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 answering member label previous answer version answering member constituency answering member printed answering member
tabling member	label

Search

1227509

	registered interest
	date	22/07/2020
	answering body	Ministry of Justice
	answering dept id	54
	answering dept short name	Justice
	answering dept sort name	Justice
	hansard heading	Offences against Children: Convictions
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many people have been (a) prosecuted and (b) convicted for livestreaming sexual exploitation of children in each of the last five years.
	tabling member constituency	West Lancashire
	tabling member printed	Rosie Cooper
	uin	78579
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 01/09/2020 answer text <p>Live-streaming of sexual exploitation of children may be prosecuted under a number of offences. These include (but are not limited to) causing the sexual exploitation of a child (s48 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (SOA 2003)), controlling a child in relation to sexual exploitation (s49, SOA 2003), arranging or facilitating the sexual exploitation of a child (s50, SOA 2003).</p><p> </p><p>The Ministry of Justice publishes information on prosecutions and convictions by detailed offence and figures relating to the offences outlined above can be found in the Principal offence proceedings and outcomes by Home Office offence code data tool available at: <a href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/888344/HO-code-tool-principal-offence-2019.xlsx" target="_blank">https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/888344/HO-code-tool-principal-offence-2019.xlsx</a></p><p> </p><p>The data tool can be filtered by ‘Offence code’, for offences relating to the above, filter to the following:</p><p> </p><p>07108 Causing or inciting child prostitution or pornography - child aged 13 to 17</p><p>07109 Controlling a child prostitute or a child involved in pornography - child aged 13 to 17</p><p>07110 Arranging or facilitating child prostitution or pornography - child aged 13 to 17</p><p>07111 Causing or inciting child prostitution or pornography - child under 13</p><p>07112 Controlling a child prostitute or a child involved in pornography - child under 13</p><p>07113 Arranging or facilitating child prostitution or pornography - child under 13</p><p> </p><p>Please note that these offences cover a broader range of behaviour than live-streaming, such as recording or otherwise transmitting indecent images of children.</p> answering member constituency Cheltenham answering member printed Alex Chalk question first answered 01/09/2020 14:54:09 answering member 4481 label Biography information for Alex Chalk
	tabling member	1538 label Biography information for Rosie Cooper

1307962

	registered interest
	date	12/04/2021
	answering body	Ministry of Justice
	answering dept id	54
	answering dept short name	Justice
	answering dept sort name	Justice
	hansard heading	Members: Correspondence
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, when he plans to respond to the letter from the hon. Member for West Lancashire of 5 February 2021 on prisoners and vaccines, reference ZA55418.
	tabling member constituency	West Lancashire
	tabling member printed	Rosie Cooper
	uin	178951
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 20/04/2021 answer text <p>The Hon. Member’s letter was not received by the department on 5 February 2021. A copy was requested and has now been received. A response will be sent as soon as possible.</p> answering member constituency Cheltenham answering member printed Alex Chalk question first answered 20/04/2021 15:19:57 answering member 4481 label Biography information for Alex Chalk
	tabling member	1538 label Biography information for Rosie Cooper

1190997

	registered interest
	date	28/04/2020
	answering body	Ministry of Justice
	answering dept id	54
	answering dept short name	Justice
	answering dept sort name	Justice
	hansard heading	Brian Healless
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, for what reasons Brian Healless was sent to a mental health institution rather than a prison following his sentencing on 24 March 2020.
	tabling member constituency	West Lancashire
	tabling member printed	Rosie Cooper
	uin	41005
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 05/05/2020 answer text <p>I understand that officials have written to the Honourable Member, providing a full explanation of the decisions taken in the case of Mr Healless.</p><p> </p><p>The Mental Health Act 1983 (the 1983 Act) provides powers for the Court to divert people during trial or at the point of sentencing away from the criminal justice system to hospital for assessment and/or treatment for their condition. Alternatively, if a convicted (or remanded) prisoner becomes unwell or experiences a relapse in an existing condition while in prison custody, the 1983 Act also provides for the Secretary of State for Justice to direct that the prisoner be transferred to a secure hospital for treatment. The 1983 Act stipulates the criteria which must be met before the Secretary of State may authorise detention in a secure hospital - namely that on the recommendation of two psychiatrists, the prisoner is suffering of a mental disorder of a nature or degree that warrants hospital detention. Any such transfer does not alter the sentence of the Court, including where the sentence is mandatory life imprisonment for murder.</p><p> </p><p>At the point a prisoner who has been transferred to hospital responds positively to treatment and no longer meets the criteria for detention under the 1983 Act, he will return to prison to serve the remainder of their custodial sentence. In the case of a prisoner serving a life sentence, he will be eligible for release only where he has completed the minimum term set by the Court. He will only then be released if an independent Parole Board has assessed that it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public for the offender to remain confined.</p><p> </p><p>Where prisoners are transferred to hospital for treatment under the 1983 Act, they are most likely to be subject to a restriction order. This means that certain decisions about the management of that patient, for instance decisions over leave and transfer, are subject to the consent of the Secretary of State. This function exists to ensure public protection is upheld.</p> answering member constituency Croydon South answering member printed Chris Philp question first answered 05/05/2020 16:31:19 answering member 4503 label Biography information for Chris Philp
	tabling member	1538 label Biography information for Rosie Cooper

1276247

	registered interest
	date	13/01/2021
	answering body	Ministry of Justice
	answering dept id	54
	answering dept short name	Justice
	answering dept sort name	Justice
	hansard heading	Juries: Coronavirus
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps his Department is taking to ensure the safety of elderly and vulnerable members of the public who are summoned for jury service during the covid-19 outbreak.
	tabling member constituency	West Lancashire
	tabling member printed	Rosie Cooper
	uin	137161
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 18/01/2021 answer text <p>HM Courts and Tribunals Service has well entrenched safeguards to ensure safety of all people in its buildings. This includes vulnerable people selected for jury service who are at particular risk if leaving their homes. From 23 March 2020, when Covid-related restrictions were first commenced, the Jury Central Summoning Bureau (JCSB) has been dealing sympathetically with requests to be excused from serving or deferring service to another date. Each application is considered on its own merit and where possible, the JCSB will look to deferral in the first instance, to enable the individual to undertake their civic responsibilities at a different time.</p><p>In addition, HMCTS staff are contacting every juror in the week before they attend court to provide them with the opportunity to discuss their personal circumstances.</p><p>When jurors (and any others) do come to court, HMCTS has in place a range of safety measures and controls, to ensure that they remain safe whilst in our buildings. These measures have been developed in line with and are validated against, relevant public health standards to ensure court and tribunal buildings are Covid secure. The measures have all been reviewed in light of continually developing circumstances. This has enabled HMCTS to deliver its vital public services, including jury trials, throughout the period affected by pandemic-related restrictions.</p><p>The framework of measures developed and implemented generally to ensure Covid-related risks are appropriately managed and controlled is set out in the <a href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/936543/HMCTS451_Organisational_Risk_Assessment_A4L_v3.pdf" target="_blank">HMCTS Organisational Risk Assessment</a>. Among the measures embedded across the court and tribunal estate are significantly enhanced cleaning regimes, the provision of washing facilities and sanitiser throughout buildings for users as well as staff and judiciary, social distancing measures implemented, and a requirement for face coverings in all public and communal areas. Juror-specific controls introduced have included the provision of screens in courtrooms and deliberation suites where local, site-specific risk assessments demonstrate the requirement to ensure and enhance their safety.</p><p>HMCTS has published, and regularly updates, a full suite of information on its <a href="https://www.gov.uk/guidance/coronavirus-covid-19-courts-and-tribunals-planning-and-preparation" target="_blank">Covid-secure practices</a>. Weekly updates are now sent direct to a range of key stakeholders, social media tools are routinely used to try to reach ever-wider audiences, and in all court and tribunal venues, clear signage is displayed to promote and explain our safety measures.</p><p>We have invested considerable effort to assure ourselves as to compliance on the ground. We also have responsive complaints and escalation procedures in case they are necessary. We ask all users of the courts and tribunals – including but not limited to jurors – to take personal responsibility, for adhering to the simple and well-understood hands/face/space protocols prevalent across society generally. Tailored information and guidance on Covid safety is provided to jurors in this regard.</p> answering member constituency Croydon South answering member printed Chris Philp question first answered 18/01/2021 17:07:06 answering member 4503 label Biography information for Chris Philp
	tabling member	1538 label Biography information for Rosie Cooper

456567

	registered interest
	date	01/03/2016
	answering body	Ministry of Justice
	answering dept id	54
	answering dept short name	Justice
	answering dept sort name	Justice
	hansard heading	Magistrates' Courts: Ormskirk
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether there is any mechanism by which the Lancashire justice area management team can seek to reverse the decision to allocate Skelmersdale criminal cases to Wigan Magistrates' Court.
	tabling member constituency	West Lancashire
	tabling member printed	Rosie Cooper
	uin	29145
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 04/03/2016 answer text <p>Listing is a judicial responsibility and function. Any final decisions as to the allocation of work between court houses will be for the Lancashire and Cumbria Judicial Business Group (subject to the supervision of the Presiding Judges of the circuit) to make in due course.</p> answering member constituency Gosport answering member printed Caroline Dinenage question first answered 04/03/2016 14:43:11 answering member 4008 label Biography information for Dame Caroline Dinenage
	tabling member	1538 label Biography information for Rosie Cooper

456569

	registered interest
	date	01/03/2016
	answering body	Ministry of Justice
	answering dept id	54
	answering dept short name	Justice
	answering dept sort name	Justice
	hansard heading	Magistrates' Courts: Ormskirk
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether he has received any representations from senior officials in HM Courts and Tribunals Service seeking to reverse the decision for Skelmersdale criminal cases to be heard at Wigan Magistrates' Court.
	tabling member constituency	West Lancashire
	tabling member printed	Rosie Cooper
	uin	29142
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 04/03/2016 answer text <p>No representations have been received from senior officials in HM Courts and Tribunals Service saying that Skelmersdale criminal cases should not be transferred to Wigan Magistrates’ Court.</p> answering member constituency Gosport answering member printed Caroline Dinenage question first answered 04/03/2016 14:30:02 answering member 4008 label Biography information for Dame Caroline Dinenage
	tabling member	1538 label Biography information for Rosie Cooper

456570

	registered interest
	date	01/03/2016
	answering body	Ministry of Justice
	answering dept id	54
	answering dept short name	Justice
	answering dept sort name	Justice
	hansard heading	Magistrates' Courts: Ormskirk
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what the reasons were for his decision to allocate Skelmersdale criminal cases to Wigan Magistrates' Court after the decision to close Ormskirk Magistrates' Court; and if he will make a statement.
	tabling member constituency	West Lancashire
	tabling member printed	Rosie Cooper
	uin	29146
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 04/03/2016 answer text <p>The consultation proposed that work from Ormskirk Magistrates’ Court transfer to Preston.</p><p>Responses received to the consultation highlighted that it would be easier to travel from Skelmersdale to Wigan Magistrates’ Court. Since there is capacity to hear this work at Wigan, when Ormskirk Magistrates’ Court closes, the majority of criminal workload originating from Skelmersdale will be heard at Wigan.</p> answering member constituency Gosport answering member printed Caroline Dinenage question first answered 04/03/2016 14:37:32 answering member 4008 label Biography information for Dame Caroline Dinenage
	tabling member	1538 label Biography information for Rosie Cooper

