|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Mr. Garnier: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many and what proportion of offenders released on bail in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available were (a) originally charged with and (b) subsequently sentenced for offences of violence against the person, sexual offences or robbery. 
Maria Eagle: Data showing the number and proportion of defendants remanded on bail for offences of violence against the person, sexual offences and robbery, in England and Wales for the years 2004 to 2006 can be found in the following table. The data include those held in custody at any stage during proceedings. Bail data broken down by offence group prior to 2004 are not collated centrally. These data are taken from the Criminal Statistics, England and Wales publications, 2004-06.
Data held by the Office for Criminal Justice Reform records the offence at the outcome of court proceedings, which may differ from the original charged offence. Bail data are not collated separately for defendants who are sentenced for specific offence groups. The figures given relate to all defendants, whether convicted and sentenced or acquitted.
|Estimated number and proportion of persons remanded on bail for selected offence groups, at magistrates or the Crown court, England and Wales, 2004-06( 1)|
|Type of offence||Total number bailed at all courts( 2,3) (thousand)||Percentage of all those bailed for all offences|
|(1) These data are on the principal offence basis. When a defendant has been found guilty of two or more offences, the offence selected is the one for which the heaviest penalty is imposed. Where the same disposal is imposed for two or more offences, the offence selected is the offence for which the statutory maximum penalty is the most severe.|
(2) Includes those also held in custody at some stage and those failing to appear to bail.
(3) Excludes defendants reported as failing to appear to a summons although some of these cases, having been initiated by a summons may have resulted in the defendant being remanded on bail.
(4) The offence is that which the defendant is acquitted or convicted of, which may differ from the original offence the defendant was charged with.
Every effort is made to ensure that the figures presented are accurate and complete. However, it is important to note that these data have been extracted from large administrative data systems generated by the courts and police forces. As a consequence, care should be taken to ensure data collection processes and their inevitable limitations are taken into account when those data are used.
Court Proceedings Database
Mr. Garnier: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many defendants granted bail in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available (a) had previous convictions for violence against the person, sexual offences or robbery, (b) had committed previous offences while on bail, (c) had committed offences while on early or temporary release on licence from prison, (d) were convicted but unsentenced offenders and (e) were convicted of offences which passed the custodial threshold but were as yet unsentenced. 
The court may withhold bail if it is satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that, if released on bail, the defendant would abscond, commit an offence, interfere with witnesses or otherwise obstruct the course of justice. In making its decision the court must consider all the circumstances of the case as appear to be relevant. The nature of the alleged offence is only one factor, and the others include the weight of the evidence against the defendant, the defendant's character, antecedents, associations, community ties and past record of complying with bail, as well as any other factors which appear relevant to the court.
Mr. Straw: Lord Goldsmith's review of citizenship made a significant contribution to the current debate about modernising our constitution and is an important step towards clarifying the legal and social rights and responsibilities that come with British citizenship.
The Government are currently considering proposals in the context of their wider reforms, including proposals set out in the Green Paper The Path to Citizenship, published on 20 February and forthcoming work on a possible Bill of Rights and Responsibilities and a Statement of Values.
Mr. Burns: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice pursuant to the answer of 20 May 2008, Official Report, column 269, on Chelmsford prison: drugs, what the reasons are for the reduction in the rate of those tested positive for drugs in Chelmsford prison between 2003-04 and 2007-08. 
reducing supply, through security measures and drug testing programmes;
reducing demand, through targeted treatment interventions for low, moderate and severe drug-misusers; and
establishing effective through-care links to ensure continuity of treatment post-release in order to safeguard the gains made in custody.
Chelmsford prison has over the past five years achieved a commendable reduction in the level of drug misuse as measured by random mandatory drug testingdown 73 per cent. Chelmsford prison runs a dedicated search team which utilises hand held body scanners plus other searching aids, including a trained and licensed mobile telephone detection dog, which have proved effective detecting drugs and mobile phones. It has received an award from Essex Drug and Alcohol Action Team in 2005-6 for its outstanding work with drug treatment.
Dr. Julian Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice whether it is Government policy to release the home addresses of (a) senior and (b) middle-ranking officials in the Prime Ministers office, if requested under the Freedom of Information Act 2000; and what assessment he has made of the implications for personal security resulting from the release of such data. 
Mr. Straw: Departments deal with requests for information on a case-by-case basis, applying exemptions where it is necessary and appropriate to do so. Any request for officials home addresses would be handled in this way.
Translation Services: £272,877
The majority of MoJ HQ spend on interpreters is for the payments made from central legal aid fund to interpreters in defence cases.
HMCS spent £200,000 on translation services. HMCS would only be able to identify spend on interpreters at a disproportionate cost.
Translation Services: £5,552
The OPG only use one natural account code to capture expenditure on translation services and interpreters and there is no split between different languages. The total for that account for the 2007-08 financial year was £65,500.
OCJR spent £448 on translation services and nothing on interpreters.
NOMS spent £32,000 on interpreters. NOMS do not separately identify expenditure on translation services within their accounts and data may be provided only at a disproportionate cost.
The Prison Service does not record this information to the degree of detail required to answer this question. Spend on translation services is captured as Professional Advice. This category of spend also captures other professional advice such as legal fees etc. Even to collate an estimate of likely spend, would involve asking all prison and HQ units to check contracts and or invoices, these individual returns would then need to be collated and checked for reasonableness at the centre. The cost of this sort of exercise could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
Andrew Mackinlay: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice under what circumstances are judges lodgings made available to members of the judiciary; what criteria apply to their allocation; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr. Straw: Judges lodgings are available to High Court judges when they are away from the Royal Courts of Justice dealing with business on any of the (six) judicial circuits in England and Wales. The allocation of judicial business is managed by the regional directors office responsible for the circuit in question, in consultation with the relevant senior presiding judge. In addition, lodgings can and are made available to circuit judges and barristers sitting as deputy High Court judges and circuit judges sitting in their own capacity away from their own court(s).
Mr. Straw: The following table shows the number of occasions a curfew with electronic monitoring was ordered by the Courts in England and Wales in each of the last three financial years, broken down by Juveniles (aged 10 to 17) and Adults (aged 18 and over). Data on more specific age ranges is not routinely collected, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The table does not include those released from prison on Home Detention Curfew or on licence with curfew condition.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|