Author: admin

  • Philip Davies – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Philip Davies – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Philip Davies on 2014-05-06.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of magistrates’ use of two year sentencing powers; and if he will make a statement.

    Jeremy Wright

    A Detention and Training Order, the main custodial sentence for children and young people, can be up to 24 months in length and is available to magistrates sitting in the Youth Court. The Government has not made an assessment of magistrates’ use of this order.

    There are a range of disposals available to magistrates when dealing with children and young people which are designed to address offending behaviour. Through our reforms this Government has taken steps to improve the youth sentencing framework.

  • Philip Davies – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Philip Davies – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Philip Davies on 2014-05-06.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many serving prisoners received driving lessons in the latest period for which figures are available.

    Jeremy Wright

    In 2013, the latest year for which data are available, 190 prisoners were recorded as taking car driving lessons/tests.

    All prisoners are thoroughly risk-assessed before being allowed to take these lessons and are only permitted to do so if the licence is required to help their rehabilitation, for example improving future employment prospects, thus reducing their likelihood of re-offending.

  • Philip Davies – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Philip Davies – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Philip Davies on 2014-05-06.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what proportion of (a) men and (b) women found guilty of benefit fraud in each of the last 10 years received (i) immediate custodial sentences and (b) non-custodial sentences.

    Jeremy Wright

    The sentencing framework and sentencing guidelines apply equally to all offenders. Sentencing is entirely a matter for the courts, taking account of all the circumstances of each case. This will include the seriousness of the offence, including all aggravating and mitigating factors, and a guilty plea.

    Fraud has a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment and there are various other offences which are specific to benefit fraud, with maximum penalties of up to seven years’ imprisonment. The courts must follow the relevant sentencing guideline in their approach to sentencing. Last year, the Sentencing Council conducted a public consultation on a new draft guideline for fraud and a new definitive guideline, informed by the responses received, will apply in due course.

    In addition to criminal penalties, those convicted of benefit fraud also face a restriction on their benefits for an extended period.

    The number of men and women sentenced at all courts for offences relating to benefit fraud in England and Wales from 2002 to2012 (latest data available) can be viewed in the table.

    Please note that court proceedings statistics for the year 2013 are planned to be published by the Ministry of Justice on 15th May 2014.

  • Philip Davies – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Philip Davies – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Philip Davies on 2014-05-06.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what the ratio of prison officers to inmates of each gender was in each (a) prison establishment and (b) category of prison in each of the last five years.

    Jeremy Wright

    I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on April 7th 2014, Official Report, [261W].

  • Kate Hoey – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Kate Hoey – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kate Hoey on 2014-05-06.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether all people who received a Royal Prerogative of Mercy had their names listed in the London Gazette.

    Damian Green

    There are no statutory requirements relating to the publication of pardons granted under the Royal Prerogative of Mercy. However, by convention, the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery places a notice of such pardons granted in England and Wales in the London Gazette.

  • Kate Hoey – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Northern Ireland Office

    Kate Hoey – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Northern Ireland Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kate Hoey on 2014-05-06.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to the Answer of 1 May 2014, Official Report, column 762W, on terrorism, in what circumstances the information pertaining to grants of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy between 1987 and 1997 was lost; and what steps she plans to take to recover that information.

    Mrs Theresa Villiers

    The information provided in my written answer of 1 May 2014 (Official Report, Column 762W) was based on information held by my Department. I first became aware of the issue of missing files while preparing to answer that question. I directed that a review take place, along with other relevant Departments, of the historical records relating to RPMs during the period 1987 to 1997. This is ongoing.

    Records indicate that the vast majority of uses of the RPM referred to in my answer of 1 May did not relate to terrorist offences. Historically, the RPM was used to remit sentences of individuals before statutory means existed to do so. This included releasing individuals from prison for compassionate reasons (e.g. those who were terminally ill), individuals who assisted the police and prosecuting authorities (now provided for by the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005), or to correct errors in calculating release dates. Further information on the general operation of the RPM can be found in the Ministry of Justice’s “Review of the Executive Royal Prerogative Powers: Final Report”, published in October 2009.

    In a written answer to the Member for North West Norfolk on 17 March 2014 (Official Report, Column 368W), I repeated an answer given on 20 March 2003 by the then-Secretary for State for Northern Ireland to the Member for Lagan Valley (Official Report, Column 895W) – namely that 18 individuals had been granted the RPM in relation to terrorist offences since 1998. Given the RPM has not been used since 2002 and has not been used by this Government, the answer given was the same as the 2003 one. However, early findings from the review of files have indicated that at least one of these cases did not relate to a terrorist offence and in one other case the records do not indicate whether or not the offence was terrorism related.

