UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Philip Davies

  • 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 2014-03-11.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many and what proportion of (a) men and (b) women convicted of benefit fraud in each of the last five years received a prison sentence; and what the average prison sentence was for those of each gender so convicted.

    Jeremy Wright

    The Department for Work and Pensions operates a tough series of specific penalties for benefit fraud that run alongside the criminal justice system. The Welfare Reform Act 2012 toughened penalties for those who commit, or attempt to commit benefit fraud. We have introduced a financial administrative penalty as an alternative to prosecution which, for the first time, can be applied to attempted fraud.

    The Government has also introduced a tougher loss of benefit penalty to restrict benefits to people convicted of benefit fraud or who have accepted an administrative penalty. Benefits can be reduced for periods of 13 weeks, 26 weeks or 3 years, dependent on the number of benefit fraud offences committed within a specified period, where the latest offence results in a conviction.

    Judges make their decisions independently of Government based on the facts of each case. The maximum penalty for fraud is 10 years in prison.

    The number of defendants proceeded against at magistrates’ court found guilty and sentenced at all courts for offences relating to benefit fraud, with sentencing outcomes and the average custodial sentence length by gender, in England and Wales, from 2008 to 2012 (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 in May 2014.

  • Philip Davies – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Philip Davies – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Philip Davies on 2014-04-01.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what proportion of victims who took part in the research used in the report Everyone’s business; Improving the police response to domestic abuse were (a) male and (b) female.

    Norman Baker

    As part of its inspection of the police response to domestic violence and
    abuse, which was the basis for the report "Everyone’s business: Improving the
    police response to domestic abuse", Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary
    (HMIC) held focus groups and interviews with 80 victims, of which six were male.

    HMIC also circulated an electronic self-completion victim survey to inform its
    inspection. 532 victims of domestic abuse completed the survey, of which 483
    were female, 39 were male and ten preferred not to disclose their gender.

  • 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 2014-03-31.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what estimate he has made of the proportion of offences where the victim surcharge is ordered and there is no victim.

    Mr Shailesh Vara

    The Ministry of Justice does not collate the information in the manner requested, and it is not possible to identify the amount of victim surcharge collected in relation to offences where there was no victim.

    The Ministry of Justice Court Proceedings Database holds information on defendants proceeded against, found guilty and sentenced for criminal offences in England and Wales. This database holds information on offences provided by the statutes under which proceedings are brought but not the specific circumstances of each case. This centrally held information does not include details of the amount of victim surcharge imposed for the majority of cases. Below is a link to our most recent quarterly bulletin.

    https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/282983/1-executive-summary-tables.xls

    “

  • Philip Davies – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Philip Davies – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Philip Davies on 2014-05-01.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the Answer of 28 April 2014, Official Report, column 471W, on Standardised Packaging for Tobacco Independent Review, what fees were paid to King’s College for hosting the Review team.

    Jane Ellison

    A final breakdown of expenditure will be made public when complete on the Review’s webpage:

    www.kcl.ac.uk/health/packaging-review.aspx

    There was no agreed budget in advance of the Review but an estimate of £177,000 was made for planning purposes. Sir Cyril had control of his own budget, as outlined in the Terms of Reference, and expenditure was passed to the Department and approved in the normal way.

    Sir Cyril travelled to Australia in March 2014, and attended meetings in Canberra, Sydney and Melbourne. Further details of those meetings are available on the Review’s webpage.

  • 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 offenders have been released from one life sentence before being given another life sentence in each of the last 30 years; and in each such case (a) how long the offender spent in prison for the earlier life sentence, (b) how long the offender had been ordered to serve as a minimum period for the latest life sentence, (c) on what dates each life sentence was given, (d) what the offences were for which the offender received each life sentence and (e) what all the offences committed by that offender prior to the latest life sentence were.

    Jeremy Wright

    A life sentence is mandatory for murder and discretionary life sentences are available for other very serious offences. This Government has introduced an automatic life sentence for a second very serious violent or sexual offence.

    Under a life sentence, the court determines the minimum period to be served in prison for the purposes of punishment and deterrence. Once that period has been served it is for the Parole Board to determine if and when the offender may be released from prison on life licence and subject to recall for the rest of their life.

    Table 1 shows the number of offenders who have been sentenced to life in the 12 months ending September 2013 who previously had one or more previous life sentence on a separate sentencing occasion within the last 30 years, in England and Wales. The table also shows details of their latest and previous offences for which they received a life sentence.

    Reoffending rates for life sentenced prisoners are very low. A small number of life sentence prisoners commit offences in prison which result in a second life sentence. Some life sentence prisoners can also receive a second life sentence on conviction for offences committed prior to being imprisoned (e.g. a previous murder or rape).

