| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
9 Jun 2009 : Column 794W—continued
Elections: Proof of Identity
Mrs. Spelman: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what timetable his Department has established for introducing the requirement for signatures for the issuing of ballot papers in polling stations. [278362]
Mr. Wills: The Government continue to consider how this measure could most effectively be implemented, including timing issues. We will need to ensure that any approach to this issue is aligned with other reforms to the registration and electoral processes.
Firearms: Sentencing
Chris Grayling: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice pursuant to the answer of 21 April 2009, Official Report, column 620W, on firearms: sentencing, how many people were convicted for firearms offences for which a mandatory minimum sentence was applicable in each year since 2004. [278425]
Mr. Straw: The available information is shown as follows. The table shows the number of persons, aged over 18 at the point of sentencing, sentenced for firearms offences for which the mandatory minimum is applicable. The number of offenders sentenced has been supplied in lieu of the number convicted. Lags in time between conviction and sentencing mean that the numbers convicted and sentenced in a year will not always match. Offenders aged under 18 at the time of the offence are not eligible for the five-year mandatory minimum, while the table shows offenders aged over 18 at the point of sentence they may have been under 18 when the offence was committed in which case the five-year minimum would not have been applicable.
| Persons sentenced for firearms offences liable for five years minimum custodial sentence as prescribed by the Criminal Justice Act 2003( 1) , 2004-07 | |
| Number of persons sentenced for whom mandatory minimum may apply( 2) | |
| (1) Offences under Firearms Act 1968 of possessing or distributing prohibited weapons or ammunition, or possessing or distributing firearms disguised as other object. (2) Only offenders aged over 18 at the point of sentencing have been included. Five years is the mandatory minimum for persons aged over 18 at time of offence and for offences taking place after 26 January 2004. (3) The mandatory minimum is only applicable for offences that occurred on or after 26 January 2004. Many of the persons dealt with in 2004 will have committed their offences prior to the mandatory minimum sentences being introduced. Notes: 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 offences elected 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. Source: OMS Analytical Services, Ministry of Justice. | |
The Criminal Justice Act 2003 prescribed mandatory minimum custodial sentences for the offences of: possessing or distributing prohibited firearms or ammunition and possessing or distributing firearms disguised as other objects where the offences were committed on or after 26 January 2004.
The minimum sentence it set was three years where the offender was aged between 16 and 18 at the time of the offence and five years for offenders aged over 18 at the time of the offence.
Data held by the Ministry of Justice cannot determine the date the offence took place or the age of the offender at the time of the offence rather it is the date the sentence was passed and the age of the offender at the time of sentencing that is held. It is not possible to separately identify those cases that occurred prior to 26 January 2004.
Judiciary: Sick Leave
Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many members of the judiciary have been (a) suspended on full pay and (b) on sick pay for over 12 months; and if he will make a statement. [278017]
Mr. Straw: There is one member of the judiciary that has been suspended on full pay and four on sick pay for over 12 months.
Land Registry: Complaints
Grant Shapps: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) of 24 April 2009, Official Report, columns 969-70W, on the Land Registry: complaints, what consideration he has given to extending the remit of the Office of the Independent Complaints Reviewer to complaints relating to errors made by local Land Registry offices. [277961]
Mr. Wills: Further to my answer on 24 April 2009, Official Report, columns 969-70W, the Government do not believe there is a need to extend the remit of the Office of the Independent Complaints Reviewer (ICR).
The ICR’s current remit is wide ranging and includes the ability to investigate complaints about any error made by the Land Registry, whether procedural or substantive. As set out in my previous answer, the exception to this is where a complainant refers to a decision on land registration not related to maladministration, such as delay or loss, where the decision can only be considered judicially. For example, where an error created a substantive right for a third party, such as an incorrect name being entered as a registered proprietor of a property leading to the individual named becoming the legal owner of the property, this would require alteration of the register by either the Court or the Registrar, exercising the powers conferred on them by schedule 4 of the Land Registration Act 2002.
Grant Shapps: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many complaints have been received by (a) HM Land Registry and (b) local Land Registry offices regarding (i) land registration decisions and (ii) the way in which land registration decisions were reached in each of the last three years. [277962]
Mr. Wills:
30 complaints relating to land registration decisions were received by Land Registry head office in the year from April 2008 to March 2009, and 163 were
received by local Land Registry offices in the same period. The data available do not differentiate between land registration decisions and the way in which decisions were reached.
Land Registry’s customer complaints categorisation changed in April 2008. In previous years complaints relating to Land Registry decisions and the way they were reached would have been logged under two separate categories, which were “errors on registration made by HMLR”, and “contentious business”. Therefore the figures for 2006-07 and 2007-08 given as follows include other complaints.
| (a) Head office | (b) Local | |
Grant Shapps: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many judicial reviews resulted from complaints relating to errors made by local Land Registry offices in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [277964]
Mr. Wills: According to Land Registry records, there was one judicial review case following complaints relating to errors made by Land Registry offices in the period from April 2008 to March 2009. This case has not yet been concluded.
Magistrates
Andrew Rosindell: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what recent steps have been taken to increase the number of magistrates. [278100]
Mr. Straw: No steps are being undertaken to increase the number of magistrates. Recruitment is being undertaken only to maintain levels to those forecast and to manage the workload.
Requirements for numbers on the bench are determined locally taking into account projected retirements, possible resignations, average sitting days, bench make-up, local workload data, resources and the use of District Judges (magistrates courts).
Parkhurst Prison
Mr. Grieve: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what steps his Department has taken in response to the recent report by HM Chief Inspector of Prisons on HM Prison Parkhurst. [278328]
Mr. Straw: As with all HM chief inspector of prisons reports an action plan responding to each of the recommendations in the report will be submitted to Ministers and the chief inspector.
Steps are being taken to address the prison's poor industrial relations and deliver an agenda for change, focusing on the improved treatment of offenders. Work
is under way to make Parkhurst a safer and more decent environment, with a new safer custody group overseeing initiatives covering suicide prevention, violence reduction and diversity, including the treatment of disabled prisoners.
Parole
Mr. Grieve: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many cases the Parole Board considered in 2007-08; how many and what proportion of offenders in such cases were granted oral hearings; and how many such offenders were granted parole. [278460]
Mr. Straw: In 2007-08 the Parole Board considered a total of 31,172 cases. 8 per cent. were considered by oral hearing, which equates to 2,072 cases. Of those a total of 16 per cent. of offenders were recommended for release.
Prisons
Mr. Grieve: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how long on average elapsed between prisoners' cells being unlocked in the morning and prisoners being returned to their cells in the evening in each month of the last two years. [278367]
Mr. Straw: The figures requested are set out in the following table:
| Monthly average time unlocked | |
| Hours per prisoner per day | |
| Note: The methodology for recording time unlocked for week days was revised for the financial year 2008-09, resulting in a marginal reduction in the reported figures from April 2008 onwards. | |
Prisons: Greater London
Andrew Rosindell: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many prisons in London he has visited since 2007. [278101]
Mr. Straw: I have visited a number of prisons, probation areas and courts during my time as Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice. Since June 2007, I have visited four of the nine establishments in Greater London: HMP Belmarsh on 11 July 2007; HMP Wandsworth on 31 January 2008; HMP Brixton on 25 February 2008; and HMP Highdown on 19 March 2008. I am planning to visit HMP Bronzefield in the near future.
Probation
Mr. Grieve: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many cases were referred to multi-agency public protection panels in the Probation Service in each of the last five financial years. [278616]
Mr. Straw: The following table shows the total number of multi-agency public protection arrangements (MAPPA) eligible offenders living in the community in England and Wales. The table also shows the number of eligible offenders who were managed at the higher MAPPA levels and who were considered by multi-agency public protection panels. Cases are referred to level 2 where the involvement of several agencies will be required to implement or monitor the risk management plan and to level 3 where more senior oversight is additionally required. Cases can be referred by any agency but the identity of the referring agency is not recorded. These data are taken from the MAPPA Annual reports which are required of the MAPPA Responsible Authority (police, prison and probation services acting jointly) in each of the 42 areas of England and Wales.
| England and Wales | 2003-04 | 2004-05 | 2005-06 | 2006-07 | 2007-08 |
| (1)( )Not collected. | |||||
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |