|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
|N umber of persons found guilty at all courts for offences relating to possessing or distributing prohibited weapons or ammunition in England and Wales, by police force area for the year 2007( 1,2, 3)|
|(1) These data are on the principal offence basis.|
(2) 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.
(3) Includes the following Statutes and corresponding offence descriptions:
Firearms Act, 1968 Sec.5(1) (Group I) as amended by Criminal Justice Act 2003 S.288
Possessing or distributing prohibited weapons or ammunition.
Firearms Act 1968 Sec.5(l)(b) (Group I) as amended by Criminal Justice Act 2003 Sec.288
Possessing or distributing prohibited weapons designed for discharge of noxious liquid etc.
Firearms Act 1968 Sec.5(lA)(a) (Group I) as amended by Criminal Justice Act 2003 Sec.288
Possessing or distributing firearm disguised as other object
Firearms Act 1968 Sec.5(1A) (b),(c),(d)(e),(f) or (g) as amended by Criminal Justice Act 2003 Sec.238
Possessing or distributing other prohibited weapons
Office for Criminal Justice Reform, Evidence and Analysis UnitMinistry of Justice
Andrew Stunell: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice pursuant to the answer of 12 January 2009, Official Report, column 519W, on prison sentences, how many and what proportion of prisoners serving a prison sentence beyond their original or adjusted tariff were prisoners serving indeterminate imprisonment for public protection who had (a) not yet completed their mandatory courses and (b) are awaiting a Parole Board hearing at the most recent date for which figures are available, broken down by region. 
Maria Eagle: As of 15 December 2008 there were 1,508 prisoners serving an indeterminate sentence for public protection (IPP) who were or would be held in prison beyond their tariff on 9 February 2009.
There are no mandatory courses that IPP prisoners must complete before being considered for a Parole Board hearing. Therefore, there are no IPP prisoners who are awaiting a Parole Board hearing having not completed a mandatory course.
However, IPP prisoners may be identified as suitable for inclusion in specific offending behaviour programmes, depending upon the nature of their offending and their identified risk factors. As of December 2008, 2,865 IPP prisoners had been given access to at least one offending behaviour programme. This equates to 58 per cent. of the current IPP prisoner population.
Mr. Garnier: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) when he expects to ensure (a) that all prisoners at HM Prison Gartree receive an OASys assessment on or within eight weeks of arrival at the prison and thereafter annually or on completion of significant milestones and (b) that the backlog of OASys assessments at HM Prison Gartree is cleared; 
Mr. Hanson: The requirement for an offender assessment (OAsys) to be completed within eight weeks of arrival applies to offenders received into an establishment following sentencing. As Gartree is a training prison, all prisoners received there should already have an up to date OASys assessment in place. However, Gartree did develop a backlog of OASys assessments that had not been reviewed for over three years and a recovery plan has been put in place to address. It is expected that annual reviews of all outstanding OASys plans will be completed by June 2009.
Staff recruitment is complete as far as officer posts are concerned, thought he recent National Offender Management Service recruitment freeze means that there are still vacancies for support staff which are currently filled by agency staff.
Mr. Burrowes: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what progress has been made in the provision of drug treatment in prisons following the establishment of the Prison Drug Treatment Strategy Review Group in 2008. 
Mr. Hanson: The Prison Drug Treatment Strategy Review Group reports jointly to the Ministry of Justice and the Department of Health. Work on the review started in September 2008 and is expected to take two years to complete. The remit of the Group will be to consider the PricewaterhouseCoopers recommendations, agree a single set of priorities and compile national guidance around the streamlining of the commissioning, delivery, funding and performance management of drug treatment for offenders.
My noble Friend Lord Patel has spent a number of months visiting prisons and talking to key stakeholders such as commissioners, treatment providers and service users in order to select membership of the Review Group. In January I announced that he had selected these members and a list was placed in the Libraries of the House. The first meeting of the Review Group will be held on 26 February. The work programme will include the development of minimum standards, outcomes and commissioning systems for drug-using offenders in prisons and those leaving custody.
Mr. Hanson: The National Offender Management Service (NOMS) has in place a process to ensure that each prison dog and handler team are assessed annually as to their effectiveness in detecting concealed drugs. Without passing the annual assessment, for which a certificate of accreditation is awarded, dog and handler teams are not permitted to operate.
In addition, the Government have accepted all 10 recommendations contained within David Blakeys review: Disrupting the supply of drugs into prisons. One recommendation was that NOMS conducts an internal review to determine whether search dogs and their handlers are distributed effectively around the prison estate and that the management processes for handlers are robust. That review is currently under way.
Unfortunately cell-certificates do not always provide details of why accommodation is being taking out of
operation and to provide this information would require a manual check of all cell certificates for the last five years and would incur disproportionate costs.
|Sentences given to juvenile offenders( 1) by offence type, 2007|
|Violence against the person||Sexual offences||Burglary||Robbery||Theft and handling stolen goods||Fraud and forgery||Criminal damage|
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|