30 Oct 2012 : Column 123W
30 Oct 2012 : Column 123W
Written Answers to Questions
Tuesday 30 October 2012
Justice
Bail
Philip Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what proportion of individuals in bail accommodation funded from the public purse have (a) failed to comply with the conditions of their bail and (b) re-offended whilst subject to bail in the last year for which figures are available. [125138]
Jeremy Wright: Accommodation for some defendants on bail is provided by the Bail Accommodation and Support Service (BASS); others are accommodated in approved premises.
In 2011-12, 411 defendants resident in a BASS property failed to comply with the conditions of their bail. This represents 23% of the total number of defendants whose period of support by BASS came to an end during 2011-12. To establish whether defendants accommodated by BASS have re-offended would require a detailed search of court records, which would incur disproportionate cost.
For approved premises, it is not possible to disaggregate the bail and licence elements without incurring disproportionate cost. Statistics for reconvictions of those held on bail in approved premises are not collected centrally and to obtain them would involve disproportionate cost.
Philip Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how much was spent on accommodation for (a) defendants on bail and (b) prisoners released on home detention curfew in each of the last three years. [125140]
Jeremy Wright: Accommodation for some defendants on bail and prisoners released under home detention curfew (HDC) is provided by the Bail Accommodation and Support Service (BASS) and in approved premises. It is not possible to provide the requested information without incurring disproportionate cost.
Keith Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice for what offence each suspect released on bail who went on to commit (a) murder and (b) indictable offences was bailed in the latest period for which figures are available. [125486]
Jeremy Wright: The Ministry of Justice is unable to provide statistics on the offence for which each suspect was bailed, and who went on to commit (a) murder and (b) an indictable offence. This is because the information held on the Police National Computer (PNC) does not allow us to identify the offence for which the suspect was released on bail.
30 Oct 2012 : Column 124W
Keith Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what offences those suspects who reoffended while on bail committed when they reoffended in the latest period for which figures are available. [125487]
Jeremy Wright: The table shows the number and types of offences committed by reoffenders while on bail for the 12-month period ending March 2012.
| Type and number of offences committed by reoffenders while on bail(1) Q2 2011-Q1 2012 | |
| Offences committed by reoffenders while on bail | Number of offences |
| (1) Being on bail does not necessary mean found guilty of an offence Source: Police National Computer, Ministry of Justice | |
The figures presented in the table are derived from the dataset used for the latest (Q1 2012) publication of Criminal Justice Statistics quarterly update which can be viewed at:
http://www.justice.gov.uk/statistics/criminal-justice/criminal-justice-statistics
The figures given in the table have been drawn from the extract of Police National Computer (PNC) data held by the Ministry of Justice. As with any large scale recording system the PNC is subject to possible errors with data entry and processing. The figures are provisional and subject to change as more information is recorded by the police.
In particular the recording of information on whether or not the offence was committed while the offender was on bail is known to be incomplete. This is because the police have available to them a number of ways of recording the bail status of an offender of which the 'offence committed on bail' field on the PNC is one. For operational purposes police forces make differing use of these various sources and as a result figures derived purely from the PNC do not provide a complete picture of these offences, and therefore changes over time. These figures may not represent real changes in offending while on bail. Furthermore, the information held does not indicate the nature of the earlier offence for which the bail was granted but it is likely that most of the offences summarised in the table will have been committed while the offender was on bail for a less serious offences. In addition, where an offender was sentenced on the same occasion for several offences it is the primary offence that has been counted.
Disability Living Allowance: Appeals
Philip Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what the average cost is of an appeal against removal of disability living allowance. [125401]
30 Oct 2012 : Column 125W
Mrs Grant: Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) hears appeals against Department for Work and Pensions decisions on entitlement to disability living allowance.
HMCTS cannot isolate costs data relating to particular benefits. The average cost of an individual first-tier tribunal—social security and child support case across all benefits in 2011-12 (the most recent figure available) was £228. In 2010-11 the average cost was £239.
Drugs: Misuse
Nick de Bois: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what definition of a drug dealer is used in (a) his Department and (b) its associated public bodies. [125449]
Jeremy Wright: Although there is not a legal definition of the term 'drug dealer' used by the Ministry of Justice or its arm’s length bodies, the Secretary of State for Justice considers that drug dealing is a form of drug supply. Statutory provisions relating to drug supply are found in the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (the MDA 1971) and connected secondary legislation. Of most relevance are Sections 4 and 5 of the MDA 1971, which impose restriction on the production, supply, possession and possession with intent to supply of controlled drugs.
