Linked Data API

Show Search Form

Search Results

175870
registered interest false more like this
date less than 2015-01-27more like thismore than 2015-01-27
answering body
Ministry of Justice more like this
answering dept id 54 more like this
answering dept short name Justice remove filter
answering dept sort name Justice more like this
hansard heading Criminal Proceedings: Vulnerable Adults more like this
house id 2 more like this
legislature
25277
pref label House of Lords more like this
question text To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to ensure that support is made available for vulnerable defendants by registered intermediaries in the criminal justice system, as currently is the case for vulnerable witnesses. more like this
tabling member printed
The Lord Bishop of St Albans more like this
uin HL4450 more like this
answer
answer
is ministerial correction false more like this
date of answer less than 2015-02-10more like thismore than 2015-02-10
answer text <p>The Government is committed to ensuring that all defendants receive a fair trial. We are currently considering formalising the provision of intermediaries for vulnerable defendants. It should be noted that, as well as a variety of measures currently available to courts to ensure a fair trial, if necessary, the Judiciary can already grant the use of an intermediary to assist vulnerable defendants. <br></p> more like this
answering member printed Lord Faulks more like this
question first answered
less than 2015-02-10T17:56:21.353Zmore like thismore than 2015-02-10T17:56:21.353Z
answering member
4183
label Biography information for Lord Faulks more like this
tabling member
4308
label Biography information for The Lord Bishop of St Albans more like this
175968
registered interest false more like this
date less than 2015-01-27more like thismore than 2015-01-27
answering body
Ministry of Justice more like this
answering dept id 54 more like this
answering dept short name Justice remove filter
answering dept sort name Justice more like this
hansard heading Domestic Abuse: Sentencing 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 Justice, how many victims of domestic violence have been imprisoned for contempt of court in the last five years. more like this
tabling member constituency Feltham and Heston more like this
tabling member printed
Seema Malhotra more like this
uin 222123 more like this
answer
answer
is ministerial correction false more like this
date of answer less than 2015-02-03more like thismore than 2015-02-03
answer text <p /> <p>Domestic violence and abuse is a dreadful crime and has no place in our society. Tackling it has been one of this Government’s top priorities. We are determined to support victims in rebuilding their lives and reporting these crimes, and to make sure perpetrators are brought to justice. We have piloted and rolled out Clare's Law and domestic violence protection orders; extended the definition of domestic abuse to cover controlling behaviour and teenage relationships; run two successful campaigns to challenge perceptions of abuse; and placed Domestic Homicide Reviews on a statutory footing to make sure lessons are learned from individual tragedies. More recently we have added an amendment to the Serious Crime Bill at Commons Committee stage to create a new offence of domestic abuse.</p><p> </p><p>Information held centrally by the Ministry of Justice on the Court Proceedings Database does not include the circumstances behind each case beyond the description provided in the statute. It is not possible separately to identify from this centrally held information how many people imprisoned for contempt of court have also been victims of a crime. This detailed information may be held on court records but is not reported centrally to the Ministry of Justice. As such, the information requested could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.</p>
answering member constituency Hemel Hempstead more like this
answering member printed Mike Penning more like this
question first answered
less than 2015-02-03T17:50:01.62Zmore like thismore than 2015-02-03T17:50:01.62Z
answering member
1528
label Biography information for Sir Mike Penning more like this
tabling member
4253
label Biography information for Seema Malhotra more like this
175969
registered interest false more like this
date less than 2015-01-27more like thismore than 2015-01-27
answering body
Ministry of Justice more like this
answering dept id 54 more like this
answering dept short name Justice remove filter
answering dept sort name Justice more like this
hansard heading Reparation by Offenders 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 Justice, how many offenders who have been part of a restorative justice scheme have reoffended in each of the last five years. more like this
tabling member constituency Strangford more like this
tabling member printed
Jim Shannon more like this
uin 222109 more like this
answer
answer
is ministerial correction false more like this
date of answer less than 2015-02-03more like thismore than 2015-02-03
answer text <p>Information about the numbers of offenders who participate in Restorative Justice activities, and the outcomes from those activities, is not collated centrally.<br> <br> We are committed to ensuring that good quality, victim-focused Restorative Justice is made available for victims and offenders at all stages of the criminal justice system across England and Wales. Research by the Ministry of Justice of a number of Restorative Justice pilots suggests that Restorative Justice has the potential for positive impacts both on victim satisfaction and on re-offending, with evaluation of the pilots finding that overall there was an estimated 14% reduction in the frequency of re-offending.</p> more like this
answering member constituency South West Bedfordshire more like this
answering member printed Andrew Selous more like this
question first answered
less than 2015-02-03T17:21:17.107Zmore like thismore than 2015-02-03T17:21:17.107Z
answering member
1453
label Biography information for Andrew Selous more like this
tabling member
4131
label Biography information for Jim Shannon more like this
175970
registered interest false more like this
date less than 2015-01-27more like thismore than 2015-01-27
answering body
Ministry of Justice more like this
answering dept id 54 more like this
answering dept short name Justice remove filter
answering dept sort name Justice more like this
hansard heading Open Prisons: Prisoner Escapes 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 Justice, what guidance his Department has issued to open prisons on reducing the number of absconders. more like this
tabling member constituency Hendon more like this
tabling member printed
Dr Matthew Offord more like this
uin 222143 more like this
answer
answer
is ministerial correction false more like this
date of answer less than 2015-02-03more like thismore than 2015-02-03
answer text <p /> <p>The National Offender Management Service (NOMS) conducted a fundamental review of the policy and practice related of Release on Temporary Licence (ROTL) last year. NOMS have subsequently introduced a system that enhances the assessment of serious offenders and restricts access to ROTL to cases where there is a clear resettlement purpose. The enhanced or “restricted ROTL” approach for serious offenders involves tighter eligibility and monitoring, more risk assessment including case file reviews by psychologists, and greater involvement by offender managers.</p><p> </p><p>Changes have also been made to the allocation of prisoners to open conditions; foreign national prisoners with ongoing immigration matters and prisoners who have absconded or failed to return from ROTL during their current sentence will not be transferred to open conditions or have further ROTL.</p><p> </p><p>NOMS closely monitors absconds to identify trends and patterns. All absconds or failures to return by restricted ROTL prisoners are the subject of an internal investigation by a senior manager. The lessons learned are considered by a central forum of open prison Governors under the chairmanship of the Deputy Director of Public Sector Prisons.</p>
answering member constituency South West Bedfordshire more like this
answering member printed Andrew Selous more like this
question first answered
less than 2015-02-03T17:30:09.167Zmore like thismore than 2015-02-03T17:30:09.167Z
answering member
1453
label Biography information for Andrew Selous more like this
tabling member
4006
label Biography information for Dr Matthew Offord more like this
175971
registered interest false more like this
date less than 2015-01-27more like thismore than 2015-01-27
answering body
Ministry of Justice more like this
answering dept id 54 more like this
answering dept short name Justice remove filter
answering dept sort name Justice more like this
hansard heading Driving under Influence 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 Justice, how many people were (a) breathalysed and (b) convicted of driving while under the influence of alcohol in December in each of the last five years. more like this
tabling member constituency Strangford more like this
tabling member printed
Jim Shannon more like this
uin 222116 more like this
answer
answer
is ministerial correction false more like this
date of answer less than 2015-02-03more like thismore than 2015-02-03
answer text <p /> <p>Driving offences can have very serious and sometimes devastating consequences for victims and their families. That is why the Government is toughened the law by closing loopholes relating to breath tests conducted by the police.</p><p> </p><p>The number of breath tests carried out by police in England and Wales between 2008 and 2012, the latest year available, and the number of tests that were positive or refused is set out in the table below. For reporting purposes the Home Office does not differentiate between ‘positive’ and ‘refused’ breathe tests. If an individual refuses a breath test, this is an offence which carries the same maximum penalty as a positive breath test.</p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td><p><strong>Year</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Number of breath tests</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Positive/Refused</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2008</p></td><td><p>711,658</p></td><td><p>91,666</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2009</p></td><td><p>815,290</p></td><td><p>93,348</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2010</p></td><td><p>736,846</p></td><td><p>84,436</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2011</p></td><td><p>685,992</p></td><td><p>80,761</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2012</p></td><td><p>682,558</p></td><td><p>75,868</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p>The table below sets out the total number of offenders found guilty of drink driving offences in England and Wales per year between 2009 and 2013 (the latest year available) and in December of each year.</p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td><p><strong>Year</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Total number of offences </strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Of which December =</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2009</p></td><td><p>68,335</p></td><td><p>5,041</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2010</p></td><td><p>53,305</p></td><td><p>3,823</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2011</p></td><td><p>50,320</p></td><td><p>3,774</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2012</p></td><td><p>50,192</p></td><td><p>3,498</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2013</p></td><td><p>47,844</p></td><td><p>3,645</p></td></tr></tbody></table>
answering member constituency Hemel Hempstead more like this
answering member printed Mike Penning more like this
question first answered
less than 2015-02-03T17:15:39.457Zmore like thismore than 2015-02-03T17:15:39.457Z
answering member
1528
label Biography information for Sir Mike Penning more like this
tabling member
4131
label Biography information for Jim Shannon more like this
176139
registered interest false more like this
date less than 2015-01-27more like thismore than 2015-01-27
answering body
Ministry of Justice more like this
answering dept id 54 more like this
answering dept short name Justice remove filter
answering dept sort name Justice more like this
hansard heading Computer Misuse Act 1990 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 Justice, how many (a) prosecutions and (b) convictions there have been under the Computer Misuse Act 1990 in each year since it entered into force. more like this
tabling member constituency Dwyfor Meirionnydd more like this
tabling member printed
Mr Elfyn Llwyd more like this
uin 222192 more like this
answer
answer
is ministerial correction false more like this
date of answer less than 2015-02-04more like thismore than 2015-02-04
answer text <p /> <p>The Government is absolutely clear that abusive or threatening behaviour, stalking or harassment, are totally unacceptable, whether online or offline. A number of offences may be committed by misusing the internet or social media in this way, in particular under section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 or section 127 of the Communications Act 2003. Changes to the law in the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill will help to ensure that people who commit those offences are prosecuted and properly punished.</p><p> </p><p>Stalking causes misery for victims. That is why in 2012 we added to the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 two new specific offences of stalking (section 2A) and stalking involving fear of violence or serious alarm or distress (section 4A), the latter of which is punishable by up to five years in prison, or a fine, or both. Online stalking or harassment could amount to one of these offences if it is carried out as part of a ‘course of conduct’ which amounts to stalking, and could amount to the more serious offence if that course of conduct puts someone in fear of violence, or if it causes them serious alarm or distress which has a substantial adverse effect on their usual day-to-day activities</p><p> </p><p>The number of defendants proceeded against at magistrates' courts and found</p><p>guilty at all courts for offences relating to the Computer Misuse Act 1990,</p><p>from 1990 to 2013 (latest data available), can be viewed in the table.</p><p> </p><p>Information held centrally by the Ministry of Justice on the Court Proceedings Database does not include the circumstances behind each case beyond the description provided in the statute. It is not possible to separately identify from this centrally held information convictions and sentences involving the use or misuse of social media, or cyber crime. This detailed information may be held on the court record but due to the size and complexity is not reported centrally to the MoJ. As such, the information requested can only be obtained at disproportionate cost.</p><p> </p><p>Court proceedings data for 2014 are planned for publication in May 2015.</p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td colspan="3">Defendants proceeded against at magistrates' court and found guilty at all courts for offences relating to the Computer Misuse Act 1990, England &amp; Wales, 1990-2013<sup>(1)(2)</sup></td></tr><tr><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td>Year</td><td>Proceeded<br> Against</td><td>Found<br> Guilty<sup>(3)</sup></td></tr><tr><td>1990</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>1991</td><td>1</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>1992</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>1993</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>1994</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>1995</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>1996</td><td>2</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>1997</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>1998</td><td>16</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>1999</td><td>13</td><td>11</td></tr><tr><td>2000</td><td>19</td><td>15</td></tr><tr><td>2001</td><td>25</td><td>31</td></tr><tr><td>2002</td><td>18</td><td>14</td></tr><tr><td>2003</td><td>19</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>2004</td><td>21</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td>2005</td><td>24</td><td>16</td></tr><tr><td>2006</td><td>25</td><td>18</td></tr><tr><td>2007</td><td>19</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td>2008<sup>(4)</sup></td><td>17</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td>2009</td><td>19</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td>2010</td><td>10</td><td>18</td></tr><tr><td>2011</td><td>11</td><td>11</td></tr><tr><td>2012</td><td>25</td><td>27</td></tr><tr><td>2013</td><td>55</td><td>40</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>339</td><td>262</td></tr><tr><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td>(-) Nil</td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">(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.</td></tr><tr><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">(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.</td></tr><tr><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">(3) The number of defendants found guilty in a particular year may exceed the number proceeded against as the proceedings in the magistrates' court took place in an earlier year and the defendants were found guilty at the Crown Court in the following year; or the defendants were found guilty of a different offence to that for which they were originally proceeded against.</td></tr><tr><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">(4) Excludes data for Cardiff magistrates' court for April, July and August 2008.</td></tr><tr><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">Source: Justice Statistics Analytical Services - Ministry of Justice.</td></tr><tr><td>PQ 222192</td><td> </td><td> </td></tr></tbody></table>
answering member constituency Hemel Hempstead more like this
answering member printed Mike Penning more like this
grouped question UIN
222193 more like this
222194 more like this
question first answered
less than 2015-02-04T18:01:41.86Zmore like thismore than 2015-02-04T18:01:41.86Z
answering member
1528
label Biography information for Sir Mike Penning more like this
tabling member
549
label Biography information for Mr Elfyn Llwyd more like this
176140
registered interest false more like this
date less than 2015-01-27more like thismore than 2015-01-27
answering body
Ministry of Justice more like this
answering dept id 54 more like this
answering dept short name Justice remove filter
answering dept sort name Justice more like this
hansard heading Social Media: Misuse 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 Justice, how many people were (a) charged, (b) convicted and (c) sentenced to custody following a conviction involving misuse of social media in the most recent year for which figures are available; and what offences they were (i) charged with, (ii) convicted of and (iii) sentenced for. more like this
tabling member constituency Dwyfor Meirionnydd more like this
tabling member printed
Mr Elfyn Llwyd more like this
uin 222193 more like this
answer
answer
is ministerial correction false more like this
date of answer less than 2015-02-04more like thismore than 2015-02-04
answer text <p>The Government is absolutely clear that abusive or threatening behaviour, stalking or harassment, are totally unacceptable, whether online or offline. A number of offences may be committed by misusing the internet or social media in this way, in particular under section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 or section 127 of the Communications Act 2003. Changes to the law in the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill will help to ensure that people who commit those offences are prosecuted and properly punished.</p><p> </p><p>Stalking causes misery for victims. That is why in 2012 we added to the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 two new specific offences of stalking (section 2A) and stalking involving fear of violence or serious alarm or distress (section 4A), the latter of which is punishable by up to five years in prison, or a fine, or both. Online stalking or harassment could amount to one of these offences if it is carried out as part of a ‘course of conduct’ which amounts to stalking, and could amount to the more serious offence if that course of conduct puts someone in fear of violence, or if it causes them serious alarm or distress which has a substantial adverse effect on their usual day-to-day activities</p><p> </p><p>The number of defendants proceeded against at magistrates' courts and found</p><p>guilty at all courts for offences relating to the Computer Misuse Act 1990,</p><p>from 1990 to 2013 (latest data available), can be viewed in the table.</p><p> </p><p>Information held centrally by the Ministry of Justice on the Court Proceedings Database does not include the circumstances behind each case beyond the description provided in the statute. It is not possible to separately identify from this centrally held information convictions and sentences involving the use or misuse of social media, or cyber crime. This detailed information may be held on the court record but due to the size and complexity is not reported centrally to the MoJ. As such, the information requested can only be obtained at disproportionate cost.</p><p> </p><p>Court proceedings data for 2014 are planned for publication in May 2015.</p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td colspan="3">Defendants proceeded against at magistrates' court and found guilty at all courts for offences relating to the Computer Misuse Act 1990, England &amp; Wales, 1990-2013<sup>(1)(2)</sup></td></tr><tr><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td>Year</td><td>Proceeded<br> Against</td><td>Found<br> Guilty<sup>(3)</sup></td></tr><tr><td>1990</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>1991</td><td>1</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>1992</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>1993</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>1994</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>1995</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>1996</td><td>2</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>1997</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>1998</td><td>16</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>1999</td><td>13</td><td>11</td></tr><tr><td>2000</td><td>19</td><td>15</td></tr><tr><td>2001</td><td>25</td><td>31</td></tr><tr><td>2002</td><td>18</td><td>14</td></tr><tr><td>2003</td><td>19</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>2004</td><td>21</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td>2005</td><td>24</td><td>16</td></tr><tr><td>2006</td><td>25</td><td>18</td></tr><tr><td>2007</td><td>19</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td>2008<sup>(4)</sup></td><td>17</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td>2009</td><td>19</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td>2010</td><td>10</td><td>18</td></tr><tr><td>2011</td><td>11</td><td>11</td></tr><tr><td>2012</td><td>25</td><td>27</td></tr><tr><td>2013</td><td>55</td><td>40</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>339</td><td>262</td></tr><tr><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td>(-) Nil</td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">(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.</td></tr><tr><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">(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.</td></tr><tr><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">(3) The number of defendants found guilty in a particular year may exceed the number proceeded against as the proceedings in the magistrates' court took place in an earlier year and the defendants were found guilty at the Crown Court in the following year; or the defendants were found guilty of a different offence to that for which they were originally proceeded against.</td></tr><tr><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">(4) Excludes data for Cardiff magistrates' court for April, July and August 2008.</td></tr><tr><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">Source: Justice Statistics Analytical Services - Ministry of Justice.</td></tr><tr><td>PQ 222192</td><td> </td><td> </td></tr></tbody></table>