    In relation to the remaining 16 uses of the RPM between 2000 and 2002 (which did concern terrorist offences), I understand that previous Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland used the RPM in relation to individuals who for technical reasons fell outside of the letter of the Early Release Scheme, to shorten (i.e. not waive or remove) sentences in order that individuals fell within what I understand the then-Government saw as the spirit of the Scheme.

    In other words, the RPM was used to correct what the last Government viewed as discrepancies between the letter and the intention of the Belfast Agreement and the subsequent Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act – that for a certain category of terrorist offences, offenders could be released after serving two years of their sentences.

    The reasons for exercising the RPM in the 16 terrorism-related cases are summarised as follows:

    · to correct an anomaly in the treatment of an offender convicted of the same offence(s) and given the same sentence as co-defendants but who would otherwise have served longer in prison;

    · to release prisoners who would have been eligible for early release under the Belfast Agreement had they not transferred to a different jurisdiction;

    · to release prisoners who would have been eligible to be released under the Belfast Agreement had they not served sentences outside the jurisdiction having been convicted extraterritorially, or;

    · to release prisoners who would have been eligible to be released under the Belfast Agreement had their offences (which subsequently became scheduled offences) been scheduled at the time they were committed.

    The names of the 16 individuals granted the RPM in relation to terrorist offences since 2000 are currently being considered as part of an ongoing court case in Northern Ireland.

  • Kate Hoey – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Northern Ireland Office

    Kate Hoey – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Northern Ireland Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kate Hoey on 2014-05-06.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to the Answer of 1 May 2014, Official Report, column 762W, on terrorism, when she first became aware that records on grants of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy between 1987 and 1997 had been lost.

    Mrs Theresa Villiers

    The information provided in my written answer of 1 May 2014 (Official Report, Column 762W) was based on information held by my Department. I first became aware of the issue of missing files while preparing to answer that question. I directed that a review take place, along with other relevant Departments, of the historical records relating to RPMs during the period 1987 to 1997. This is ongoing.

    Records indicate that the vast majority of uses of the RPM referred to in my answer of 1 May did not relate to terrorist offences. Historically, the RPM was used to remit sentences of individuals before statutory means existed to do so. This included releasing individuals from prison for compassionate reasons (e.g. those who were terminally ill), individuals who assisted the police and prosecuting authorities (now provided for by the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005), or to correct errors in calculating release dates. Further information on the general operation of the RPM can be found in the Ministry of Justice’s “Review of the Executive Royal Prerogative Powers: Final Report”, published in October 2009.

    In a written answer to the Member for North West Norfolk on 17 March 2014 (Official Report, Column 368W), I repeated an answer given on 20 March 2003 by the then-Secretary for State for Northern Ireland to the Member for Lagan Valley (Official Report, Column 895W) – namely that 18 individuals had been granted the RPM in relation to terrorist offences since 1998. Given the RPM has not been used since 2002 and has not been used by this Government, the answer given was the same as the 2003 one. However, early findings from the review of files have indicated that at least one of these cases did not relate to a terrorist offence and in one other case the records do not indicate whether or not the offence was terrorism related.

    In relation to the remaining 16 uses of the RPM between 2000 and 2002 (which did concern terrorist offences), I understand that previous Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland used the RPM in relation to individuals who for technical reasons fell outside of the letter of the Early Release Scheme, to shorten (i.e. not waive or remove) sentences in order that individuals fell within what I understand the then-Government saw as the spirit of the Scheme.

    In other words, the RPM was used to correct what the last Government viewed as discrepancies between the letter and the intention of the Belfast Agreement and the subsequent Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act – that for a certain category of terrorist offences, offenders could be released after serving two years of their sentences.

    The reasons for exercising the RPM in the 16 terrorism-related cases are summarised as follows:

    · to correct an anomaly in the treatment of an offender convicted of the same offence(s) and given the same sentence as co-defendants but who would otherwise have served longer in prison;

    · to release prisoners who would have been eligible for early release under the Belfast Agreement had they not transferred to a different jurisdiction;

    · to release prisoners who would have been eligible to be released under the Belfast Agreement had they not served sentences outside the jurisdiction having been convicted extraterritorially, or;

    · to release prisoners who would have been eligible to be released under the Belfast Agreement had their offences (which subsequently became scheduled offences) been scheduled at the time they were committed.

    The names of the 16 individuals granted the RPM in relation to terrorist offences since 2000 are currently being considered as part of an ongoing court case in Northern Ireland.

  • Kate Hoey – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Northern Ireland Office

    Kate Hoey – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Northern Ireland Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kate Hoey on 2014-05-06.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to the Answer of 1 May 2014, Official Report, column 762W, on terrorism, if she will publish the names of those people who received the Royal Prerogative of Mercy; and when and for what reasons it was granted to each.

    Mrs Theresa Villiers

    The information provided in my written answer of 1 May 2014 (Official Report, Column 762W) was based on information held by my Department. I first became aware of the issue of missing files while preparing to answer that question. I directed that a review take place, along with other relevant Departments, of the historical records relating to RPMs during the period 1987 to 1997. This is ongoing.

    Records indicate that the vast majority of uses of the RPM referred to in my answer of 1 May did not relate to terrorist offences. Historically, the RPM was used to remit sentences of individuals before statutory means existed to do so. This included releasing individuals from prison for compassionate reasons (e.g. those who were terminally ill), individuals who assisted the police and prosecuting authorities (now provided for by the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005), or to correct errors in calculating release dates. Further information on the general operation of the RPM can be found in the Ministry of Justice’s “Review of the Executive Royal Prerogative Powers: Final Report”, published in October 2009.

    In a written answer to the Member for North West Norfolk on 17 March 2014 (Official Report, Column 368W), I repeated an answer given on 20 March 2003 by the then-Secretary for State for Northern Ireland to the Member for Lagan Valley (Official Report, Column 895W) – namely that 18 individuals had been granted the RPM in relation to terrorist offences since 1998. Given the RPM has not been used since 2002 and has not been used by this Government, the answer given was the same as the 2003 one. However, early findings from the review of files have indicated that at least one of these cases did not relate to a terrorist offence and in one other case the records do not indicate whether or not the offence was terrorism related.

    In relation to the remaining 16 uses of the RPM between 2000 and 2002 (which did concern terrorist offences), I understand that previous Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland used the RPM in relation to individuals who for technical reasons fell outside of the letter of the Early Release Scheme, to shorten (i.e. not waive or remove) sentences in order that individuals fell within what I understand the then-Government saw as the spirit of the Scheme.

    In other words, the RPM was used to correct what the last Government viewed as discrepancies between the letter and the intention of the Belfast Agreement and the subsequent Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act – that for a certain category of terrorist offences, offenders could be released after serving two years of their sentences.

    The reasons for exercising the RPM in the 16 terrorism-related cases are summarised as follows:

    · to correct an anomaly in the treatment of an offender convicted of the same offence(s) and given the same sentence as co-defendants but who would otherwise have served longer in prison;

    · to release prisoners who would have been eligible for early release under the Belfast Agreement had they not transferred to a different jurisdiction;

    · to release prisoners who would have been eligible to be released under the Belfast Agreement had they not served sentences outside the jurisdiction having been convicted extraterritorially, or;

    · to release prisoners who would have been eligible to be released under the Belfast Agreement had their offences (which subsequently became scheduled offences) been scheduled at the time they were committed.

    The names of the 16 individuals granted the RPM in relation to terrorist offences since 2000 are currently being considered as part of an ongoing court case in Northern Ireland.

  • Iain McKenzie – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Iain McKenzie – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Iain McKenzie on 2014-05-06.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if she has made an assessment of the UK Border Force’s ability to process passengers at Glasgow Airport for the forthcoming Glasgow 2014 Commonwealth Games; and if she will make a statement.

    James Brokenshire

    Border Force planning for the Commonwealth Games has been underway since
    December 2012. Border Force is currently working with Glasgow Airport to
    refurbish the arrivals control, providing an increased number of arrivals desks
    and utilising the latest technology in the form of electronic passport gates.
    This will enhance the arrivals experience at Glasgow and the increased capacity
    will ensure that passengers pass through the arrivals area as quickly as
    possible while, at the same time, maintaining border security.

  • Chi Onwurah – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    Chi Onwurah – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Chi Onwurah on 2014-05-06.

    To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, how many away days his Department held in (a) 2012-13 and (b) 2013-14; and (i) what cost was incurred and (ii) who was in attendance at each such day.

    Mr Francis Maude

    The information requested is not held centrally.