| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
16 Jun 2009 : Column 268W—continued
Probation Officers
Mr. Holloway: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what the (a) average and (b) maximum offender caseload is of a probation officer. [279685]
Maria Eagle: Figures for 31 December 2008 show that the average caseload per Probation Officer across the 42 probation areas in England and Wales ranged from 18 to 54 cases. Figures for the highest recorded caseload ranged from 38 to 92.
Public Opinion: Ministry of Justice
Sir Nicholas Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if he will introduce legislation to prevent the courts from accepting the opinion of experts paid by local authorities as to the capacity of parties to give instructions to solicitors; and if he will make a statement. [279273]
Bridget Prentice: There are no plans to introduce legislation. Where a person involved in legal proceedings lacks capacity (within the meaning of the Mental Capacity Act 2005) to conduct proceedings, their interests must be protected by the appointment of a 'litigation friend'. Where the issue of capacity is in question, it will often be the case that a court will require the assistance of a medical report to take an evidence based view. If such an expert report is ordered the expert has an overriding duty to the court that takes precedence over any obligation to the person from whom the expert has received instructions or by whom the expert is paid.
Sentencing: Crimes of Violence
Jon Trickett: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how long on average a person convicted of (a) grievous bodily harm and (b) violent disorder was sentenced to serve in custody in the last 12 month period for which figures are available. [278928]
Claire Ward: The following table shows the average determinate custodial sentence length for all persons sentenced for grievous bodily harm and violent disorder in 2007 where such an offence was the principal offence for which the offender was sentenced. Where an offender has been sentenced for more than one offence the principal offence is the one for which the heaviest sentence was imposed, where the same sentence has been imposed for two or more offences the principal offence is the one for which the statutory maximum is most severe.
| Average custodial sentence length( 1) (months) for offenders sentenced for grievous bodily harm( 2) or violent disorder( 3) , 2007 | ||
| Total for 2007 | Total sentenced to immediate custody | |
| (1) Average custodial sentence length excludes life/indeterminate sentences. (2) Offences of wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm, Causing explosion or casting corrosive fluids with intent to do grievous bodily harm, malicious wounding, racially aggravated malicious wounding or GBH, religiously aggravated wounding or GBH, racially or religiously aggravated wounding or GBH. (3) Public Order Act 1986 Note: 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 | ||
Young Offenders
David Howarth: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what definition is used by the Youth Justice Board (YJB) of a (a) removal from association and (b) restrictive physical intervention in (i) the juvenile secure estate as a whole, (ii) secure children's homes, (iii) secure training centres and (iv) young offender institutions; what guidance the YJB provides on the interpretation of that definition; and if he will make a statement. [278472]
Maria Eagle: For data collection purposes, the Youth Justice Board defines restrictive physical intervention as
“Any occasion when force is used with the intention of overpowering or to overpower a young person. Overpower is defined as ‘restricting movement or mobility’”.
‘Removal from association’ is a legislative term in relation to practice in young offender institutions and secure training centres. The relevant provisions are rule 49 of the Young Offender Institution Rules 2000 and rule 36 of the Secure Training Centre Rules 1998. For data collection purposes, the Youth Justice Board uses the term ‘single separation’.
Single separation is any instance where a young person is contained, for the purposes of control, within a locked room or enclosure with visible barriers, without staff, and cannot leave the room or enclosure whenever they want to do so. ‘Purposes of control’ includes preventing harm to others, harm to self and damage to property.
Single separation includes situations where staff members act as physical barriers by blocking a doorway and preventing a young person from leaving a room.
Single separation does not include any situation where a young person chooses to remove him- or herself from a group in order to calm down or have time out, so long as the young person has the ability to rejoin the group whenever he or she chooses to do so. Nor does it include periods when all trainees are in their rooms, for example during night hours.
The independent Review of Restraint in Juvenile Secure Settings, which was published together with the Government's response on 15 December 2008, made important recommendations about improving practice and making sure restraint is used as sparingly as possible. The Government and the Youth Justice Board are working together to implement those recommendations.
Young Offenders: Crime Prevention
Mr. Vara: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what recent steps his Department has taken to reduce levels of re-offending by young offenders. [279671]
Claire Ward: The latest statistics show a 23.6 per cent. reduction in the frequency rate of juvenile reoffending between 2000 and 2007. The Government’s approach to reducing reoffending is detailed in the Youth Crime Action Plan, published last summer. This sets out the triple-track approach of enforcement, non-negotiable support and prevention.
