|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Miss McIntosh: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice in respect of which offences contained in the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 penalty notices for disorder have been issued in the last three years. 
Mr. Straw: The offences for which a penalty notice for disorder (PNDs) is available, together with the numbers issued for each offence in 2005, 2006 and 2007 (the last three years for which confirmed data are available) are included in the following table. PND data for 2008 will be available in November 2009.
|Number of penalty notices for disorder issued to offenders of all ages by of fence, England and Wales 2005- 07|
|(1) Offence moved from the lower tier (£50) to the upper tier (£80) on 5 March 2004.|
(2) Offence moved from the tower tier (£50) to the upper tier (£80) on 1 November 2004.
(3) Offence added with effect from 1 November 2004.
(4) Offence added with effect from 11 October 2004.
(5) Offence added with effect from 04 April 2005.
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.
Miss McIntosh: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many community orders were issued in (a) the area covered by Hambleton and Harrogate councils and (b) the North Yorkshire area in (i) 2003, (ii) 2004, (iii) 2005, (iv) 2006 and (v) 2007. 
|Number of community sentences issued in North Yorkshire police force area, 2003-07|
|n/a=Not available or Not Applicable|
(1 )Community orders were introduced on the 4th of April 2005 and are available for offences committed on or after that date, and for offenders aged 18 and over.
These figures have been drawn from administrative data systems. 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
OMS Analytical Services, Ministry of Justice Ref: PQ(OMSAS) 026-09 (28/01/2009)
Data held by the Ministry of Justice are available by Police Force Area (PFA) and the table shows the figures for North Yorkshire PFA. These data are made available for smaller areas because detailed checks on sentencing data are not carried out at court level.
Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what steps the Criminal Cases Review Commission plans to take to reduce its level of case accumulation; and how the Commission will monitor the effectiveness of those steps. 
Maria Eagle: The Criminal Cases Review Commission expects to bring about further improvements in the number of applicants awaiting review and the time taken to review their cases by refining casework processes as part of an ongoing project.
Since that project started three years ago, the number of cases waiting for review by the Commission and the average waiting time of each case has fallen significantly. For instance, in March 2005 there were 360 cases awaiting review. In December 2008the last full month for which figures are availablethere were 90.
Casework trends are analysed and steps to bring about improvements are discussed in various forums including weekly meetings of the senior management team and monthly meetings of the full Commission. All non-confidential casework policies can be seen on the publications section of the Commission's website at
Maria Eagle: The Commission's policies all feed into the performance of its core functionreviewing alleged miscarriages of justice. The effectiveness and efficiency is assessed through the performance of the Commission.
The Commission uses a set of eight key performance indicators to help it monitor and manage performance. The indicators help the Commission measure waiting times, waiting lists and time taken to reach certain key stages in the life of each case such as time to allocation and time to completion. The Commission sets targets in each of these areas and measures its performance against those targets. Targets and performance are reviewed regularly by the Commission and the senior management team. Performance across most KPIs has improved substantially over the last two years.
The KPIs are developed by managers and Commissioners and approved by the Commission. They appear in the CCRC business plan and are reported on annually in the annual reportboth documents are available on the Commission's website at
Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what procedures apply to the (a) recruitment, (b) training and (c) assessment of the welfare of the Criminal Cases Review Commission's expert staff. 
The Commission provides in-house training for staff and Commissioners to share knowledge and expertise and promote good practice. The Commission also supports external training for staff in line with the aims of the organisation.
Maria Eagle: The Commission issues a press release about every referral it makes to the appeal courts. The organisation, and its chair in particular, seek appropriate opportunities to engage with local and national media about the work of the Commission, miscarriages of justice in general and about individual cases as far as possible.
The Commission tends to focus on specific sections of the public likely to have an interest in its work and on reaching those who may have legitimate reason to make an application to the Commission for review of an
alleged miscarriage of justice. For instance, the Commission holds stakeholder events for groups and individuals interested in the issues and runs an annual programme of visits to prisons of all kinds to increase informed awareness of the Commission among prisoners and prison staff. The Commission advertises in media directed at the prison population and is developing ways of feeding information and material into the training of prison officers providing legal advice to prisoners.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|