---

Reoffending Rates

Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent research his Department has conducted into (a) short-term and (b) long-term reoffending rates for criminal offences; and if he will place copies of that research in the Library. [123862]

Mr. Boateng: Reconviction rates for offenders discharged from prison during 1995 and those sentenced to community penalties during 1995 were published in Home Office Statistical Bulletin issue 19/99 on 25 October 1999. Further information on reconviction rates for prisoners appears in chapter 9 of "Prison Statistics England and Wales 1998". Copies of both publications have been placed in the Library.

There are several ongoing research projects on offenders participating in various crime reduction programmes. Reconviction rates are used as one of the measures of

25 May 2000 : Column: 629W

success for many of these projects, which include evaluations of Welfare to Work and the effectiveness of probation programmes via the Pathfinder and other projects. Copies of the latest findings from these research projects will be placed in the Library upon completion.

Offences against Children

Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) in the latest year for which figures are available, how many people were convicted of, and what was the (a) average prison and (b) maximum sentence received for, (i) offences against children listed in paragraphs one, two and three of Schedule 4 to the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill, (ii) assault occasioning actual bodily harm committed against a child, contrary to the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and (iii) unlawful supply of drugs to a child, contrary to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971; [123863]

(2) how many persons were convicted in the last five years for which figures are available of (a) offences under section 54 of the Criminal Law Act 1977, (b) offences under section 1 of the Indecency with Children Act 1960, (c) offences under section 1 of the Protection of Children Act 1978, (d) offences under section 160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and (e) offences under the following provisions of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 committed against persons (i) under and (ii) over the age of 16 years (1) section 1 (rape), (2) section 5 (intercourse with a girl under 13), (3) section 6 (intercourse with a girl between 13 and 16), (4) section 10 (incest by a man), (5) section 11 (incest by a woman), (6) section 12 (buggery), (7) section 13 (gross indecency), (8) section 14 (indecent assault on a girl), (9) section 15 (indecent assault on a boy), (10) section 16 (assault with intent to commit buggery), (11) section 23 (procuration of girl under 21) and (12) section 28 (causing or encouraging prostitution of, intercourse with, or indecent assault on, girl under 16); and what was the average sentence (A) received and (B) served for each offence. [123600]

Mr. Charles Clarke: I will write to the hon. Member.

Kudlip Sander

Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the Government's response to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Kudlip Sander. [123601]

Mr. Charles Clarke: The court's judgment, which was limited to the facts of this case, means that in future similar cases where the judge is aware of evidence of jury bias it may be necessary to discharge the jury to achieve a fair trial. The Judicial Studies Board, which includes training on equal treatment issues in its core training for judges, is currently considering the training implications of this judgment. Notices will also be placed in jury retiring rooms, reminding jurors of their duty to be impartial in trying the case.

Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) Bill

Sir Nicholas Lyell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), of 2 March 2000, Official Report, column

25 May 2000 : Column: 630W

377W, on the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) Bill, (1) what proportion of the total number of Crown Court defendants in either way cases is represented by the 14,000 defendants who would be tried in the magistrates courts, indicating (a) the total assumed number of such defendants, (b) the proportion of the total who are assumed to plead guilty, (c) the proportion of the total that are assumed to have been tried according to the evidence, (d) the proportion of the 14,000 assumed to have pleaded guilty in the Crown Court, (e) the proportion of the 14,000 assumed to have been fully tried in the Crown Court, (f) the proportion of those fully tried which it is assumed would have been convicted and (g) the average sentences which it is assumed those convicted would have received; [123856]

(2) of the 14,000 defendants assumed to have remained in the magistrates court, what proportion (a) would have pleaded guilty, (b) would have been fully tried and (c) would have been convicted; what is the average length of trial assumed in the magistrates court; what legal prosecution and defence costs are assumed in the cases of (i) plea of guilty and (ii) full trial; what proportion of those convicted are assumed to have received a custodial sentence and of what length; what profile of sentences of non-custodial sentence is assumed in relation to what proportion of the remainder; and on what basis assumptions as to the relevant length of sentence have been made; [123857]

(3) what average remand times have been assumed in respect of Crown Court cases, and magistrates court cases in relation to savings from shorter sentences; what profile of offences has been assumed and what average sentence has been assumed in relation to each such offence in the Crown Court and the magistrates court; and how many relevant previous convictions have been assumed in each case; [123858]

(4) how many separate hearings have been assumed in the Crown Court, and in the magistrates court, in relation to each case; [123860]

(5) what has been taken as the average length and costs of a contested trial in (a) the Crown Court and (b) the magistrates court; and what are the equivalent figures in each court in respect of cases where the defendant eventually pleads guilty. [123859]

Mr. Charles Clarke: In 1997, some 63,000 defendants were committed for trial at the Crown Court in either-way cases; 14,000 represents about 22 per cent. of that number. In 1998, the proportion of defendants pleading guilty to either-way offences in the Crown Court was 66 per cent., but, for costing purposes, our model assumes a higher guilty plea rate of 80 per cent., which has the effect of minimising the savings which might be expected from the reform. About 38 per cent. of defendants contesting either-way offences in the Crown Court were convicted, and a similar rate was assumed for costing purposes.

The savings for the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No.2) Bill were measured using the flows and costs model which was developed by the Home Office in collaboration with the Lord Chancellor's Department and Crown Prosecution Service to estimate the cost of initiatives in the criminal justice system. The costs are

25 May 2000 : Column: 631W

based on a theft and handling case in the Crown Court and an average indictable case in the magistrates courts.

The particular assumptions made in relation to the 14,000 defendants who would be tried in the magistrates courts as a result of the Bill are given in the table:

Assumption
Remand time avoided	9 weeks
Timeous guilty plea rate	80 per cent.
Late guilty plea rate	10 per cent.
Not guilty plea rate	10 per cent.
Appeal against mode of trial decision	25 per cent.
Average sentence imposed at the Crown Court	10.9 months
Average sentence imposed in the magistrates courts	3.6 months
Custodial sentence rate in Crown Court	46.5 per cent.
Custodial sentence rate in the magistrates courts	22.5 per cent.

It has also been assumed that these cases involve no more and no fewer hearings then equivalent cases in their class and venue. There are a number of other variables, such as length of trial, which are not specifically included in the costing exercise but which were reflected in the costs and flows model. Assumptions have been made about remand time avoided rather than about average remand times. No information is available on the cost of proceedings and sentences by number of previous convictions.

The background to the costs and flows model is available on the internet at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/areas/ econpf.htm

Animal Welfare (Circuses)

Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received on the welfare of animals used in circuses. [122415]

Mr. Mike O'Brien: This year, the Home Office has received 50 letters about the welfare of circus animals from individual members of the public and Members of Parliament. There have been six Parliamentary Questions on the subject. In addition, over 1,500 pre-printed letters have been received as part of an Animal Defenders campaign connected with elephants in a particular circus. A large Animal Defenders petition to the House of Commons, seeking a ban on the use of animals in travelling circuses and the licensing of circus winter quarters, has also recently been passed to the Home Office. I met representatives of Animal Defenders and the Captive Animals Society on 31 January.

---