| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
4 Feb 2009 : Column 1216W—continued
Prisoners: Racial Harassment
Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many racial incidents were reported by prisoners during 2008; and what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of subsequent investigations. [253153]
Mr. Malik: In 2008 there were 8,911 incidents of alleged racism reported by prisoners—of those 2,849 were about the behaviour of other prisoners and 6,062 were concerned with the actions of members of staff. A small proportion consist of allegations of misconduct by staff and all such matters are subject to disciplinary investigation under the code of conduct and discipline.
All investigations into reported acts of racism are overseen and signed off by the Governor or Deputy Governor. In addition the area manager conducts bi-annual checks of a random' sample of investigations.
‘Race Review 2008’ recently published by NOMS and available in the Library sets out the current assessment of race equality in the prison service, including the effectiveness of these systems and plans for work further to improve them.
Reoffenders: Sentencing
Philip Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what proportion of people released on (a) probation and (b) licence who subsequently committed a further crime were returned to prison in each of the last three years. [253336]
Mr. Hanson: The following table sets out the number of offenders who were released on licence and who were subsequently recalled to custody, having been charged with committing a further offence in the period of their licence in the year 2007-08 and between April and December 2008, as notified to the National Offender Management Service. Accurate data on the reasons for recalling determinate prisoners who were on licence were not held centrally prior to April 2007 and to compile such data would incur disproportionate cost.
Offenders recalled for committing further offences are normally recalled at the point at which the charge is laid. Inevitably therefore, some of the cases listed would have either resulted in acquittal or would not have proceeded to trial, as the charges were subsequently withdrawn.
Furthermore, there will have been prisoners released on licence and who were charged with offences after their licence period had expired. They would not have been liable to recall.
The proportion of offenders recalled for committing further offences cannot be expressed as a proportion of the number of releases, as offenders may be recalled at any point during a licence and on more than one occasion, particularly with respect to licences that can be several years in duration.
| Offenders recalled for further charges | |
| (1) These figures exclude all those recalled from early custody licence. It also excludes those recalled from home detention curfew who had a sentence of less than 12 months as they would not have been under probation supervision. | |
Speed Limits: Cameras
Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) how many charges for speeding offences were discontinued because the location of the speed camera failed to comply with the guidance in each of the last five years; [253021]
(2) how many charges for speeding offences were discontinued because of a breach of the guidance on co-located signs in each of the last five years; [253022]
Maria Eagle: Charging data are not held by my Department. Prosecutions data are normally provided in lieu.
The number of proceedings at the magistrates court for speeding offences, and the number discontinued, for 2003 to 2007 (latest available) are given in the following table.
Statistical information collected centrally on the number of persons proceeded against for offences of contravening speed limits does not identify the reason why the proceedings are discontinued.
| The number of proceedings at the magistrates court for speeding offences( 1) and the number discontinued, England and Wales, 2003-07 ( 2, 3, 4) | ||
| Number of offences | ||
| Proceeded against | Proceedings discontinued | |
| (1) Offences under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 ss. 16, 81, 84, 86, 88 7 89; Motor Vehicles (Speed Limits on Motorways) Regs. 1973; Parks Regulation (Amendment) Act 1926—byelaws made thereunder. (2) It is known that for some police force areas, the reporting of court proceedings in particular those relating to summary motoring offences, may be less than complete. (3) Volumes of convictions for camera detected speed limit offences cannot be accurately established because in many cases the method of detection is not identified in the court data. It is not known exactly in how many cases it was in fact a camera or a visual detection by a police officer. (4) 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. Source: Office for Criminal Justice Reform—Evidence and Analysis unit. | ||
Young Offenders: Reoffenders
Miss McIntosh: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many persistent young offenders were (a) arrested and (b) sentenced at (i) magistrates’ courts and (ii) the Crown Court in (A) Vale of York constituency and (B) England in each year since 1997. [253142]
Mr. Hanson: Statistics on Persistent Young Offenders (PYOs) split by court type, as requested in the question, are only available from 1999 onward. The closest geographic level to the Vale of York for which robust numbers are available is the North Yorkshire police force area.
The PYO figures are designed to measure the speed and efficiency of the youth justice system, through monitoring the pledge to halve the average time from arrest to sentence for dealing with PYOs in England and Wales from 142 days in 1996 to 71 days. However, numbers of PYO cases are not a reliable measure of overall levels of youth crime, and will give a misleading view of the true trend if used for this purpose.
The following tables show the number of PYOs dealt with in England and Wales and for North Yorkshire. The breakdowns are based on whether the cases were heard in the magistrates courts or in the Crown court.
| The number of persistent young offenders in England and Wales, by court jurisdiction | |||
| All c ourts | Magistrates c ourts | The Crown c ourt | |
| The number of persistent young offenders in North Yorkshire, by court jurisdiction | |||
| All c ourts | Magistrates c ourts | The Crown c ourt | |
| Notes: The Police National Computer data can contain records where the type of court in which the case was heard was unknown. This missing information only impacts a very small minority of cases, and was more a feature of the data in the past than in the present. Thus, the sum of cases heard in magistrates’ courts and the Crown Court in each year is less than all cases heard in England and Wales. | |||
The Ministry of Justice (MOJ) publishes the data in the aforementioned table as National Statistics. Further information on persistent young offenders can be found on the dedicated page of the MOJ website:
Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what recent assessment he has made of performance against the 71-day target for the average time from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders. [253148]
Mr. Hanson: Overall statistics on persistent young offenders (PYOs) are available from 1997 to 2007.
These figures are derived from police national computer data, and used to monitor the pledge to halve the average time from arrest to sentence for dealing with PYOs in England and Wales from 142 days in 1996 to 71 days.
The PYO figures are designed to measure the speed and efficiency of the youth justice system, through monitoring the pledge to halve the average time from arrest to sentence for dealing with PYOs in England and Wales from 142 days in 1996 to 71 days. However, numbers of PYO cases are not a reliable measure of overall levels of youth crime, and will give a misleading view of the true trend if used for this purpose.
The following table shows the number of PYO cases heard, and the average time interval (in days) from arrest to sentence for dealing with these juvenile offenders in England and Wales. It also provides a breakdown based on whether the cases were heard in the magistrates courts or in the Crown court.
| Average time from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders | ||||||
| All courts | Magistrates courts | The Crown court | ||||
| Cases | Days | Cases | Days | Cases | Days | |
| Note: The police national computer data can contain records where the type of court in which the case was heard was unknown. This missing information only affects a very small minority of cases, and was more a feature of the data in the past than in the present. Thus, the sum of cases heard in magistrates' courts and the Crown court in each year is less than all cases heard in England and Wales. | ||||||
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |