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 bailNumber of offences

Burglary

4,865

Criminal damage

999

Drug offences

6,272

Fraud and forgery

978

Indictable motoring offences

276

Other indictable offences

4,287

Robbery

1,593

Sexual offences

300

Summary motoring offences

2,622

Summary offences excluding motoring

17,021

Theft and handling stolen goods

20,072

Violence against the person

5,746

(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 cancelledAdministratively cancelled

2007-08

53,872,752

53,150,325

2008-09

47,408,421

55,666,410

2009-10

58,277,772

47,398,379

2010-11

62,263,874

50,712,367

2011-12

63,957,203

63,135,442

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

Escapes from public prisons

18

Escapes from private prisons

7

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 CUncategorised

Number of escapes from public prisons

1

2

Number of escapes from private prisons

0

0

(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)

May 1997 to April 2010

72

May 2010 to March 2012(2)

31

(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
CategoryNumber

C

3

Uncategorised

2

Detainee

1

YOI

1

Provisional Category A

1

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 category2009-102010-112011-12

Category B

26.7

27.1

30.1

Category C

24.7

24.8

25.2

Cluster

26.2

25.6

24.7

Dispersal

20.5

20.7

21.7

Female closed

29.1

30.9

29.5

Female local

24.8

24.7

23.8

Female open

43.4

42.5

42.3

Male closed young offender

24.5

24.2

24.0

Male juvenile

31.5

28.9

27.5

Male local

20.9

21.4

21.4

Male open

42.9

42.5

44.2

Male open young offender

43.2

45.3

47.0

Semi open

38.6

43.9

45.6

Table 2: Time in cell: Average hours per prisoner per week day by prison category
Prison category2009-102010-112011-12

Category B

14.4

14.1

13.9

Category C

14.2

14.2

14.1

Cluster

13.2

14.5

14.5

Dispersal

15.0

15.0

15.1

Female closed

13.7

12.8

13.6

Female local

13.6

13.5

14.1

Female open

7.6

7.6

7.6

Male closed young offender

16.0

15.8

16.2

Male juvenile

13.7

14.3

14.4

Male local

15.7

15.5

15.4

Male open

8.6

8.1

8.1

Male open young offender

9.9

9.0

10.2

Semi open

8.1

6.0

6.2

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 outcomeNot remandedBailedRemanded in custody(6)Total

Number (thousand)

    

Acquitted or not proceeded with etc.

168.0

102.2

9.5

279.7

Convicted:

    

Discharge

27.6

63.2

2.0

92.8

Fine

794.5

147.8

3.2

945.5

Community sentence(3)

32.7

156.1

6.9

195.8

Suspended sentence

6.5

34.1

4.5

45.1

Immediate custody(4)

20.4

36.4

43.4

100.2

Otherwise dealt with(5)

12.9

11.5

2.1

26.5

Total defendants sentenced

894.7

449.2

62.1

1,405.9

     

Total

1,062.7

551.4

71.5

1,685.6

     

Percentage

    

Acquitted or not proceeded with etc.

16

19

13

17

Convicted:

    

Discharge

3

11

3

6

Fine

75

27

4

56

Community sentence(3)

3

28

10

12

Suspended sentence

1

6

6

3

Immediate custody(4)

2

7

61

6

Otherwise dealt with(5)

1

2

3

2

Total percentage sentenced

84

81

87

83

     

Total

100

100

100

100

(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 outcomeNot remandedBailedRemanded in custody(6)Total

Number (thousand)

    

Acquitted or not proceeded with etc.

165.4

108.0

11.9

285.3

Convicted:

    

Discharge

30.0

67.6

1.7

99.4

Fine

751.6

139.9

2.4

893.9

Community sentence(3)

35.4

147.5

6.4

189.3

Suspended sentence

7.6

36.2

4.3

48.1

Immediate custody(4)

25.3

36.3

40.0

101.5

Otherwise dealt with(5)

13.8

16.7

2.7

33.1

Total defendants sentenced

863.7

444.1

57.5

1,365.3

     

Total

1,029.1

552.1

69.4

1,650.6

     

Percentage

    

Acquitted or not proceeded with etc.

16

20

17

17

Convicted:

    

Discharge

3

12

2

6

Fine

73

25

3

54

Community sentence(3)

3

27

9

11

30 Oct 2012 : Column 131W

30 Oct 2012 : Column 132W

Suspended sentence

1

7

6

3

Immediate custody(4)

2

7

58

6

Otherwise dealt with(5)

1

3

4

2

Total percentage sentenced

84

80

83

83

     

Total

100

100

100

100

(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 outcomeNot remandedBailedRemanded in custody(6)Total

Number (thousand)

    

Acquitted or not proceeded with etc.

153.8

98.0

10.9

262.6

Convicted:

    

Discharge

30.2

61.6

1.3

93.0

Fine

720.3

129.5

1.8

851.6

Community sentence(3)

34.7

133.1

5.6

173.4

Suspended sentence

8.2

35.6

4.0

47.8

Immediate custody(4)

24.6

36.6

41.5

102.7

Otherwise dealt with(5)

13.3

14.9

2.4

30.7

Total defendants sentenced

831.3

411.3

56.6

1,299.3

     

Total

985.1

509.3

67.5

1,561.9

     

Percentage

    

Acquitted or not proceeded with etc.

15.6

19.2

16.1

16.8

Convicted:

    

Discharge

3.1

12.1

1.9

6.0

Fine

73.1

25.4

2.7

54.5

Community sentence(3)

3.5

26.1

8.3

11.1

Suspended sentence

0.8

7.0

5.9

3.1

Immediate custody(4)

2.5

7.2

61.5

6.6

Otherwise dealt with(5)

1.4

2.9

3.6

2.0

Total percentage sentenced

84.4

80.8

83.9

83.2

     

Total

100

100

100

100

(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

2008-09

1,287

2009-10

1,054

2010-11

494

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
 200920102011

Males and females

1,441

1,154

1,179

    

Cases not involving new charges

1,210

946

940

Breach of HDC conditions

927

622

703

Installation failure

108

152

103

Monitoring failure

2

0

2

Change of circumstances

78

58

35

Risk of serious harm

0

0

1

Breach of non-HDC licence conditions

95

114

96

    

Cases involving new charges

231

208

239

Breach of HDC conditions

3

3

15

Inability to monitor

0

0

3

Risk of serious harm

0

0

0

Charged with new offence

228

205

221

(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)RecalledReturned to custody as of 30 June 2012(1)Percentage returned to custody(1)Not returned to custody as of 30 June 2012Percentage not returned to custody

2009-10

15,004

14,885

99.2

114

0.8

2010-11

15,631

15,499

99.2

115

0.7

      

April to June 2011

4,036

3,974

98.5

41

1.0

July to September 2011

4,353

4,244

97.5

55

1.3

October to December 2011

4,017

3,925

97.7

63

1.6

January to March 2012

4,185

4,107

98.1

78

1.9

Total

139,191

n/a

n/a

988

0.7

(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)
OffenceSentence2000200220032004200520062007200820092010

Rape

Absolute/Conditional Discharge

          
 

Number of offenders in cohort(5)

1

0

2

2

1

1

2

1

0

2

 

Proportion of offenders who re-offend (%)

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

            
 

Fine

          
 

Number of offenders in cohort(5)

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

 

Proportion of offenders who re-offend (%)

30 Oct 2012 : Column 137W

30 Oct 2012 : Column 138W

 

Court Order(3)

          
 

Number of offenders in cohort(5)

5

7

2

4

7

4

13

8

12

14

 

Proportion of offenders who re-offend (%)

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

            
 

Custody

          
 

Number of offenders in cohort

398

400

425

458

472

422

498

534

479

376

 

Proportion of offenders who re-offend (%)

15.3

15.5

13.2

7.6

11.4

12.6

11.4

12.7

9.4

14.1

            
 

Other

          
 

Number of offenders in cohort

15

14

14

21

27

35

19

27

34

34

 

Proportion of offenders who re-offend (%)

*

*

*

*

*

2.9

*

*

0.0

0.0

            

Robbery

Absolute/Conditional Discharge

          
 

Number of offenders in cohort

15

12

10

13

10

9

18

7

7

9

 

Proportion of offenders who re-offend (%)

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

            
 

Fine

          
 

Number of offenders in cohort

6

2

4

4

6

3

4

5

2

2

 

Proportion of offenders who re-offend (%)

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

            
 

Court Order(3)

          
 

Number of offenders in cohort

201

223

315

315

369

446

629

557

604

671

 

Proportion of offenders who re-offend (%)

36.8

40.4

41.9

48.9

43.9

38.3

35.5

34.1

34.3

33.1

            
 

Custody

          
 

Number of offenders in cohort

2,806

3,090

3,408

3,471

3,313

3,276

3,543

3,747

3,625

2,638

 

Proportion of offenders who re-offend (%)

44.5

45.5

43.7

40.3

39.9

38.9

40.8

40.2

40.5

42.1

            
 

Other

          
 

Number of offenders in cohort

51

67

58

67

71

67

68

83

79

117

 

Proportion of offenders who re-offend (%)

19.6

20.9

17.2

14.9

11.3

11.9

11.8

13.3

2.5

15.4

            

Theft from a vehicle

Absolute/Conditional Discharge

          
 

Number of offenders in cohort

561

548

581

497

452

524

479

435

386

383

 

Proportion of offenders who re-offend (%)

53.8

52.2

51.5

48.1

51.3

46.8

53.0

48.5

43.3

46.2

30 Oct 2012 : Column 139W

30 Oct 2012 : Column 140W

 

Fine

          
 

Number of offenders in cohort

898

671

613

450

406

406

357

351

340

349

 

Proportion of offenders who re-offend (%)

46.1

46.8

46.8

47.1

52.0

49.8

53.8

47.6

44.7

50.7

            
 

Court Order(3)

          
 

Number of offenders in cohort

1,225

1,272

1,226

1,091

1,169

1,508

1,506

1,470

1,445

1,323

 

Proportion of offenders who re-offend (%)

64.2

67.4

66.8

65.2

66.0

62.0

64.3

66.7

58.2

63.6

            
 

Custody

          
 

Number of offenders in cohort

724

770

742

669

585

681

745

747

656

556

 

Proportion of offenders who re-offend (%)

77.3

80.4

83.2

76.5

77.4

76.1

79.6

78.0

74.8

80.2

            
 

Other

          
 

Number of offenders in cohort

108

107

115

105

105

97

111

120

113

158

 

Proportion of offenders who re-offend (%)

63.0

66.4

69.6

66.7

72.4

72.2

64.9

57.5

65.5

63.9

            

Grievous Bodily Harm

Absolute/Conditional Discharge

          
 

Number of offenders in cohort

77

56

66

46

50

44

40

27

21

23

 

Proportion of offenders who re-offend (%)

13.0

12.5

12.1

10.9

16.0

2.3

12.5

*

*

*

            
 

Fine

          
 

Number of offenders in cohort

81

43

46

45

28

28

21

20

15

15

 

Proportion of offenders who re-offend (%)

12.3

18.6

13.0

8.9

*

*

*

*

*

*

            
 

Court Order(3)

          
 

Number of offenders in cohort

1,220

1,216

1,347

1,226

1,271

1,575

1,684

1,651

1,664

2,030

 

Proportion of offenders who re-offend (%)

17.4

18.7

19.0

17.0

18.7

16.1

18.5

18.7

15.5

15.4

            
 

Custody

          
 

Number of offenders in cohort

2,852

2,999

2,927

2,972

2,980

2,652

2,848

3,161

3,217

2,800

 

Proportion of offenders who re-offend (%)

27.8

28.1

27.3

25.0

24.1

25.2

25.1

25.0

24.7

25.8

            
 

Other

          
 

Number of offenders in cohort

123

137

132

146

149

137

150

148

159

153

 

Proportion of offenders who re-offend (%)

5.7

1.5

9.1

8.9

4.0

2.9

4.7

1.4

4.4

3.3

30 Oct 2012 : Column 141W

30 Oct 2012 : Column 142W

Actual Bodily Harm

Absolute/Conditional Discharge

          
 

Number of offenders in cohort

1,426

1,040

997

886

798

639

543

385

265

330

 

Proportion of offenders who re-offend (%)

13.0

14.9

14.4

13.1

12.0

13.5

14.2

10.6

12.5

11.5

            
 

Fine

          
 

Number of offenders in cohort

1,306

888

846

642

544

457

425

257

228

191

 

Proportion of offenders who re-offend (%)

12.9

16.1

16.2

14.8

14.7

11.8

12.5

11.7

13.6

12.6

            
 

Court Order(3)

          
 

Number of offenders in cohort

5,244

5,149

5,363

5,181

5,941

7,317

7,534

7,249

7,551

8,287

 

Proportion of offenders who re-offend (%)

21.8

24.0

24.1

22.3

22.7

23.2

23.2

22.4

22.3

20.8

            
 

Custody

          
 

Number of offenders in cohort

3,146

2,824

2,637

2,721

3,027

2,818

2,943

3,276

3,598

3,178

 

Proportion of offenders who re-offend (%)

36.4

38.0

37.4

35.5

36.7

35.1

37.2

39.6

37.6

35.6

            
 

Other

          
 

Number of offenders in cohort

404

318

282

252

263

240

197

198

255

311

 

Proportion of offenders who re-offend (%)

19.3

18.2

18.8

17.9

19.4

18.8

16.8

15.7

12.2

19.3

(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.