Author: admin

  • Andy Slaughter – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Andy Slaughter – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andy Slaughter on 2016-05-19.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many (a) children under 18 years of age and (b) young people aged 18 to 24 applied for legal aid under the Exceptional Case Funding Scheme in (i) 2013-14, (ii) 2014-15 and (iii) 2015-16.

    Mr Shailesh Vara

    The purpose of the Exceptional Case Funding (ECF) scheme is to provide funding where it is legally needed. It does not provide a general power to fund cases which fall outside the scope of legal aid. Legal aid is a vital part of our justice system, but we cannot escape the continuing need to reduce the deficit. We still have a very generous system – last year we spent £1.6bn on legal aid, around a quarter of the department’s expenditure. Every ECF application is carefully considered by the Legal Aid Agency on an individual basis.

    Applications to the Exceptional Case Funding scheme, by age of applicant, April 2013 to December 2015

    FY application received

    Under 18

    18-24

    Unknown

    Apr 2013 – Mar 2014

    55

    86

    6982

    Apr 2014 – Mar 2015

    27

    116

    67

    Apr 2015 – Dec 20151

    31

    82

    78


    1     Statistics for Jan-Mar 2016 are exempt for future publication on 30 June 2016

    2 Please note: Age data for Exceptional Case Funding were collected from October 2013 onwards, hence the greater proportion of unknowns in 2013-14 compared to the other years.

    Applications to the Exceptional Case Funding scheme, which were granted3, by age of applicant, April 2013 to December 2015

    FY application received

    Under 18

    18-24

    Unknown

    Apr 2013 – Mar 2014

    1

    4

    132

    Apr 2014 – Mar 2015

    8

    20

    3

    Apr 2015 – Dec 20151

    12

    40

    23

    1 Statistics for Jan-Mar 2016 are exempt for future publication on 30 June 2016

    2 Please note: Age data for Exceptional Case Funding were collected from October 2013 onwards, hence the greater proportion of unknowns in 2013-14 compared to the other years.

    3 Granted by 29 February 2016

    Applications to the Exceptional Case Funding scheme for immigration cases, by age of applicant, April 2013 to December 2015

    FY application received

    Under 18

    18-24

    Unknown

    Apr 2013 – Mar 2014

    –

    12

    1332

    Apr 2014 – Mar 2015

    14

    39

    16

    Apr 2015 – Dec 20151

    11

    33

    25

    1 Statistics for Jan-Mar 2016 are exempt for future publication on 30 June 2016

    2 Please note: Age data for Exceptional Case Funding were collected from October 2013 onwards, hence the greater proportion of unknowns in 2013-14 compared to the other years.

    Applications to the Exceptional Case Funding scheme for immigration cases, which were granted3, by age of applicant, April 2013 to December 2015

    FY application received

    Under 18

    18-24

    Unknown

    Apr 2013 – Mar 2014

    –

    –

    12

    Apr 2014 – Mar 2015

    4

    8

    1

    Apr 2015 – Dec 20151

    10

    22

    12

    1 Statistics for Jan-Mar 2016 are exempt for future publication on 30 June 2016

    2 Please note: Age data for Exceptional Case Funding were collected from October 2013 onwards, hence the greater proportion of unknowns in 2013-14 compared to the other years.

    3 Granted by 29 February 2016

  • Andy Slaughter – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Andy Slaughter – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andy Slaughter on 2016-05-19.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many (a) children under 18 years of age and (b) young people aged 18 to 24 were granted legal funding under the Exceptional Case Funding Scheme in (i) 2013-14, (ii) 2014-15 and (iii) 2015-16.

    Mr Shailesh Vara

    The purpose of the Exceptional Case Funding (ECF) scheme is to provide funding where it is legally needed. It does not provide a general power to fund cases which fall outside the scope of legal aid. Legal aid is a vital part of our justice system, but we cannot escape the continuing need to reduce the deficit. We still have a very generous system – last year we spent £1.6bn on legal aid, around a quarter of the department’s expenditure. Every ECF application is carefully considered by the Legal Aid Agency on an individual basis.

    Applications to the Exceptional Case Funding scheme, by age of applicant, April 2013 to December 2015

    FY application received

    Under 18

    18-24

    Unknown

    Apr 2013 – Mar 2014

    55

    86

    6982

    Apr 2014 – Mar 2015

    27

    116

    67

    Apr 2015 – Dec 20151

    31

    82

    78


    1     Statistics for Jan-Mar 2016 are exempt for future publication on 30 June 2016

    2 Please note: Age data for Exceptional Case Funding were collected from October 2013 onwards, hence the greater proportion of unknowns in 2013-14 compared to the other years.

    Applications to the Exceptional Case Funding scheme, which were granted3, by age of applicant, April 2013 to December 2015

    FY application received

    Under 18

    18-24

    Unknown

    Apr 2013 – Mar 2014

    1

    4

    132

    Apr 2014 – Mar 2015

    8

    20

    3

    Apr 2015 – Dec 20151

    12

    40

    23

    1 Statistics for Jan-Mar 2016 are exempt for future publication on 30 June 2016

    2 Please note: Age data for Exceptional Case Funding were collected from October 2013 onwards, hence the greater proportion of unknowns in 2013-14 compared to the other years.

    3 Granted by 29 February 2016

    Applications to the Exceptional Case Funding scheme for immigration cases, by age of applicant, April 2013 to December 2015

    FY application received

    Under 18

    18-24

    Unknown

    Apr 2013 – Mar 2014

    –

    12

    1332

    Apr 2014 – Mar 2015

    14

    39

    16

    Apr 2015 – Dec 20151

    11

    33

    25

    1 Statistics for Jan-Mar 2016 are exempt for future publication on 30 June 2016

    2 Please note: Age data for Exceptional Case Funding were collected from October 2013 onwards, hence the greater proportion of unknowns in 2013-14 compared to the other years.

    Applications to the Exceptional Case Funding scheme for immigration cases, which were granted3, by age of applicant, April 2013 to December 2015

    FY application received

    Under 18

    18-24

    Unknown

    Apr 2013 – Mar 2014

    –

    –

    12

    Apr 2014 – Mar 2015

    4

    8

    1

    Apr 2015 – Dec 20151

    10

    22

    12

    1 Statistics for Jan-Mar 2016 are exempt for future publication on 30 June 2016

    2 Please note: Age data for Exceptional Case Funding were collected from October 2013 onwards, hence the greater proportion of unknowns in 2013-14 compared to the other years.

    3 Granted by 29 February 2016

  • Andy Slaughter – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Andy Slaughter – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andy Slaughter on 2016-05-19.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many (a) children under 18 years of age and (b) young people aged 18 to 24(i) applied for legal aid through the Exceptional Case Funding Scheme (ECF) and (ii) were granted ECF in immigration cases in (A) 2013-14, (B) 2014-15 and (C) 2015-16.

    Mr Shailesh Vara

    The purpose of the Exceptional Case Funding (ECF) scheme is to provide funding where it is legally needed. It does not provide a general power to fund cases which fall outside the scope of legal aid. Legal aid is a vital part of our justice system, but we cannot escape the continuing need to reduce the deficit. We still have a very generous system – last year we spent £1.6bn on legal aid, around a quarter of the department’s expenditure. Every ECF application is carefully considered by the Legal Aid Agency on an individual basis.

    Applications to the Exceptional Case Funding scheme, by age of applicant, April 2013 to December 2015

    FY application received

    Under 18

    18-24

    Unknown

    Apr 2013 – Mar 2014

    55

    86

    6982

    Apr 2014 – Mar 2015

    27

    116

    67

    Apr 2015 – Dec 20151

    31

    82

    78


    1     Statistics for Jan-Mar 2016 are exempt for future publication on 30 June 2016

    2 Please note: Age data for Exceptional Case Funding were collected from October 2013 onwards, hence the greater proportion of unknowns in 2013-14 compared to the other years.

    Applications to the Exceptional Case Funding scheme, which were granted3, by age of applicant, April 2013 to December 2015

    FY application received

    Under 18

    18-24

    Unknown

    Apr 2013 – Mar 2014

    1

    4

    132

    Apr 2014 – Mar 2015

    8

    20

    3

    Apr 2015 – Dec 20151

    12

    40

    23

    1 Statistics for Jan-Mar 2016 are exempt for future publication on 30 June 2016

    2 Please note: Age data for Exceptional Case Funding were collected from October 2013 onwards, hence the greater proportion of unknowns in 2013-14 compared to the other years.

    3 Granted by 29 February 2016

    Applications to the Exceptional Case Funding scheme for immigration cases, by age of applicant, April 2013 to December 2015

    FY application received

    Under 18

    18-24

    Unknown

    Apr 2013 – Mar 2014

    –

    12

    1332

    Apr 2014 – Mar 2015

    14

    39

    16

    Apr 2015 – Dec 20151

    11

    33

    25

    1 Statistics for Jan-Mar 2016 are exempt for future publication on 30 June 2016

    2 Please note: Age data for Exceptional Case Funding were collected from October 2013 onwards, hence the greater proportion of unknowns in 2013-14 compared to the other years.

    Applications to the Exceptional Case Funding scheme for immigration cases, which were granted3, by age of applicant, April 2013 to December 2015

    FY application received

    Under 18

    18-24

    Unknown

    Apr 2013 – Mar 2014

    –

    –

    12

    Apr 2014 – Mar 2015

    4

    8

    1

    Apr 2015 – Dec 20151

    10

    22

    12

    1 Statistics for Jan-Mar 2016 are exempt for future publication on 30 June 2016

    2 Please note: Age data for Exceptional Case Funding were collected from October 2013 onwards, hence the greater proportion of unknowns in 2013-14 compared to the other years.

    3 Granted by 29 February 2016

  • Bridget Phillipson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Bridget Phillipson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Bridget Phillipson on 2016-05-19.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if his Department will take steps to end the cross-examination of self-representing survivors of domestic abuse by their abusers in family court proceedings.

