|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
26 Jan 2004 : Column 206Wcontinued
Paul Goggins: Following successful pilots of the Auld recommendation to increase the role of crown prosecutors in charging decisions, measures to put this on a statutory footing have been enacted in the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The relevant provisions will be brought into effect in April 2004, and the new arrangements will then be implemented on an area-by-area basis.
In preparation for that implementation, Crown Prosecution Service areas and their police partners are establishing shadow charging arrangements in each area. This will provide an infrastructure of duty prosecutors working in police operational units to provide on-the-spot advice to investigators, to be available for early consultation in investigations, and to make charging decisions in a wide range of cases.
Early guidance will focus on the lines of enquiry to be pursued in individual cases, the likely charges to be preferred and the evidential requirements to support these. Guidance will also be given on the case preparation requirements in each individual case.
Charging decisions will be made by crown prosecutors following a review of all the available evidence in each case. Where the evidence presented by an officer is insufficient for the charging decision to be made at that time, further guidance will be given on continuing case preparation and evidential requirements.
Mr. Oaten: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average length was of (a) an electronically monitored curfew order and (b) a home detention curfew in financial year 200203. 
Mr. Lazarowicz: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what criteria his Department uses when deciding whether a leaflet which it publishes is to be made available only on its website. 
26 Jan 2004 : Column 207W
If, after investigation, it is the case that the most cost-effective and efficient method of disseminating the information is by way of the website then that method would be employed. The approved information will also be sent for Legal Deposit in compliance with the Legal Deposit Act 2003 extension covering non-printed materials.
Informability aspects are also considered at this initial stage, therefore the document may appear in additional formats such as the Welsh or ethnic minority languages or in formats for people with disabilities.
|Number of press releases|
|Criminal Justice Service||13|
|Advisory Council on Misuse of Drugs||1|
|Animal Procedures Committee||2|
|Assets Recovery Agency||1|
|Compact Working Group||1|
|UK Passport Service||3|
PA's report, in September 2003, found that establishments generally saw early release as a useful incentive to influence the behaviour of trainees serving terms of eight months or more. Where early release was not granted, the main reasons were decisions by review meetings that trainees were unsuitable; lack of appropriate accommodation for them to go to; and young people's refusal of early release. PA recommended monitoring the reasons for decisions not to agree early release; investigating ways of improving the availability of suitable accommodation; and developing a system to record centrally the outcomes of early release decisions. The YJB are pursuing these recommendations.
26 Jan 2004 : Column 208W
discharged due to delays in gathering evidence, pressure of work and errors on the part of the (i) police and (ii) Crown Prosecution Service; and if he will make a statement. 
Paul Goggins: The Home Office does not keep any data on the reasons for discharges and the Crown Prosecution Service holds no central records of reasons for the outcome of proceedings. The Crown Prosecution keeps data on the number of unsuccessful outcomes (finalisations other than a conviction) for magistrates and crown courts, and the stage at which the outcome was unsuccessful.
The proportion of total magistrates court outcomes that were unsuccessful as a result of being-discontinued or bound over; write off; discharged committals; dismissal no case; or dismissals after trial was 22.0 per cent. for 2003 (to September). The corresponding figure was 23.4 per cent. in 2002, 23.5 per cent. in 2001, 23.5 per cent. in 2000, and 23.1 per cent. in 1999.
Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average time was between the referral by courts of individuals with criminal convictions for drug or alcohol treatment and the commencement of their treatment programmes in each of the last five years. 
Paul Goggins: Information relating to the national average waiting time to access drug or alcohol treatment by offenders in the community in each of the last five years is not available. However, since October 2000 drug treatment can only be imposed by the courts as a provision of a drug treatment and testing order (DTTO). The DTTO National Standard requires that appointments are arranged to take place with the Probation Service within one working day and with the treatment provider within two working days of the order being made and this is being achieved in over 75 per cent. of cases. From 200405 areas have been set a target to increase this performance to 90 per cent.
Vera Baird: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the toxicology awareness module for forensic medical examiner training will be in use; and when details of it will be available. 
Paul Goggins: Training on collecting evidence for toxicology is already in place for Forensic Medical Examiners (FMEs). It is incorporated in the Association of Forensic Physicians (AFP) introductory and development training courses. More specialised teaching also occurs at regional training courses and at conferences. The courses include training on toxicology issues relating to complainants of sexual assault and drug facilitated sexual assault.
26 Jan 2004 : Column 209W
Caroline Flint: We have held three round-table meetings on gun crime, the most recent on 25 November 2003. These have included representatives from community groups and organisations. The meetings have provided opportunities to take stock of existing action to tackle gun crime and gun culture and have helped to inform our forward approach.
In addition, the Home Office hosted a major gun crime/community involvement event in Birmingham on 19 and 20 January this year. The event brought together individuals from communities, local groups, voluntary organisations, young people, the police and policy makers to explore the nature of gun crime and gun culture and to help identify what more can be done to tackle these issues.
In addition, with effect from 14 July 2003, prisoners serving sentences for the following categories of offences are presumed unsuitable for release under the Home Detention Curfew scheme unless there are exceptional reasons to grant release:
26 Jan 2004 : Column 210W
introduced, and 9 January 2004, over 86,000 prisoners have been released under the Home Detention Curfew scheme. At any one time about 3,600 low risk prisoners, who would otherwise be filling prison places, are serving the last part of the custodial portion of their sentence on HDC. Since the scheme began 90 per cent. of those granted HDC have completed their curfew period without any problems at all and 2 per cent. are reported as having been convicted, cautioned or are awaiting prosecution for an offence committed while subject to HDC.
In addition, the Home Office published an evaluation of the operation of the first 16 months of the scheme in June 2001 (Home Office Research Study 222: "Electronic Monitoring of released prisoners: an evaluation of the Home Detention Curfew scheme").
I am satisfied that the scheme continues successfully to provide suitable prisoners with a smoother and more effective re-integration back into the community by enabling them to be released from prison early while still subject to restrictions placed on their liberty.
Paul Goggins: The Home Office has not carried out a survey specifically addressing public attitudes to the Home Detention Curfew (HDC) scheme but the scheme has been running successfully for over four years and public confidence in the Prison Service over this period has remained good. Ministers regularly receive correspondence about the scheme. Most of this concerns individual cases; only a small proportion expresses any concerns about the principles that underpin HDC.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|