European Court of Human Rights
Mr Chope: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what response the Government have given to the invitation from the Secretary General of the Council of Europe for voluntary contributions to fund the recruitment of lawyers to deal with the backlog of priority cases in the European Court of Human Rights. [125836]
Jeremy Wright: As indicated by the Minister for Europe, to the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) on 7 September, Official Report, column 466W, no decision has been taken on whether to make a contribution to the Council of Europe Secretary-General's Special Fund for the European Court of Human Rights.
Fines
Mr Slaughter: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what the total monetary value of fines written off was in each of the last five years. [125642]
Mrs Grant: The value of financial impositions cancelled in the last five years is:
| £ | ||
| Legally cancelled | Administratively cancelled | |
The amounts above include all elements of financial penalties (excluding confiscation orders), which are fines, costs, compensation and victim surcharge, as it is not possible to identify the amounts written off for just the
30 Oct 2012 : Column 126W
fine element. The amounts cancelled in a particular year can relate to impositions from that year or any previous one.
Magistrates’ Courts: Translation Services
Nick de Bois: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what the cost was of providing translation services in magistrates courts in (a) London and (b) England in each of the last five years. [125590]
Mrs Grant: Information on the cost of translation in the magistrate's courts was not collected separately prior to 30 January 2012. However we estimate that the cost of services to the Department was approximately £30 million, including all criminal and civil courts and tribunals. The lack of visibility of the amounts spent in this area was one of the factors which led the Department to make a change to the way these services are sourced. This information will be more readily available in the future.
Prisoner Escapes
Sadiq Khan: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) how many prisoners of each category escaped from public prisons between May 1997 and May 2010; [125108]
(2) how many prisoners of each category escaped from private prisons between May 1997 and May 2010; [125110]
(3) how many prisoners of each category have escaped from public prisons since May 2010; [125109]
(4) how many prisoners in each category of prisoner have escaped from private prisons since May 2010. [125042]
Jeremy Wright: The following tables show the number of escapes from public and private prisons for the periods requested and broken down by category of prisoner where this is possible.
| Table 1: Number of escapes from public and private prisons between May 1997 and May 2010 | |
| Number | |
| Note: Information on category of prisoner is not recorded centrally, other than for category A prisoners, and to provide this information for the incidents above would require a manual examination of each prisoner's record, where still available, which could only be done at disproportionate cost. There have been no Category A escapes from prison since 1995. | |
| Table 2: Number of escapes from public and private prisons between 1 May 2010 and 31 March 2012(1), by prisoner category | ||
| Number | ||
| Category C | Uncategorised | |
| (1) March 2012 is the latest period for which validated figures are available. | ||
The number of escapes from prison has been falling since 1995 when central records began, despite an increasing prison population. There are on average no more than one or two escapes from prison establishments each year.
30 Oct 2012 : Column 127W
Sadiq Khan: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) how long on average it took to recapture escaped prisoners between May 1997 and 2010; [125262]
(2) how long on average it has taken to recapture escaped prisoners since 2010; [125263]
(3) which prison has experienced the highest number of escapes since 2010; [125264]
(4) how many prisoners who have escaped remain at large, by category of prisoner. [125265]
Jeremy Wright: The following table shows the average time escaped prisoners have spent unlawfully at large for the time periods requested. These data relate to prisoners who have escaped from prison establishment or HM Prison Service escorts.
| Table 1: Average time prisoners have spent unlawfully at large | |
| Average time UAL following escape(1) (days) | |
| (1) The data in this table relates to prisoners who have escaped from prison establishment or HM Prison Service escort only. Data on recapture of prisoners who have escaped from contractors escort is not centrally available and can be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Most contractor escapes occur at court. (2) March 2012 is the latest period for which validated figures are available. | |
There have only been three escapes from prison establishments between 1 January 2010 and 31 March 2012; one each from HMP Edmunds Hill, HMYOI Wetherby and HMYOI Hindley.
The following table shows the number of prisoners who remain unlawfully at large, according to their category. These data relate to prisoners who have escaped from prison establishment or prison escort or any escape involving a Category A prisoner.
| Table 2: Number of prisoners who remain unlawfully at large following an escape between April 1997 and March 2012, by category | |
| Category | Number |
| Note: The data in this table relates to prisoner who have escaped from prison establishment, HM Prison Service escort or any escapes involving Category A prisoners. Data on recapture of prisoners who have escaped from contractors escort is not centrally available and can be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Most contractor escapes occur at court. | |
Prisoners
Jenny Chapman: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) how many hours per week of purposeful activity was undertaken by offenders of each security category in each of the last three years; [124959]
(2) many hours per week were spent in cells by prisoners in each of the last three years by security category of prisoner. [125052]
Jeremy Wright: Information on purposeful activity and time in cell is available by overall prison establishment and is not disaggregated by prisoner security category. However, the establishment-level figures can be aggregated according to category of prison and these figures are set out in the following tables. Table 1 shows average hours of purposeful activity per week by prison category. Table 2 sets out the average hours in cell per week day.
30 Oct 2012 : Column 128W
| Table 1: Purposeful activity: Average hours per prisoner per week by prison category | |||
| Prison category | 2009-10 | 2010-11 | 2011-12 |
| Table 2: Time in cell: Average hours per prisoner per week day by prison category | |||
| Prison category | 2009-10 | 2010-11 | 2011-12 |
In the above tables prisons are categorised according to their predominant function, though some establishments will have more than one function.
The figures for Table 1 are taken from the Prison Performance Digest 2011-12, which has been published on the Justice website:
http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/statistics/prison-probation/prison-probation-performance-stats/prison-performance-digest-2011-12.xls
The figures for Table 2 are derived from information collected on the average hours per weekday that prisoners are unlocked. By subtracting the average hours unlocked from the 24 hours in a day it is possible to estimate hours spent locked in cell. It should be noted that time in cell includes hours when prisoners are asleep. Time unlocked includes time where a prisoner is either out of their cell or where the cell door is unlocked allowing them to move freely in and out of the cell.
The figures used in the answer have been drawn from administrative IT systems, which, as with any large-scale recording system, are subject to possible errors with data entry and processing.
Prisoners on Remand
Philip Davies:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many people were remanded in custody in each of the last three years; in respect of what offences
30 Oct 2012 : Column 129W
were such people remanded; how many such defendants were then convicted; and how many of those convicted were sentenced to a term of imprisonment. [122553]
30 Oct 2012 : Column 130W
Mrs Grant: The number of defendants proceeded against by type of remand and final outcome at all courts in England and Wales in 2009, 2010 and 2011 (latest currently available) can be viewed in Tables 1, 2 and 3 respectively.
| Table 1: Defendants proceeded against by type of remand and final outcome at magistrates courts(1) and tried at the Crown court, 2009(2), England and Wales | ||||
| Defendants (thousand and percentage) | ||||
| Final outcome | Not remanded | Bailed | Remanded in custody(6) | Total |
| (1) Magistrates courts data presented in this table exclude those who failed to appear and committals for trial or sentence. (2) Data for 2009 are estimated. (3) Community rehabilitation orders, supervision orders, community punishment orders, attendance. centre orders, community punishment and rehabilitation orders, curfew orders, reparation orders action plan orders and drug treatment and testing orders. (4) Includes detention in a young offender institution, detention and training orders and unsuspended imprisonment. (5) Includes one day in police cells, disqualification order, restraining order, confiscation order, travel restriction order, disqualification from driving, ASBO and recommendation for deportation and other disposals. 6 Includes those remanded for part of the time in custody and part on bail. Note: Some figures may not sum due to rounding. | ||||
| Table 2: Defendants proceeded against by type of remand and final outcome at magistrates courts(1) and tried at the Crown court, 2010(2), England and Wales | ||||
| Defendants (thousand and percentage) | ||||
| Final outcome | Not remanded | Bailed | Remanded in custody(6) | Total |
30 Oct 2012 : Column 131W
30 Oct 2012 : Column 132W
| (1) Magistrates courts data presented in this table exclude those who failed to appear and committals for trial or sentence. (2) Magistrates courts data for 2010 are estimated. (3) Community rehabilitation orders, supervision orders, community punishment orders, attendance centre orders, community punishment and rehabilitation orders, curfew orders, reparation orders action plan orders and drug treatment and testing orders. (4) Includes detention in a young offender institution, detention and training orders and unsuspended imprisonment. (5) Includes one day in police cells, disqualification order, restraining order, confiscation order, travel restriction order, disqualification from driving, ASBO and recommendation for deportation and other disposals. (6) Includes those remanded for part of the time in custody and part on bail. Note: Some figures may not sum due to rounding. | ||||
| Table 3: Defendants proceeded against by type of remand and final outcome at magistrates courts(1) and tried at the Crown court, 2011(2), England and Wales | ||||
| Defendants (thousand and percentage) | ||||
| Final outcome | Not remanded | Bailed | Remanded in custody(6) | Total |
| (1 )Magistrates courts data presented in this table exclude those who failed to appear and committals for trial or sentence. (2) Magistrates courts data for 2011 are estimated. (3) Community rehabilitation orders, supervision orders, community punishment orders, attendance centre orders, community punishment and rehabilitation orders, curfew orders, reparation orders, actions plan orders and drug treatment and testing orders. (4) Includes detention in a young offender institution, detention and training orders and unsuspended imprisonment. (5) Includes one day in police cells, disqualification order, restraining order, confiscation order, travel restriction order, disqualification from driving, recommendation for deportation and other disposals. (6) Includes those remanded for part of the time in custody and part on bail. Remand status used for the Crown component is that recorded at the point of committal from the magistrates court to the Crown court for trial or sentence. Note: Some figures may not sum due to rounding. | ||||
Prisons: Restraint Techniques
Philip Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many times girls have been restrained in prison in each of the last five years. [125488]
Jeremy Wright: The table shows the number of females aged 10 to 17 years requiring restrictive physical intervention while being held in custody within the youth secure estate (secure children's homes, secure training centres or under-18 young offender institutions) in 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11. Comparable data for previous years are not centrally held.