    Caroline Dinenage

    The family courts take the issue of domestic violence extremely seriously. The Child Arrangement Programme and Practice Direction 12J sets out a strong and clear framework for judges to apply to the management of difficult court room situations, to ensure they are handled sensitively for alleged victims of domestic violence and other vulnerable witnesses. All judges receive specific training on this framework and they can intervene to prevent inappropriate questions or have questions relayed. Practical protections, for example, protective screens, video links, separate waiting rooms and separate entrances are available where appropriate.

  • Bridget Phillipson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Bridget Phillipson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Bridget Phillipson on 2016-05-19.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the effect of the cross-examination of survivors of domestic abuse by their abusers on the ability of such survivors to provide their best evidence in family court proceedings.

    Caroline Dinenage

    The family courts take the issue of domestic violence extremely seriously. The Child Arrangement Programme and Practice Direction 12J sets out a strong and clear framework for judges to apply to the management of difficult court room situations, to ensure they are handled sensitively for alleged victims of domestic violence and other vulnerable witnesses. All judges receive specific training on this framework and they can intervene to prevent inappropriate questions or have questions relayed. Practical protections, for example, protective screens, video links, separate waiting rooms and separate entrances are available where appropriate.

  • Philip Davies – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Philip Davies – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Philip Davies on 2016-05-19.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what the highest number of suspended sentences is that one person currently has without receiving a prison sentence in a (a) magistrates court and (b) Crown court.

    Dominic Raab

    Where the court imposes a custodial sentence of two years or less it may suspend the sentence, for up to two years, and also impose one or more community requirements. This is a decision for the independent judiciary. If the offender breaches a suspended sentence order, there is a statutory presumption that the custodial sentence will be given effect, unless it would be unjust to do so in view of all of the circumstances.

    Repeat offenders can expect to go straight to prison if they commit a serious offence. Offenders serving suspended custodial sentences, however, have a lower re-offending rate than offenders serving immediate, short custodial sentences.

    The highest number of suspended sentences received by one person who has not also received an immediate custodial sentence, as recorded on the Police National Computer (PNC) up to 31 December 2015, and the latest sentencing occasion being (a) in a magistrate’s court was 10 and (b) in the Crown Court was 6.

    The highest number of suspended sentences received by one person, as recorded on the PNC up to December 2015, before receiving an immediate custodial sentence in; (a) a magistrate’s court was 9 and (b) the Crown Court was 8.

  • Philip Davies – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Philip Davies – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Philip Davies on 2016-05-19.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what the highest number of suspended sentences is that one person has received before receiving a prison sentence in a (a) magistrates court and (b) Crown court.

    Dominic Raab

    Where the court imposes a custodial sentence of two years or less it may suspend the sentence, for up to two years, and also impose one or more community requirements. This is a decision for the independent judiciary. If the offender breaches a suspended sentence order, there is a statutory presumption that the custodial sentence will be given effect, unless it would be unjust to do so in view of all of the circumstances.

    Repeat offenders can expect to go straight to prison if they commit a serious offence. Offenders serving suspended custodial sentences, however, have a lower re-offending rate than offenders serving immediate, short custodial sentences.

    The highest number of suspended sentences received by one person who has not also received an immediate custodial sentence, as recorded on the Police National Computer (PNC) up to 31 December 2015, and the latest sentencing occasion being (a) in a magistrate’s court was 10 and (b) in the Crown Court was 6.

    The highest number of suspended sentences received by one person, as recorded on the PNC up to December 2015, before receiving an immediate custodial sentence in; (a) a magistrate’s court was 9 and (b) the Crown Court was 8.

  • David Anderson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Prime Minister

    David Anderson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Prime Minister

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by David Anderson on 2016-05-19.

    To ask the Prime Minister, with reference to the Answer of 10 May 2016 to Question 36679, which of those specific groups of people referred to in that Question he has shared a speaking platform with in an official capacity.

    Mr David Cameron

    Details of my official speeches are available on the gov.uk website.

  • Paul Flynn – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Prime Minister

    Paul Flynn – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Prime Minister

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Paul Flynn on 2016-05-19.

    To ask the Prime Minister, which leaders in civil society, business and government were invited to attend the anti-corruption conference, Tackling Corruption Together, which he hosted in London on 11 May 2016.

    Mr David Cameron

    The Tackling Corruption Together conference was organised by civil society organisations, businesses and the Commonwealth Secretariat.

  • Paul Flynn – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Prime Minister

    Paul Flynn – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Prime Minister

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Paul Flynn on 2016-05-19.

    To ask the Prime Minister, whether he invited the President of Panama and the Prime Minister of the British Virgin Islands to attend the Anti-Corruption Summit held in London on 12 May 2016; and what criteria he used in deciding which political leaders to invite.

    Mr David Cameron

    The Anti-Corruption Summit was the first of its kind, bringing together world leaders and anti-corruption champions in business and civil society. 44 countries and seven international organisations attended, including 11 heads of state or government and the heads of the World Bank, IMF and UNDP. Leaders from those Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories that had agreed to automatic exchange of beneficial ownership information were among those invited.

    We agreed a Global Declaration, a Summit Communique and a set of country statements with ambitious commitments to expose, punish and drive out corruption. These are published on the gov.uk website.