g/drug_offences/</a> ), the CPS indicates that a prosecution would be usual in cases involving possession of Class A drugs. A prosecution would also be usual for possession of more than a minimal quantity of Class B or C drugs.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>In cases where a guilty plea is anticipated in cases suitable for sentence in a magistrates’ court, the police can charge or caution for drugs possession without recourse to CPS.</p><p> </p>
star this property answering member constituency South Swindon more like this
star this property answering member printed Mr Robert Buckland more like this
star this property question first answered
less than 2015-02-10T15:05:11.347Zmore like thismore than 2015-02-10T15:05:11.347Z
star this property answering member
4106
star this property label Biography information for Robert Buckland more like this
star this property tabling member
1565
unstar this property label Biography information for Philip Davies remove filter
227685
unstar this property registered interest false more like this
star this property date less than 2015-03-17more like thismore than 2015-03-17
star this property answering body
Attorney General more like this
star this property answering dept id 88 more like this
star this property answering dept short name Attorney General more like this
star this property answering dept sort name Attorney General more like this
star this property hansard heading ICT more like this
star this property house id 1 more like this
star this property legislature
25259
unstar this property pref label House of Commons more like this
star this property question text To ask the Attorney General, which news applications staff in the Law Officers Departments are authorised to download and use on their work-provided phones and tablets. more like this
star this property tabling member constituency Shipley more like this
star this property tabling member printed
Philip Davies more like this
star this property uin 227817 more like this
star this property answer
answer
unstar this property is ministerial correction false more like this
unstar this property date of answer less than 2015-03-23more like thismore than 2015-03-23
star this property answer text <p>Staff in the Law Officers’ Departments who use work provided phones or tablets are not authorised to download and use any news applications.</p><p> </p> more like this
star this property answering member constituency Kenilworth and Southam more like this
star this property answering member printed Jeremy Wright more like this
star this property question first answered
less than 2015-03-23T11:40:27.123Zmore like thismore than 2015-03-23T11:40:27.123Z
star this property answering member
1560
star this property label Biography information for Jeremy Wright more like this
star this property tabling member
1565
unstar this property label Biography information for Philip Davies remove filter