answering member constituency Hemel Hempstead more like this
answering member printed Mike Penning more like this
grouped question UIN
222192 more like this
222194 more like this
question first answered
less than 2015-02-04T18:01:42.117Zmore like thismore than 2015-02-04T18:01:42.117Z
answering member
1528
label Biography information for Sir Mike Penning more like this
tabling member
549
label Biography information for Mr Elfyn Llwyd more like this
176141
registered interest false more like this
date less than 2015-01-27more like thismore than 2015-01-27
answering body
Ministry of Justice more like this
answering dept id 54 more like this
answering dept short name Justice remove filter
answering dept sort name Justice more like this
hansard heading Cybercrime 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 Justice, what proportion of people convicted under sections 2A or 4A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 used social media or cyber crime to harass or stalk their victims. more like this
tabling member constituency Dwyfor Meirionnydd more like this
tabling member printed
Mr Elfyn Llwyd more like this
uin 222194 more like this
answer
answer
is ministerial correction false more like this
date of answer less than 2015-02-04more like thismore than 2015-02-04
answer text <p>The Government is absolutely clear that abusive or threatening behaviour, stalking or harassment, are totally unacceptable, whether online or offline. A number of offences may be committed by misusing the internet or social media in this way, in particular under section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 or section 127 of the Communications Act 2003. Changes to the law in the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill will help to ensure that people who commit those offences are prosecuted and properly punished.</p><p> </p><p>Stalking causes misery for victims. That is why in 2012 we added to the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 two new specific offences of stalking (section 2A) and stalking involving fear of violence or serious alarm or distress (section 4A), the latter of which is punishable by up to five years in prison, or a fine, or both. Online stalking or harassment could amount to one of these offences if it is carried out as part of a ‘course of conduct’ which amounts to stalking, and could amount to the more serious offence if that course of conduct puts someone in fear of violence, or if it causes them serious alarm or distress which has a substantial adverse effect on their usual day-to-day activities</p><p> </p><p>The number of defendants proceeded against at magistrates' courts and found</p><p>guilty at all courts for offences relating to the Computer Misuse Act 1990,</p><p>from 1990 to 2013 (latest data available), can be viewed in the table.</p><p> </p><p>Information held centrally by the Ministry of Justice on the Court Proceedings Database does not include the circumstances behind each case beyond the description provided in the statute. It is not possible to separately identify from this centrally held information convictions and sentences involving the use or misuse of social media, or cyber crime. This detailed information may be held on the court record but due to the size and complexity is not reported centrally to the MoJ. As such, the information requested can only be obtained at disproportionate cost.</p><p> </p><p>Court proceedings data for 2014 are planned for publication in May 2015.</p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td colspan="3">Defendants proceeded against at magistrates' court and found guilty at all courts for offences relating to the Computer Misuse Act 1990, England &amp; Wales, 1990-2013<sup>(1)(2)</sup></td></tr><tr><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td>Year</td><td>Proceeded<br> Against</td><td>Found<br> Guilty<sup>(3)</sup></td></tr><tr><td>1990</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>1991</td><td>1</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>1992</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>1993</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>1994</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>1995</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>1996</td><td>2</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>1997</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>1998</td><td>16</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>1999</td><td>13</td><td>11</td></tr><tr><td>2000</td><td>19</td><td>15</td></tr><tr><td>2001</td><td>25</td><td>31</td></tr><tr><td>2002</td><td>18</td><td>14</td></tr><tr><td>2003</td><td>19</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>2004</td><td>21</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td>2005</td><td>24</td><td>16</td></tr><tr><td>2006</td><td>25</td><td>18</td></tr><tr><td>2007</td><td>19</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td>2008<sup>(4)</sup></td><td>17</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td>2009</td><td>19</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td>2010</td><td>10</td><td>18</td></tr><tr><td>2011</td><td>11</td><td>11</td></tr><tr><td>2012</td><td>25</td><td>27</td></tr><tr><td>2013</td><td>55</td><td>40</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>339</td><td>262</td></tr><tr><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td>(-) Nil</td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">(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.</td></tr><tr><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">(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.</td></tr><tr><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">(3) The number of defendants found guilty in a particular year may exceed the number proceeded against as the proceedings in the magistrates' court took place in an earlier year and the defendants were found guilty at the Crown Court in the following year; or the defendants were found guilty of a different offence to that for which they were originally proceeded against.</td></tr><tr><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">(4) Excludes data for Cardiff magistrates' court for April, July and August 2008.</td></tr><tr><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">Source: Justice Statistics Analytical Services - Ministry of Justice.</td></tr><tr><td>PQ 222192</td><td> </td><td> </td></tr></tbody></table>
answering member constituency Hemel Hempstead more like this
answering member printed Mike Penning more like this
grouped question UIN
222192 more like this
222193 more like this
question first answered
less than 2015-02-04T18:01:42.377Zmore like thismore than 2015-02-04T18:01:42.377Z
answering member
1528
label Biography information for Sir Mike Penning more like this
tabling member
549
label Biography information for Mr Elfyn Llwyd more like this
176157
registered interest false more like this
date less than 2015-01-27more like thismore than 2015-01-27
answering body
Ministry of Justice more like this
answering dept id 54 more like this
answering dept short name Justice remove filter
answering dept sort name Justice more like this
hansard heading Prisoners: Children 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 Justice, how many children born to women serving a custodial sentence were taken into care in the most recent five years for which figures are available. more like this
tabling member constituency Burton more like this
tabling member printed
Andrew Griffiths more like this
uin 222241 more like this
answer
answer
is ministerial correction false more like this
date of answer less than 2015-02-02more like thismore than 2015-02-02
answer text <p /> <p>Information on the number of children born to women serving a custodial sentence and taken into care is not collected by NOMS. This is of course a matter for Local Authority Social Services Departments and as such NOMS does not hold any data.</p><p> </p><p>There are trained family support workers in each prison with a good understanding of childcare proceedings and their role is to facilitate communication between all parties to ensure the needs of the children and women are adequately met.</p> more like this
answering member constituency Bermondsey and Old Southwark more like this
answering member printed Simon Hughes more like this
question first answered
less than 2015-02-02T15:01:54.53Zmore like thismore than 2015-02-02T15:01:54.53Z
answering member
194
label Biography information for Simon Hughes more like this
tabling member
3936
label Biography information for Andrew Griffiths more like this
176159
registered interest false more like this
date less than 2015-01-27more like thismore than 2015-01-27
answering body
Ministry of Justice more like this
answering dept id 54 more like this
answering dept short name Justice remove filter
answering dept sort name Justice more like this
hansard heading Prison Service 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 Justice, which regions ranked best and worst with regard to prison staff shortfalls in the latest period for which figures are available. more like this
tabling member constituency Huddersfield more like this
tabling member printed
Mr Barry Sheerman more like this
uin 222317 more like this
answer
answer
is ministerial correction false more like this
date of answer less than 2015-03-02more like thismore than 2015-03-02
answer text <p /> <p>There is no specific ranking system used in regards to staffing shortfalls, which vary from month to month dependant on specific circumstances. However, at the date of the last published staffing data, 30 September 2014, the largest shortfall between benchmarked staffing level of officer grade staff and staff in post was in East Midlands region. Two regions, North East and Yorkshire and Humberside were showing as having no shortfall of officers at the latest published date.</p><p> </p><p>Staffing levels have been reviewed prison by prison as part of a ‘benchmarking approach’. Benchmark staffing requirements for each establishment have been agreed with the unions and the NAO has commented that the wider strategy for the prison estate is the most coherent and comprehensive for many years. It delivers efficiencies while ensuring that public sector prisons operate safely, decently and securely. It delivers efficiencies while ensuring that public sector prisons operate safely, decently and securely. Benchmarking optimises the skills of staff by introducing new ways of working and puts all prison officers in prisoner facing role.</p><p> </p><p>The Prison Service has been returning to large scale recruitment as the period of closures and benchmarking has been coming to an end.</p>
answering member constituency South West Bedfordshire more like this
answering member printed Andrew Selous more like this
question first answered
less than 2015-03-02T16:24:24.02Zmore like thismore than 2015-03-02T16:24:24.02Z
answering member
1453
label Biography information for Andrew Selous more like this
tabling member
411
label Biography information for Mr Barry Sheerman more like this