Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Meacher: To ask the Solicitor-General how many cases, where the sentence was judged to be unduly lenient were referred, (a) Crown Prosecution Service HQ Directorate, (b) Treasury Counsel and (c) to the Legal Secretariat of the Law Offices and to himself, in each of the last three years; how many cases were accepted by her for review by the Court of Appeal and how many were rejected; and in how many cases the Court of Appeal accepted that the sentence was unduly lenient and (i) increased the sentence and (ii) did not increase the sentence. [168819]
The Solicitor-General:
Set out in the following table are details of the data held by the CPS Casework Directorate and the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers which represent figures for the last three calendar years. The figures in line one represent the total defendants whose sentences were referred to Casework Directorate. The figures in line two onward represent the total defendants whose sentences were referred to LSLO by the CPS and by other prosecuting agencies. Figures are not kept regarding whether cases were referred to Treasury Counsel for advice.
16 Jun 2004 : Column 955W
2001 | 2002 | 2003 | |
---|---|---|---|
Total defendants whose sentences were referred to Casework Directorate | 287 | 375 | 323 |
Total defendants whose sentences were referred to the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers | 277 | 340 | 316 |
Total defendants whose sentences were considered by the Law Officers | 234 | 290 | 272 |
Total defendants whose sentence was referred to the Court of Appeal | 149 | 134 | 97 |
Total defendants where Court of Appeal refused leave | 8 | 2 | 2 |
Total defendants where leave given but Court of Appeal held sentence not unduly lenient | 12 | 17 | (2)3 |
Total defendants where sentence held unduly lenient by Court of Appeal | 129 | 115 | (2)60 |
Total defendants where sentence held unduly lenient and sentence increased | 97 | 91 | (2)53 |
Total defendants where sentence held unduly lenient and sentence not increased | 32 | 24 | (2)7 |
Mr. Dismore: To ask the Solicitor-General if she will make a statement on the work to date of the Crown Prosecution Service in respect of the Potters Bar Rail accident; and what further work she envisages the CPS undertaking. [177811]
The Solicitor-General: A joint investigation by the British Transport Police and the Health and Safety Executive into the causes of the rail accident began immediately after the derailment on 10 May 2002. The police led this investigation due to a suspicion that a serious criminal offence caused the deaths, and between June 2002 and March 2004 the Crown Prosecution Service worked closely with the police advising them on the evidence submitted and to be obtained.
In March 2004, the lead in the investigation transferred to Health and Safety Executive investigators, as no evidence of a deliberate criminal act or gross negligence causing the deaths had been established against any individual. The emphasis of the investigation is now on systems and procedures, areas that fall within the specialist skills and experience of these investigators.
At the conclusion of their inquiries, the Health and Safety Executive will review the evidence and reach a prosecution decision. The Crown Prosecution Service is on hand to advise the police, but only if evidence of a serious criminal offence comes to light would the case be passed back to the Crown Prosecution Service to consider.
Mr. Norman:
To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office (1) what provision has been and will be made for publicising (a) the decision by the Panel for Regulatory Accountability whether or not to clear a given regulatory proposal and (b) the grounds on which the decision was made; [178832]
16 Jun 2004 : Column 956W
(2) what provision has been and will be made for publicising the decisions of the Regulatory Impact Unit regarding whether a particular regulatory proposal requires clearance from the Panel for Regulatory Accountability; [178833]
(3) if he will list the regulatory proposals which have been deemed by the Regulatory Impact Unit to require clearance from the Panel for Regulatory Accountability during the past three months; [178835]
(4) how many times the Panel for Regulatory Accountability (a) has met in the past year and (b) is scheduled to meet in the forthcoming year. [178836]
Mr. Alexander: It has been established practice under successive Governments not to disclose information relating to the proceedings of Cabinet Committees, under exemption 2, of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.
Miss McIntosh: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what funding central Government will make available to pay for the restoration of the Royal Hall in Harrogate; and if she will make a statement on Government support for the restoration. [178660]
Estelle Morris: Central Government funding for the historic environment is channelled through English Heritage. Both English Heritage and the Heritage Lottery Fund run a number of grant schemes that provide assistance for the preservation of listed buildings of historical and architectural importance. These organisations are responsible for the allocation of funds within these schemes at arms length of Government. In the case of the Royal Hall, Harrogate, the Heritage Lottery Fund is discussing with Harrogate borough council how best to secure the building's future.
Lembit Öpik: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport under what powers the TV Licensing Authority is permitted to demand access to people's homes to check whether or not they possess a television; and if she will make a statement. [179058]
Estelle Morris: TV Licensing officers may enter a person's home only with their consent or under a warrant issued under section 366 of the Communications Act 2003 by a justice of the peace, or, in Scotland, a sheriff. Such a warrant may be issued only if there are reasonable grounds for believing that an offence related to the installation or use of a television receiver has been or is being committed.
Michael Fabricant:
To ask the Chairman of the Information Committee what further steps are to be
16 Jun 2004 : Column 957W
taken by the Parliamentary Communications Directorate to limit the amount of spam e-mails received by hon. Members, peers, and their staff; and if he will make a statement. [178005]
Mr. Key : Plans to introduce a new improved spam management system are well advanced. The Parliamentary Communications Directorate aims to introduce the new system, which will offer a more comprehensive service than at present, before the summer recess.
Mr. Hancock: To ask the Prime Minister when he last requested a review of the requests to award an Arctic Medal; and what process was followed. [175051]
The Prime Minister: Earlier this year, my hon. Friend the Minister for Veterans at the Ministry of Defence (Mr. Caplin) reviewed all the recent claims from veterans for new medals, including the campaign for an Arctic Medal. Those who served in the Arctic convoys were awarded the Atlantic Star in respect of their service.
However, the Government are keeping medals for various groups of veterans under review
Mr. Ancram: To ask the Prime Minister what recent review has been undertaken concerning the prioritisation and distribution of documents that are marked for Ministers' attention by their private offices. [179067]
The Prime Minister: I refer the right hon. and learned Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) on 14 June 2004, Official Report, column 621W.
Lady Hermon: To ask the Prime Minister what plans the Government have to mark the 60th anniversary of the end of the Second World War; and if he will make a statement. [178899]
The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the announcement made by my hon. Friend the Minister for Veterans Affairs (Mr. Caplin) on 9 June 2004, Official Report, column 309.
Next Section | Index | Home Page |