|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
|Persons sentenced for firearms offences liable for five years minimum custodial sentence as prescribed by the Criminal Justice Act 2003( 1) , 2003- 07|
|(1) Offences under Firearms Act 1968 of possessing or distributing prohibited weapons or ammunition, or possessing or distributing firearms disguised as other object.|
(2) The mandatory is only applicable for offences that occurred on or after 26-01-2004
Many of the persons dealt with in 2004 will have committed their offences prior to the mandatory being introduced. Five years is the Mandatory minimum for persons aged over 18 at time of offence and for offences taking place after 26-01-2004
1. 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.
2. 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
Mr. Gerald Howarth: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what representations he has received in favour of repeal of the so-called Waddington amendment in respect of incitement to homophobic hatred; and from which organisations he has received such representations. 
Maria Eagle: As of 8 April, the Department has received a total of 89 representations expressing a view on the freedom of speech section. Of these, seven were in favour of repeal. They were from individuals rather than organisations. In its recent report, the Joint Committee on Human Rights repeated its view that the offence, without the so-called Waddington amendment, provides adequate safeguards for freedom of speech. Other organisations have issued separate public statements in favour of repeal, including Stonewall, Unison, and The British Humanist Association.
Mr. Grieve: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what percentage of all registrations received by HM Land Registry in each of the last three years were processed within two working days. 
Grant Shapps: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice pursuant to the answer of 11 March 2009, Official Report, column 453W, on legal aid: housing, when the information sought will be collated. 
Mr. Straw: The number of defendants proceeded against at magistrates courts, heard at magistrates courts and committed for trial at crown court, for all offences in England and Wales, 1997 to 2007 can be viewed in the following table.
These data are on the principal offence basis. 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 defendants proceeded against at magistrates courts, heard at magistrates courts and committed for trial at the Crown court, for all offences in England and Wales, 1997 to 2007( 1, 2, 3)|
|Proceeded against at magistrates courts||Heard at magistrates courts||Committed for trial at crown court|
|(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) All cases are initially proceeded against (i.e. prosecuted) at magistrates courts, where the majority are then heard. Other more serious cases are committed for trial at the crown court.
(4) Includes proceeding discontinued, discharged, withdrawn, dismissed, and found guilty at the magistrates courts.
OCJR-E and A: Office for Criminal Justice ReformEvidence and Analysis' Unit, Ministry of JusticeOur ref: PQ 268866 (Table)
Mr. Straw: The table shows the average number of prisoners reported as being doubled in cells certified to hold one person and the percentage of prisoners in crowded accommodation for the last five years and provisional data for April 2008 to February 2009.
Since 1997 prison capacity has been increased by 24,000 places. In addition the Government announced an additional 20,000 places as part of the Capacity Programme, of which 4,600 has already been provided. The aim is to increase capacity to 96,000 by 2014.
Prisons can hold a number of prisoners beyond their Certified Normal Accommodation (CNA), subject to a maximum, which is known as the operational capacity. Operational capacity is defined as the total number of prisoners that an establishment can hold without serious risk to good order, security and the proper running of planned regimes. Crowding will be within the limit of operational capacity.
|Financial year||Average number of prisoners doubling up in cells designed for one||Percentage of prisoners in crowded accommodation|
In 2007-08 End of Custody Licence was introduced and some expenditure on subsistence payments made to prisoners on discharge has been included in the recorded expenditure for discharge grants. It would incur disproportionate costs to separate this amount as we would need to survey all prison establishments.
The purpose of the Discharge Grant is to enable the prisoner to meet their immediate subsistence needs in the first week after release. Whether they are going straight into employment or applying for benefits, they will receive payment in arrears. Without a discharge grant, therefore, there would be an increased risk that prisoners would re-offend in order to meet their immediate financial needs.
Sentenced prisoners are eligible on release for a Discharge Grant of £46 unless certain exclusions apply. These exclusions include, for example: those serving a sentence of 14 days or less; those awaiting deportation or removal from the United Kingdom; those who are known to
have in excess of £8,000 in savings (and would therefore be ineligible for income support under the relevant regulations).
|The estimated numbers( 1) of persons remanded in custody, and the number of offenders who subsequently received a non-custodial sentence at magistrates' courts or the Crown court( 2) , England and Wales, 2003-07|
|Thousands of persons|
|(1) Includes estimates for those offences omitted from data supplied.|
(2) Crown court cases are not necessarily concluded in the same year as the committal therefore the figures presented may include cases where defendants were remanded in custody during earlier years than under which they are presented in this table.
(3) Includes those remanded for part of the time in custody and part on bail.
(4) Final outcome includes: discharged, fine community sentences, fully suspended sentences, supervision orders, community punishment orders, attendance centre orders, community punishment and rehabilitation orders, curfew orders, reparation orders, action plan orders and other disposals which do not involve any element of custodial treatment.
1. The figures presented in this table exclude those defendants who failed to surrender to bail.
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. For Magistrates' courts cases, the number of remands and more importantly, the number which are in custody, are believed to be under-recorded in total. The extent of under-recording is not known, as only limited checks are available with independently collected data. However, it is clear that the breakdown of remands into bail and custody cases is not accurate for a number of forces. The accuracy of data about Crown court remand decisions has improved as a result of data being returned directly from the Crown court computer system.
Prepared by OCJR Evidence and Analysis Unit.
OCJR Court proceedings database.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|