| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
17 Mar 2005 : Column 383W—continued
Burglary (Sentencing)
David Davis: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many and what proportion of burglars convicted for a third offence received a custodial sentence in the most recent year for which information is available; and what the average length of sentence for those sentenced to custody was. [216331]
Mr. Charles Clarke [holding answer 21 February 2005]: The table gives the numbers sentenced for their third burglary offence. The numbers are for a four week period in 2001, derived from the Offenders Index. The figures include attempted burglaries, as it is not possible to distinguish between an actual and attempted burglary on the Offenders Index.
(13) Includes only previous convictions for burglary in a dwelling.
Please note that definition and coverage is different from s111 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000.
(14) Includes only previous convictions for burglary not in a dwelling
17 Mar 2005 : Column 384W
Civil Service
Mr. George Osborne: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many civil service staff have failed security vetting procedures in each year since 1997. [204531]
Mr. Charles Clarke: Separate figures are not kept to differentiate between civil servants and non-civil servants who have been refused security vetting by the Home Office.
Community Sentences
Harry Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many (a) community service and (b) restorative justice sentences were imposed in (i) Redbridge, (ii) Waltham Forest, (iii) London and (iv) England in each of the last three years; what proportion of all sentences in each area each represented in each year; what plans he has to encourage increased use of each type of sentence; and if he will make a statement. [221247]
Paul Goggins: Information on community sentences for the years 2000 to 2003 is contained in table A. Statistics for 2004 will be published in the latter part of this year.
Restorative justice can form part of referral orders and reparation orders, which are disposals for juveniles. The Youth Justice Board has set a key performance indicator (KPI) for Youth Offending Teams (YOTS) which seeks to ensure that at least 75 per cent. of victims of youth crime referred to YOTS are offered the opportunity to participate in restorative processes by 2005. Table B gives performance against this KPI.
The Government are keen to encourage the use of restorative justice throughout the adult criminal justice system. The Criminal Justice Act 2003 allows for restorative justice to be part of an offender's sentence, permitting sentencers to include it in activity requirements imposed as part of a Community Order. This will be piloted in due course. The Act also allows for the use of restorative justice in the new Conditional Caution. We are about to issue implementation guidance on restorative justice for Local Criminal Justice Boards and their constituent agencies.
As part of the reform of the sentencing structure in the Criminal Justice Act 2003, current community sentences for adults, including the community punishment order, will be replaced by a single generic community order with a range of possible requirements. Courts will then be able to choose different elements to make up a bespoke community order. Technological advances, such as electronic monitoring provide innovative ways to monitor compliance, reduce offending and ensure community sentences are not a soft option. The new community order will be available from 4 April 2005 and will apply only to offences committed on or after that date.
17 Mar 2005 : Column 385W
(15) Referral orders were introduced nationally on 1 April 2002.
17 Mar 2005 : Column 387W
(16) Due to limitations in information systems, KPI performance data before 2003–04 were collected in calendar years.
(17) These are provisional and subject to change.
David Davis: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the reconviction rates were for community-based sentences in each year since 1997, broken down by (a) type of sentence and (b) offence committed. [217732]
Mr. Charles Clarke:
The probability that an offender will be reconvicted is strongly associated with a number of factors such as age and previous criminal history. It is not appropriate to compare reconviction rates over time as allowances need to be made for any change in the characteristics of offenders being given community-based sentences. For instance, if young offenders were proportionally more numerous in some years than they were in others, we would predict an increase in the actual rate as younger offenders are more likely to be reconvicted.
17 Mar 2005 : Column 388W
Home Office Online Report 59/04 controlled for such changes in characteristics, and also excluded the impact of more rigorous enforcement of breaches by the Probation Service. It found that, when compared to the reconviction rate that is predicted given their characteristics, there was a reduction of 2 per cent. in the reconviction rate between 1997 and 2001 for adult offenders given community sentences, although this reduction was not statistically significant
The tables give unadjusted reconviction rates for those receiving community based sentences in each year since 1997, broken down by type of sentence and offence committed. The figures given are for those aged 16 and over and show the percentage reconvicted within two years. Figures broken down by offence are not readily available for the years 1997 and 1998.
| Fraud and forgery | Drugs offences | Motoring offences | Criminal damage | Other Indictable offences | Other summary offences | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1997(18) | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 1998(18) | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 1999 | 43 | 56 | 42 | 61 | 55 | 72 |
| 2000 | 48 | 59 | 45 | 62 | 56 | 61 |
| 2001 | 48 | 61 | 45 | 66 | 58 | 60 |
(18) Figures not readily available
Notes:
1. Only reconvictions for standard list offences are counted as reconvictions.
2. The original offence is the principal offence at conviction. This is the conviction that incurs the most severe sentence at each court appearance.
17 Mar 2005 : Column 389W
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |