|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Mr. Wills: Last year the Government published a review of voting systems. It considers the experience of the voting systems introduced in the United Kingdom since 1997. It found that there is no definitive evidence that one system is better or worse than another.
The debate over the respective merits of different electoral systems continues and last month, the Prime Minister confirmed that the Government will be setting out proposals for taking this debate forward.
The Office for Legal Complaints (OLC) was formed on 1 July 2009 and will not be fully operational until 2010 and so financial plans are still in the process of being finalised. The resource budget for the OLC in 2009-10 currently stands at £6 million and capital budget is £0 million. However, these figures will be reviewed for the winter estimates. The OLC is in the
process of finalising its business plan, which will provide further clarity over the capital and resource split for the 2009-10 and 2010-11 years. However, the implementation and running costs for the OLC will be recovered through a levy on the legal profession.
Mr. Timpson: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) what Oasys categorisation was applied to Patrick Brendon Smith following his release from the sentence imposed by Preston Crown Court in October 2008; 
Mr. Straw: With regard to the Oasys risk categorisation and any breaches of licence, the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) does not ordinarily, having due regard to relevant legislation, disclose operational details about how it is managing an individual offender. However, there has been extensive public interest in the case. In these circumstances, I can inform the hon. Gentleman of the following:
Following his release from the sentence imposed by Preston Crown Court in October 2008, the Oasys categorisation for Patrick Smith was 'medium' risk of re-offending and medium risk of serious harm to children and the public. (The risk of serious harm classification was subsequently raised to 'high' when further information about the offender came to light.)
In November 2008, the Probation Area then supervising Mr. Smith decided to issue a written warning to him following a breach of the rules of residence in the approved premises in which he was required to reside as a condition of licence. (There were no other breaches of licence prior to his recall to prison following his arrest for the serious further offence.)
A serious further offence review has been undertaken on this case, in line with the requirements of Probation Circular 22/2008. It was completed on 1 July 2009 and has been quality assured by the Public Protection Unit (PPU) in the National Offender Management Service (NOMS). The Probation Areas involved in the management of the offender will be reporting to the PPU on progress in addressing the learning points from the review by 18 December 2009.
The Government take all cases of serious further offending by offenders under supervision very seriously indeed. I have asked to be kept informed of progress in addressing the concerns which arose in this particular case.
Chris Huhne: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what the cost to the public purse has been of each legal action in respect of which proceedings have been completed in which a person subject to a control order has challenged its terms. 
Bridget Prentice: Legal aid funding is available under the Community Legal Service (CLS) administered by the Legal Services Commission (LSC). According to records supplied by the LSC, 24 certificates have been granted to challenge the terms of control orders made under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005. Of these, only nine cases have concluded and the total amounts paid under each certificate is as follows.
These figures include solicitors' costs, counsels' fees, disbursements and VAT, where applicable. Costs in some of these cases may include costs of appeal proceedings up to and including appeals to the House of Lords. Costs of judicial reviews are not included, as these cannot be separately identified.
(2) how many offenders received a (a) fine, (b) community penalty and (c) custodial sentence upon conviction for endangering the safety of an aircraft in 2008; and what the average (i) fine and (ii) custodial sentence imposed in such cases was. 
The statistics given relate to persons for whom these offences were the principal offences for which they were dealt with. For example, 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.
|Table 1: Number of defendants found guilty at all courts in England and Wales for offences relating to the endangerment of aircraft, from 1998 to 2007( 1, 2)|
|n/a = Not applicable.|
(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) 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.
Office for Criminal Justice Reform: Evidence and Analysis Unit.
|Table 2: Offenders sentenced for endangering safety of an aircraft( 1) , 2007|
|(1) Air Navigation Order 2005: Endangering safety of aircraft.|
(2) One fine of £100 and one of £150
(3) One immediate custodial sentence of 8.0 months and one of 12.0 months.
1. 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.
2. 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 two or more offences, the principal offence is the one for which the statutory maximum is most severe.
OMS Analytical Services, Ministry of Justice.
Bridget Prentice: Information on paid, part paid and unpaid fines for offences of possessing cannabis is not collected centrally. Information on the enforcement rate of financial penalties imposed by courts is held but cannot identify the originating offence.
Mr. Grieve: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how much the Office for Criminal Justice Reform spent on (a) external consultants, (b) public opinion research and (c) communications in the last year for which information is available. 
Mr. Straw: In 2008-09, OCJR spent £14.7 million on external consultants, including specialists working on the development of cross CJS information technology and cross CJS projects, £1.9 million on public opinion research, of which, £1.4 million is for the Witness and Victims Experience Survey (WAVES) of the criminal justice system used to underpin the public service agreement; and £2.3 million on communications including staff costs, the costs of the CJS online website, Inside Justice week and the costs of corporate publications and leaflets.
Mr. Burrowes: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what the monetary value was of defence costs orders arising from cases determined by the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 in (a) 2007, (b) 2008 and (c) 2009 to date. 
Data are not currently collected on the volume of Recovery of Defence Costs Orders (RDCOs) made in respect of cases under the Proceeds of Crime
Act 2002. This level of information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
|Number of RDCOs made||Value of RDCOs made (£ million)|
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|