|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Mr. Grieve: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many people aged (a) between 10 and 17 years, (b) between 18 and 24 years and (c) 25 years and over were (i) prosecuted and (ii) convicted of knife possession offences in each of the last five years. 
Mr. Straw: Information on the number of persons proceeded against magistrates courts and found guilty at all courts for offences relating to possession of a knife, by age group, in England and Wales, for the years 2002 to 2006 can be viewed in the following table.
The figures given in the table on court proceedings relate to persons for whom these offences were the principal offence for which they were dealt with. 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.
|N umber of persons proceeded against magistrates courts and found guilty at all courts for offences relating to possession of a knife, by age group, in England and Wales, 2002 to 2006( 1, 2, 3)|
|Proceeded against||Found guilty|
|10-17||18-24||25 and over( 4)||10-17||18-24||25 and over( 4)|
|(1) These data are on the principal offence basis.|
(2 )Includes the following statutes and corresponding offence description:
Criminal Justice Act 1988 S.139 as amended by Offensive Weapons Act 1996 S.3. Having an article with blade or point in public place.
Criminal Justice Act 1988 S.139A (l)(5)(a) as added by Offensive Weapons Act 1996 S.4(l). Having an article with blade or point on school premises.
(3 )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.
(4 )May include a few persons aged 18 or over where the age did not form part of the data supplied.
CJEAUOffice for Criminal Justice ReformMinistry of Justice
Mr. Hanson: The delivery of primary health care provision at HM Prison and Young Offender Institution Parc forms part of the contractual arrangements between the Director of Offender Management in Wales and the operator. The Welsh Assembly Government has responsibility for the provision of all other health care services to people held there.
Induction programme for new admissions "Introduction to Healthcare Services"
Education Pathways programme, "Sex, Health and Relationships"
Fit For Life (Well Man)
Immunisations/vaccines including: meningitis, BCG (TB vaccine) and hepatitis
Genito-urinary medicine (GUM) clinics
Smoking cessation and other health promotion
Mental health assessments by resident registered mental nurses
Provision for in-patient care.
Health Commission Wales is the responsible commissioner of a Tier Four Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service and Forensic Adolescent Consultation Treatment Service. These services can be accessed through the normal way via referral by clinicians in primary and secondary health care.
Mr. Hayes: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what the highest 10 payments made by his Department in settlement of personal injury claims brought against it were over the last 12 months for which figures are available; which of those cases were (a) contested and (b) uncontested by the Department; and what the nature of the incident was in each case. 
|Amount of damages( 1)||Contested or uncontested( 2)||Nature of incident|
|(1 )In order to prevent any claimant being identified the damages have been rounded to the nearest £10,000.|
(2 )All claims are defended until such time as the evidence indicates otherwise.
Andrew Selous: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice pursuant to his Departments consultation paper CP 1408 on pleural plaques, which Government department will have responsibility for any disbursement of payments from the public purse in relation to each option set out in CP 14/08; and if he will make a statement. 
Bridget Prentice: The consultation paper considers the issues that arise in relation to changing the law of negligence and invites views on whether this would or would not be appropriate. It also seeks views on the merits of offering no fault financial support to people diagnosed with pleural plaques, and on two possible ways of doing this. Decisions on the appropriate way forward, including any issues in relation to funding, will be taken in the light of consultation.
Andrew Selous: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice pursuant to his Departments consultation paper CP14/08, on pleural plaques, what estimate he has made of the potential liability falling on the public purse under policy options (a) 4 and (b) 5; and what estimate he has made of the proportion of the overall cost under each option proposed that might fall on the public purse. 
Bridget Prentice: The consultation paper discusses the possible approaches in relation to the funding of any no fault scheme which might be introduced under policy option 4 or 5. Decisions on the appropriate way forward will be taken in the light of consultation.
The initial impact assessment accompanying the consultation paper estimates the potential cost of option 4 to be between £52 million and £196 million (excluding set-up costs), and of option 5 to be between £780 million and £4.8 billion (excluding set-up costs).
Mr. Garnier: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many prisoners (a) convicted of drugs offences, (b) assessed as requiring drug treatment and (c) undergoing drug treatment have been housed in police cells under Operation Safeguard in each of the last five years for which figures are available, broken down by number of nights housed in a police cell. 
Prisoners are subject to a risk assessment prior to being held under Operation Safeguard. Past or present drug misuse or treatment, or the need for treatment, do not necessarily render a prisoner unsuitable to be held in police cells overnight.
Mr. Hanson: During May 2008 120 prisoners were received into prison establishments in England and Wales having been sentenced to an Indeterminate Sentence for Public Protection; over the same period three IPP prisoners were released.
Rosie Cooper: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice on how many occasions court authorities have not produced a defendant in court in due time in the last period for which figures are available. 
Maria Eagle: The production of defendants from custody to courts in England and Wales is the responsibility of the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) and is contracted out to private escort companies. Contractors produced 556,508 prisoners in court in 2007-08, of which 626 were reported as resulting in a delay to court proceedings.
The contractors have a target of delivering 85 per cent. of prisoners by the due time; that being, generally 9.30 am for prisoners due to appear before midday and 11:30 am for prisoners due to appear after midday. Nationally, contractors met that target throughout 2007-08. The number of cases involving remand defendants not produced from custody for their trial hearing was 51 in the Crown court and 846 in the magistrates courts.
Total figures for the number of criminal cases where one or more defendants failed to attend on the first day of their trial and which resulted in the trial being adjourned to another date are shown in the following table.
|April 2007 to March 2008|
|Crown court||Magistrates courts|
Mr. Hanson: The database referred to which the hon. and learned Member refers is designed to record information on those cases in which officials in the Public Protection Unit in the National Offender Management Service have a direct involvement. Therefore, it holds data on prisoners serving a life sentence or an indeterminate sentence of imprisonment for public protection. It also holds data on determinate sentence prisoners who have been recalled to custody following release on licence or who have had an oral hearing to consider their parole application. It does not hold information on other determinate sentence prisoners.
Maria Eagle: Dangerous and Severe Personality Disorder (DSPD) is not a clinically defined condition but describes individuals who have been assessed as posing a high risk of further sexual or violent offending, linked to the presence of severe personality disorder.
between July 2004 and June 2008 a total of 281 men and nine women were found on assessment to meet the DSPD criteria and admitted for treatment in a high secure setting.
between January 2006 and December 2007 a total of 181 men were found on assessment to meet criteria and accepted for treatment either in medium secure DSPD units or under supervision in the community.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|