    The figures provided have been drawn from an extract of the Police National Computer (PNC) data held by the Department. The PNC holds details of all convictions and cautions given for recordable offences committed in England and Wales. In addition, as with any large scale recording system the PNC is subject to possible errors with data entry and processing.

    Detailed information on the length of time served by individual life sentence prisoners, and offence information is not readily available, so I will write to the Honourable Member.

  • 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 2014-06-09.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what the highest total number of life sentences given to any single offender is in the last 30 years.

    Jeremy Wright

    A life sentence is mandatory for murder and discretionary life sentences are available for other very serious offences. This Government has introduced an automatic life sentence for a second very serious violent or sexual offence.

    The number of offenders who receive two or more life sentences is small. A number of life sentence prisoners commit offences in prison which result in a second life sentence, as is the case with the offender identified in response to this question. Some life sentence prisoners can also receive a second life sentence on conviction for offences committed prior to being imprisoned (e.g. a previous murder or rape).

    Of all offenders sentenced to life imprisonment between the years 2000 and 2013, the offender with the highest number of life sentences imposed on separate sentencing occasions in the 30 years prior to their most recent life sentence is an offender with four life sentences. All of the offender’s life sentences were imposed for the attempted murder of fellow inmates and a guard.

    The figure provided has been drawn from an extract of the Police National Computer (PNC) data held by the Department. The PNC holds details of all convictions and cautions given for recordable offences committed in England and Wales. Full criminal histories are only available for offenders convicted or cautioned for a recordable offence from the year 2000 onwards. In addition, as with any large scale recording system the PNC is subject to possible errors with data entry and processing.

  • 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 2014-03-11.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many (a) men and (b) women convicted of benefit fraud in each of the last five years received (i) a conditional discharge, (ii) a fine, (iii) a community order and (iv) a suspended prison sentence.

    Jeremy Wright

    The Department for Work and Pensions operates a tough series of specific penalties for benefit fraud that run alongside the criminal justice system. The Welfare Reform Act 2012 toughened penalties for those who commit, or attempt to commit benefit fraud. We have introduced a financial administrative penalty as an alternative to prosecution which, for the first time, can be applied to attempted fraud.

    The Government has also introduced a tougher loss of benefit penalty to restrict benefits to people convicted of benefit fraud or who have accepted an administrative penalty. Benefits can be reduced for periods of 13 weeks, 26 weeks or 3 years, dependent on the number of benefit fraud offences committed within a specified period, where the latest offence results in a conviction.

    Judges make their decisions independently of Government based on the facts of each case. The maximum penalty for fraud is 10 years in prison.

    The number of defendants proceeded against at magistrates’ court found guilty and sentenced at all courts for offences relating to benefit fraud, with sentencing outcomes and the average custodial sentence length by gender, in England and Wales, from 2008 to 2012 (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 in May 2014.

  • Philip Davies – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    Philip Davies – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Philip Davies on 2014-04-01.

    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, what measures are in place to ensure that aid given to foreign countries is used for the purposes intended; and what proportion of such aid not being used for those purposes would result in future aid being denied to that country.

    Justine Greening

    DFID has a number of controls in place focussing on monitoring and evaluation, including both internal and external audits and reports from the International Development Committee and the Independent Commission for Aid Impact.

    DFID has strong internal review processes in place to make sure projects are properly monitored and closed if they are not delivering good results and value for money.

  • 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 2014-03-31.

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

    Jeremy Wright

    Information on the ratio of prisoners to prison officers has been provided previously to the hon. Member for Tooting, Sadiq Khan. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 4 Mar 2014, Official Report, Column 805W.

    It is not possible to calculate a meaningful ratio of prisoners to staff based on gender. Any officer to prisoner ratio must take account of all available staffing, of either gender, in order to realistically represent the level of staffing.

  • 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 2014-05-07.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what the highest compensation payment ordered in employment tribunal cases relating to discrimination on the grounds of (a) sex, (b) disability, (c) religion, (d) sexual orientation, (e) age and (f) race was in each of the last five years; and if he will list the nature of the complaint upheld in each case.

    Mr Shailesh Vara

    I am answering these questions together.

    Data on highest compensation awards for discrimination jurisdictions for the last five years are set out in Tables E6 to E10 of the latest Official Statistics release published by the Ministry of Justice, which can be accessed here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/tribunal-statistics-quarterly-july-to-september-2013.

    Data on average compensation awards in race discrimination and religious discrimination claims are set out in Tables E6 and E9 of that publication, respectively.

    Information on the nature of complaints upheld, and the type of race or religion relevant to individual claims, is not recorded centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost following a manual trawl of all relevant tribunal files. The records retention and disposal schedule applicable to such tribunal files also means that information covering each of the last five years would not be held.