Young Offenders: Crimes of Violence
Bob Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many people aged under 18 years in (a) Essex and (b) Castle Point were convicted of (i) grievous bodily harm and (ii) violent disorder in each of the last five years; and what the average length of custodial sentence was in each case. [279280]
Claire Ward: The available information is shown in the table; the figures presented are for Essex police force area, it is not possible to separate offences that occurred in Castle Point.
| Number of offenders aged under 18 sentenced and average custodial sentence length( 1 ) (ACSL) (months) for grievous bodily harm( 2) and violent disorder( 3) , Essex police force area, 2003-07 | |||||
| 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | |
| n/a = Not applicable (1) ACSL excludes life/indeterminate sentences (2) Offences of: Wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm, causing explosion or casting corrosive fluids with intent to do grievous bodily harm, Malicious wounding—wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm, Racially aggravated malicious wounding or grievous bodily harm, Religiously aggravated wounding or grievous bodily harm, Racially or religiously aggravated wounding or grievous bodily harm. (3) Public Order Act 1986 These data are presented on the principal offence basis, where an offender has been sentenced for more than one offence the principal offence is the one for which the heaviest sentence was imposed, where the same sentence has been imposed for more than one offence the principal offence is the one for which the statutory maximum is most severe. Notes: 1. These figures have been drawn from administrative data systems. 2. 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 total number sentenced has been provided in lieu of the number convicted, lags in time between conviction and sentencing may mean numbers convicted and sentenced in a year do not match.
Young Offenders: Essex
Bob Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many people under the age of 21 years in (a) Essex and (b) Castle Point were charged with offences after having served a sentence restricted by section 91 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 in each of the last five years. [279281]
Claire Ward: The requested information is not available. The data sets compiled by the Ministry of Justice to analyse reoffending by juveniles do not allow for the identification of offenders sentenced to terms of detention under section 91 of the Powers of Criminal Court (Sentencing) Act 2000. Reoffending data for these offenders cannot therefore be produced.
Young Offenders: Restraint Techniques
David Howarth: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many incidents of (a) restrictive physical intervention (RPI) and (b) removal from association were recorded in respect of those held in each institution in the juvenile secure estate in each month between January 2007 and the latest month for which figures are available; and what the ratio was of (i) RPIs and (ii) removals from association to the number of children and young people in each such institution in each such month. [Official Report, 9 September 2009, Vol. 496, c. 20MC.] [278239]
Maria Eagle: Restraint is only ever to be used by staff as a last resort, when all other approaches have either not succeeded or would not be appropriate.
Because of unruly and sometimes dangerous behaviour, there are occasions on which use of physical restraint is unavoidable. The interests and safety of everyone in the establishment must be considered. Other young people, staff and visitors’ safety, as well as that of the young person whose behaviour is causing problems have to be taken into account.
The data contained in the tables have been supplied by the Youth Justice Board. Table A contains data on the number of restrictive physical interventions (RPIs) from April 2007 to March 2009. It is not possible to provide earlier details as comparable statistics across the under-18 secure estate have only been available since April 2007.
Table B contains data for the same period on the number of single separation incidents at secure training centres (STCs) and secure children’s homes (SCHs). It is not possible to provide comparable data for young
offender institutions (YOIs) as it is not collected centrally and could not be provided without disproportionate cost.
Table C contains data on the ratio of RPIs to the number of young persons in YOIs, STCs, and SCHs. Table D contains data on the ratio of single separation incidents to the number of young persons in STCs and SCHs.
Tables A to D have been placed in the Library.
David Howarth: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice on how many occasions (a) nose, rib and thumb distraction and (b) pain compliant techniques were used on those of each (i) sex, (ii) age group and (iii) ethnic group (A) with and (B) without a disability in each institution in the juvenile secure estate in each month between January 2007 and the most recent month for which figures are available. [Official Report, 9 September 2009, Vol. 496, c. 22MC.] [278240]
Maria Eagle: The following tables provide data supplied by the Youth Justice Board (YJB) which relate to secure training centres. Data for young offender institutions and secure children's homes are not collected centrally and cannot be provided without disproportionate cost.
YJB's code of practice makes it very clear that restraint is not to be used except as a last resort, when other approaches have not succeeded or would not be appropriate.
The independent Review of Restraint in Juvenile Secure Settings, which was published together with the Government's response on 15 December 2008, made important recommendations about improving practice and making sure restraint is used as sparingly as possible. The Government and the Youth Justice Board are working together to implement those recommendations.
Secure training centres currently use an approved system of restraint known as Physical Control in Care (PCC), which includes the rib and thumb distraction techniques. It formerly also included the nose distraction technique: use of this was discontinued in November 2007 in the light of some concerns about its suitability voiced by a panel of medical experts commissioned to review the PCC techniques.
The data provided show the use of nose, rib and thumb distraction techniques in secure training centres during the period January 2007 to March 2009. Information on the age, sex and ethnic origin of the young person restrained has been collected centrally by the YJB since April 2008. Data relating to disability are not collected centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
Table A analyses the data by type of distraction technique; Table B by sex; Table C by age; and Table D by ethnic group.
| Table A: Use of distraction techniques in secure training centr es by technique used, January 2007 to March 2009 | |||||||||||||||
| Nose distraction | |||||||||||||||
| 2007 | 2008 | ||||||||||||||
| Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | Jan | Feb | Mar | |
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |