|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
These data are based on the principle offence basis. Where an offender is found guilty of two or more offences, it is the offence for which the heaviest sentence is imposed which is recorded. Where the same disposal is imposed for two or more offences, the offence selected is the one for which the statutory maximum penalty is most severe.
The maximum sentences for trafficking in control drugs are dependent on the class of drug involved. For class A drugs, the maximum sentence is life imprisonment. For class B and C drugs, the maximum sentence is 14 years.
|Offenders given maximum sentence for supplying drugs and possession with intent to supply offences, by class, 1997 to 2007|
1. These figures have been drawn from administrative data systems.
2. Although care is taken when processing and analysing the returns, the detail collected is subject to the inaccuracies inherent in any large scale recording system.
3. These data are based on the principle offence basis, where an offender is found guilty of two or more offences it is the offence for which the heaviest sentence is imposed, where the same disposal is imposed for two or more offences, the offence selected is the one for which the statutory maximum penalty is most severe.
OMS Analytical Services, Ministry of Justice.
James Brokenshire: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what legal protections there are for individuals against remote surveillance of their personal computers by third parties. 
Mr. Coaker: Public authority authorisation and use of covert surveillance is strictly controlled by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA). RIPA limits the purposes for which such surveillance may be used by specific public authorities and sets out the level and procedures for its authorisation. In particular it expressly requires that its authorisation is both necessary and proportionate with regard to human rights. This reflects the obligation on all public authorities to comply with the European Convention under the terms of the Human Rights Act 1998. RIPA also provides a system of independent oversight by the Office of Surveillance Commissioners and a Tribunal for appeal if anyone believes they have been put under unlawful covert surveillance. The contact details are:
The Investigatory Powers Tribunal
PO Box 33220
Telephone: 020 7035 3711
James Brokenshire: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what rights the police and security services have to conduct remote surveillance of an individual's computer use outside the United Kingdom. 
James Brokenshire: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent assessment she has made of the likely impact on levels of fraud and other financial crime of the downturn in the economy. 
Mr. Alan Campbell: I have regular discussions with the financial sector and law enforcement and continue to monitor trends in fraud and financial crime. However, I have made no specific assessment of the impact of the downturn in the economy on these types of crime.
The Government are determined to tackle fraud and have recently allocated £29 million in new funding to establish the National Fraud programme. As part of this programme the new National Fraud Strategic Authority is working closely with stakeholders across Government, law enforcement and the private sector to drive forwards a concerted UK strategy against fraud and to make the UK a much more difficult place for fraudsters to succeed. In addition to the new authority, the City of London police now has a national remit to tackle serious and complex fraud cases across England and Wales, and to assist other forces in their response to fraud, while a new National Fraud Reporting Centre (NFRC), expected to go live in 2009, will radically streamline the way that the public report fraud to the police. The NFRC will also enable the police to draw together intelligence from separate incidents of fraud and help to form the basis of better prevention advice and alerts for businesses and the public.
Mr. Alan Campbell: Human trafficking as dedicated offences was introduced in 2004 with the introduction of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants) Act 2004.
While the number of prosecutions since the introduction of this Act are not held centrally by the Home Office there have to date been 92 convictions for trafficking for sexual exploitation and four for trafficking for forced labour.
Mr. Leech: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made on the Security Industry Authority's feasibility study regarding the regulation of vehicle immobilisation companies who operate on private land. 
Mr. Alan Campbell: The Security Industry Authority (SIA) is close to completing the feasibility study on the regulation of vehicle immobilisation companies operating on private land. The SIA will submit the study to Home Office Ministers as soon as it has been completed and approved by the SIAs board.
James Brokenshire: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many British Standards Institute kitemarks for internet content control software have been issued, and to whom, pursuant to the initiative announced by the Home Office in December 2006; and if she will make a statement. 
Mr. Alan Campbell: The Kitemark for filtering software developed by the Home Office and Ofcom and in partnership with BSI, was launched in April 2008. Currently none have been issued, but the promotion of the Kitemark will form part of the agenda for the industry standards working group within the UK Council for Child Internet Safety. The Government fully support the Kitemark and encourage companies to apply for it.
Paul Holmes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were (a) prosecuted for, (b) convicted of and (c) sentenced to prison for knife possession between (i) June and October 2008 and (ii) June and October 2007. 
Mr. Alan Campbell: Data showing the number of people proceeded against at magistrates courts, found guilty and given a custodial sentence at all courts for knife possession, from 1 June 2006 to 31 October 2006 and from 1 June 2007 to 31 October 2007 in England and Wales, are in the following table. Data for 2008 are due to be available in the autumn of 2009.
The statistics 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 principal offence is the offence 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.
|Number of persons proceeded against at magistrates courts, found guilty and given immediate custody at all courts, for knife possession( 1) , England and Wales for the periods 1 June 2006 to 31 October 2006 and 1 June 2007 to 31 October 2007( 2,3)|
|(1) Includes the following offences and statutes:|
Having an article with blade or point in public placeCriminal Justice Act 1988 S.139A (1) (5) (a) as added by Offensive Weapons Act 1996 S.4 (1).
Having an article with blade or point on school premisesCriminal Justice Act 1988 S.139A (2) (5) (b) as added by Offensive Weapons Act 1996 S.4 (1).
(2) The statistics relate to persons for whom these offences were the principal offences for which they were dealt with. When a defendant has been found guilty of two or more offences the principal offence is the offence 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.
(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.
E and A UnitOffice for Criminal Justice Reform
Mr. Grieve: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department with reference to the Written Ministerial Statement of 25 November 2008, Official Report, column 67WS, on the departmental expenditure limit (2008-09), what the reasons were for the reprofiling of £48 million expenditure for the Office for Security and Counter Terrorism programme from 2008-09 to 2009-10. 
Mr. Coaker [holding answer 14 January 2009]: The reprofiling of the Office of Security and Counter Terrorism £48 million from 2008-09 ensures that the funds available matches its spending forecast for 2009-10.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|