1077269

	registered interest
	date	25/02/2019
	answering body	Ministry of Justice
	answering dept id	54
	answering dept short name	Justice
	answering dept sort name	Justice
	hansard heading	Intestacy
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what guidance he provides to coroners on procedures relating to the death of a person with no (a) will and (b) obvious next-of-kin.
	tabling member constituency	West Lancashire
	tabling member printed	Rosie Cooper
	uin	225446
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 05/03/2019 answer text <p>The provision of guidance to coroners is a matter for the Chief Coroner rather than the Secretary of State. He has not, however, issued guidance to coroners on these issues as it is not within the role of coroners to consider them.</p> answering member constituency Charnwood answering member printed Edward Argar question first answered 05/03/2019 17:15:38 answering member 4362 label Biography information for Edward Argar
	tabling member	1538 label Biography information for Rosie Cooper

1135845

	registered interest
	date	01/07/2019
	answering body	Ministry of Justice
	answering dept id	54
	answering dept short name	Justice
	answering dept sort name	Justice
	hansard heading	Knives: Crime
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if he will make an assessment of the effectiveness of the penalties incurred for knife crime.
	tabling member constituency	West Lancashire
	tabling member printed	Rosie Cooper
	uin	271405
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 04/07/2019 answer text <p>For possession or threatening with an offensive weapon or possession of an article with a blade or point offences, offenders are now more likely to receive an immediate custodial sentence for a knife and offensive weapon offence and to go to prison for longer than at any point over the past 10 years. In the year ending March 2019 over a third (37%) of offences resulted in immediate custody, compared to 22% in the year ending March 2009. The average length of immediate custodial sentences has increased from 5.5 months in the year ending March 2009 to 8.1 months in the year ending March 2019. This is the highest since the series began.</p><p>There are a range of offences available to prosecute knife crime and Parliament has set penalties that are proportionate to the nature of these serious offences.</p><p> </p><p>Unlawful possession of a knife or offensive weapon in public is a serious criminal offence with a maximum penalty of four years’ imprisonment. Since 2015, adults convicted of threatening with a knife in public, or for second or subsequent knife possession face a minimum sentence of 6 months’ imprisonment and young people aged 16 or 17 face a minimum sentence of a 4 month Detention and Training Order. Courts can only depart from minimum sentencing if the court considers would be unjust in all the circumstances to impose these terms.</p><p> </p><p>Where someone is physically injured by a knife or offensive weapon there are a range of other offences, such as causing grievous bodily harm, that the person may be charged with. These can result in lengthy determinate sentences or life imprisonment. In England and Wales, all murder convictions for adults must result in a life sentence, and the Criminal Justice Act 2003 sets out a starting point of a minimum term in prison of 25 years for offenders aged 18 and over who bring a knife or another weapon to the scene of a murder with the intention of using it.</p><p> </p><p>It is already the case that for offences where the possession or use of a knife or offensive weapon is not inherent to the offence or charged separately, possession will be treated as an aggravating factor, which increases the seriousness of the offence. This is outlined in several sentencing guidelines produced by the independent Sentencing Council.</p> answering member constituency Charnwood answering member printed Edward Argar question first answered 04/07/2019 16:32:25 answering member 4362 label Biography information for Edward Argar
	tabling member	1538 label Biography information for Rosie Cooper

890332

	registered interest
	date	24/04/2018
	answering body	Ministry of Justice
	answering dept id	54
	answering dept short name	Justice
	answering dept sort name	Justice
	hansard heading	Insurance: Liability
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy on the implications for the public liability claims handling process of the non-disclosure by organisations of their public liability insurer.
	tabling member constituency	West Lancashire
	tabling member printed	Rosie Cooper
	uin	137507
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 17/05/2018 answer text <p>The Secretary of State for Justice has not had any discussions with the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy on the implications of the decision of the High Court in <em>Peel Port Shareholder Finance Co v Dornoch Ltd </em>[2017] EWHC 876 (TCC) for the conduct of legal proceedings in relation to which the defendant may have public liability insurance.</p> answering member constituency South East Cambridgeshire answering member printed Lucy Frazer question first answered 17/05/2018 17:24:07 answering member 4517 label Biography information for Lucy Frazer previous answer version 54714 answering member constituency Penrith and The Border answering member printed Rory Stewart answering member 4137
	tabling member	1538 label Biography information for Rosie Cooper