These data were published by the Ministry of Justice in January 2012 in the Youth Justice Statistics 2010-11 publication:
http://www.justice.gov.uk/statistics/youth-justice/statistics
Data for 2011-12 will be published in January 2013.
30 Oct 2012 : Column 133W
| Table 1: Total number of restraint incidents of females (aged 10 to 17 years) in the under 18's secure estate, 2008-09 to 2010-11 | |
| Female restraint incidents | |
Probation
Philip Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what the minimum number of hours is that an offender under a probation order needs to spend with their offender manager in any week, by type of order. [125402]
Jeremy Wright: There is no set minimum number of hours that an offender, subject to a Community Order (a successor order to the Probation Order), needs to spend with his/her offender manager in any week.
Under the National Standards for the Management of Offenders, issued in 2011, offender managers are required to arrange, as a mandatory minimum requirement,
“weekly contact, with offender assessed as presenting a high/very high risk of serious harm”
and in all other cases to maintain a level of contact
“sufficient to deliver the sentence plan and monitor changes in dynamic risk factors”.
Offenders frequently have contact with other staff from probation trusts and voluntary organisations, whilst undertaking other requirements of the Community Order such as unpaid work, drug rehabilitation and accredited programmes.
Reoffenders
Jenny Chapman: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many offenders were recalled to prison following a breach of tagging conditions in each of the last three years; and how many such offenders returned to prison as instructed. [124954]
Jeremy Wright: The number of offenders released on home detention curfew (HDC) whose licence was revoked and who were recalled to prison for breaching their conditions is provided in table A. These figures are taken from Table A3.6 of the Offender Management Statistics, Annual Tables 2011, a copy of which is in the House of Commons Library and which can also be found online at:
http://www.justice.gov.uk/statistics/prisons-and-probation/oms-quarterly
30 Oct 2012 : Column 134W
Details of which of these offenders recalled from HDC were returned to prison could be obtained only by a data matching exercise at disproportionate cost. However, we do have information on the number of all offenders recalled and returned to custody for all offences, these are provided in table B. This shows that over 99% of recalled prisoners were returned to custody in each of the three years. The remainder includes some who have died or who were removed from the UK after their licence was revoked but before return could be effected.
These figures are taken from Table 5.1 of the Offender Management Statistics quarterly bulletin, a copy of which is in the House of Commons Library and which can also be found online at:
http://www.justice.gov.uk/statistics/prisons-and-probation/oms-quarterly
These figures have been drawn from administrative IT systems which, as with any large scale recording system, are subject to possible errors with data entry and processing.
| Table A: Home detention curfew recalls by reason(1) England and Wales | |||
| 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | |
| (1) Data for 2011 are based on information recorded on the central prison IT system on 29 February 2012. | |||
| Table B: Summary of licence recalls 1 January 2009 to 31 March 2012 and returns to custody by 30 June 2012, England and Wales | |||||
| Year of recall (April to March) | Recalled | Returned to custody as of 30 June 2012(1) | Percentage returned to custody(1) | Not returned to custody as of 30 June 2012 | Percentage not returned to custody |
| (1)The number returned to custody includes those who are confirmed dead or were deported by the UK Borders Agency. | |||||
30 Oct 2012 : Column 135W
Ian Lavery: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) how many people who completed an anger replacement training programme were subsequently convicted of a further offence within (a) one year and (b) two years of completing that programme in the latest year for which figures are available; [125056]
(2) how many people who completed a Community Sex Offenders Programme were subsequently convicted of a further offence within (a) one year and (b) two years of completing that programme in the latest period for which figures are available; [125058]
(3) how many people who completed an Internet Sex Offenders Programme were subsequently convicted of a further offence within (a) one year and (b) two years of completing that programme in the latest year for which figures are available; [125059]
(4) how many people who completed an Integrated Domestic Abuse Programme and a Community Domestic Violence Programme were subsequently convicted of a further offence within (a) one year and (b) two years of completing that programme in the latest year for which figures are available. [125060]
Jeremy Wright: The information requested is not available in a readily accessible electronic format and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. A complex data-matching exercise would need to be undertaken to combine the data held on reoffending and offending behaviour programmes.
Ian Lavery: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many people spent a period residing in an approved premises in England and Wales for the latest year for which figures are available; and how many of those people were recalled to custody due to a breach of a condition of their licence. [125057]
Jeremy Wright: In 2011-12, there were 11,077 admissions to approved premises.
Statistics are not collected centrally in the form requested and could not be obtained without incurring disproportionate cost.
Jenny Chapman: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) what the 12-month reconviction rate was for each type of sentence for those found guilty of rape in each year since 1994; [125427]
30 Oct 2012 : Column 136W
(2) what the 12-month reconviction rate was for each type of sentence for those found guilty of robbery in each year since 1994; [125428]
(3) what the 12-month reconviction rate was for each type of sentence for those found guilty of theft from a vehicle in each year since 1994; [125429]
(4) what the 12-month reconviction rate was for each type of sentence for those found guilty of grievous bodily harm in each year since 1994; [125430]
(5) what the 12-month reconviction rate was for those found guilty of actual bodily harm, by type of sentence, in each year between 1994 and 2011. [125550]
Jeremy Wright: These questions have been answered using the Ministry of Justice's published proven reoffending statistics for England and Wales, broken down further by sentence and offence type. These statistics are published on a quarterly basis and the latest bulletin, for the period January to December 2010, was published on 25 October 2012.
The following table shows the number of adult offenders in England and Wales who were released from custody or received a non-custodial conviction at court for offences of rape, robbery, theft from a vehicle, grievous bodily harm and actual bodily harm, by sentence type, in each year between 2000 and 2010; and the proportion that committed a proven re-offence within a one year follow-up period (i.e. the one year proven reoffending rate).
The Ministry of Justice does not hold proven reoffending rates for years prior to 2000; 2000 is the earliest year for which proven reoffending rates exist on a comparable basis. Furthermore, 2010 is the latest full calendar year for which data are available.
A proven re-offence is defined as any offence committed in a one year follow-up period and receiving a court conviction, caution, reprimand or warning in the one year follow-up. Following this one year period, a further six month waiting period is allowed for cases to progress through the courts.
Proven reoffending rates by sentence type should not be compared to assess their effectiveness as there is no control for known differences in offender characteristics.
Please note that proven reoffending statistics are available from the Ministry of Justice website at:
www.justice.gov.uk/statistics/reoffending/proven-re-offending
| Number of adult offenders in England and Wales who were released from custody or received a non-custodial conviction at court for offences of rape, robbery, theft from a vehicle, grievous bodily harm and actual bodily harm, by sentence type, in each year between 2000 and 2010; and the proportion that committed a proven re-offence within a one year follow-up period(1,2) | |||||||||||
| Offence | Sentence | 2000 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 |
30 Oct 2012 : Column 137W
30 Oct 2012 : Column 138W
30 Oct 2012 : Column 139W
30 Oct 2012 : Column 140W
30 Oct 2012 : Column 141W
30 Oct 2012 : Column 142W
| (1) Data are not available for 2001 due to a problem with archived data on court orders. (2) The number of offenders does not represent all convicted offenders. Offenders who were released from custody or commenced a court order are matched to the police national computer database and a certain proportion of these offenders who cannot be matched are excluded from the offender cohort (i.e. the group of offenders for which reoffending is measured). (3) Court orders include pre-Criminal Justice Act 2003 community sentences, new community orders and suspended sentence orders. Italics means less than 30 offenders—treat data with caution. * Data based on less than 30 offenders are removed as they make data unreliable for interpretation. ‘—’= Not applicable. | |||||||||||