|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Mr. Straw: Sentencing guidelines are published by the independent Sentencing Guidelines Council, not by the Government. In December 2008, the Sentencing Guidelines Council published a definitive guideline on theft and burglary in a building other than a dwelling. I understand the Sentencing Guidelines Council has no plans to review the guideline on theft from a shop.
Mr. Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many surplus employees his Department had on the latest date for which figures are available; what expenditure his Department incurred on salaries for surplus employees in the last 12 months; and what roles such employees fulfil. 
Mr. Wills: As of 4 September 2009 the Ministry of Justice had 254 staff that were actively seeking permanent redeployment. This figure comprises both full-time and part-time staff. All staff seeking redeployment are gainfully employed and undertaking roles within the Ministry and so are not defined as surplus. They are engaged in work contributing to the delivery of public services, including core frontline activities, policy and project work and other operational roles.
The salary expenditure for staff seeking redeployment is available from May 2009 when records were centralised. Prior to then salary expenditure can be obtained only at a disproportionate cost. In the last quarter the salary costs of those who were engaged in work but actively seeking permanent redeployment was £2,015,005.
The number of employees seeking redeployment changes regularly as a result of both our success in redeployment,
and the addition of newly displaced staff following organisational change. Since April 2009, 102 redeployees have been found permanent jobs and the average length of time for a person seeking permanent redeployment to be placed in a new job is currently 95 days.
Harry Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what role the Information Commissioner has in monitoring the use of surveillance techniques by media organisations; what reports the Information Commissioner has received of misuse of such techniques by media organisations in the last two years; and if he will make a statement. 
In his evidence session to the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee on 2 September, the Information Commissioner (IC) outlined his responsibility for investigating and punishing "blagging" activity (the practice of tricking organisations into revealing confidential personal information), because this is an offence under section 55 of the DPA. It may also be relevant for the IC to investigate and take the necessary action in cases where personal information collected using surveillance techniques is then not processed in compliance with the Data Protection Principles set out in the DPA. However, enforcement of the Regulatory and Investigation Powers Act 2000 to tackle illegal phone hacking and tapping is the responsibility of the Surveillance Commissioners and not the IC.
In his evidence session, the Information Commissioner confirmed that his Office had received no further evidence about the media's use of private investigators beyond that obtained during the course of the Motorman investigation.
Miss McIntosh: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice when he expects to be able to publish separate enforcement rates for fines arising from unpaid penalty notices for disorder; and if he will make a statement. 
Justine Greening: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice pursuant to the answer of 14 July 2009, Official Report, columns 261-2W, on young offender institutions, what percentage of offenders aged (a) 12, (b) 13, (c) 14, (d) 15, (e) 16, (f) 17, (g) 18 and (h) 19 years who had previously been resident in a London borough were detained over 20 miles or 45 minutes travel away from their previous homes at the latest date for which figures are available. 
Maria Eagle: Table A shows the percentage of 15 to 19-year-olds (male and female) who had previously been resident in a London borough and were detained in a prison or young offender institution that was over 20 miles travel away from their home area, as of September 2008. Home area is taken as a prisoner's home address. If no home address is recorded, the court of first committal is used as a proxy.
Table B shows the percentage of 12 to 17-year-olds (male and female) who had previously been resident in a London borough and were detained in Secure Children's Homes or Secure Training Centres that was over 20 miles away from their home area, as of September 2008. Home area is taken as a young person's address at the time of sentence. If no address is recorded, the address of the Youth Offending Team that the young person is attached to is used as a proxy. Those aged 18 or 19 are not held in Secure Children's Homes or Secure Training Centres.
|Secure Children's Homes||Secure Training Centres|
|n/a: Denotes that no young people of this age were held in Secure Children's Homes or Secure Training Centres on this date.|
Youth Justice Board
Justine Greening: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice pursuant to the answer of 1 July 2009, Official Report, columns 265-7W, on young offender institutions: injuries, how many incidents of (a) self-harm, (b) damage caused by restraint and (c) assault by offenders who had been previously resident in a London borough occurred in each young offender institution in each of the last five years. 
Maria Eagle: The system used within the National Offender Management Service for analysing self harm and assaults information does not include details of prisoners' home addresses. As a result the information requested is not available centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
Claire Ward: Information showing the number of juveniles aged 10 to 17 proceeded against at adult magistrates courts and youth magistrates courts in England and Wales for 2007 (latest available) is shown in the following table.
|Defendants aged 10 to 17 proceeded against at adult magistrates courts and youth magistrates courts, England and Wales, 2007( 1,2)|
|(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. Source: Evidence and Analysis Unit-Office for Criminal Justice Reform.|
Justine Greening: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what percentage of offenders aged (a) 12, (b) 13, (c) 14, (d) 15, (e) 16, (f) 17, (g) 18 and (h) 19 years who had previously been resident in a London borough and who were released from young offender institutions in each of the last five years were reconvicted within a year for (i) violent and (ii) non-violent crimes. 
Maria Eagle: Juvenile reoffending covers those aged 10 to 17. A release from custody could be from a Secure Training Centre, a Secure Children's Home or a Young Offender Institution. Data are not broken down by type of release establishment or by individual release establishment. A breakdown of previous residence by location is not available. For information on the latest juvenile reoffending statistics please consult:
Reoffenders that are aged 18 and 19 are included in the adult dataset. As with juveniles a breakdown of previous residence by location is not available. Further information on adult reoffending is available at:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice pursuant to the answer of 1 July 2009, Official Report, column 269W, on young offenders: sentencing,
what percentage of offenders aged (a) 12, (b) 13, (c) 14, (d) 15, (e) 16, (f) 17, (g) 18 and (h) 19 years who had previously been resident in a London borough and who had been convicted for non-violent crimes were given community sentences in each of the last five years. 
Claire Ward: The available information is shown in the following table. The table shows the percentage of those sentenced to community sentence by age in the last five years, for non-violent indictable offences. Figures for those previously resident in a London borough are not available, as places of residence are not recorded on the court proceedings database. The table shows those sentenced in the Metropolitan and City of London police force areas.
|Percentage of persons sentenced to community sentences for non-violent indictable offences( 1) in the last five years, by age in London police force areas|
|(1) This includes all indictable offences not included in the violence against the person offence type. Summary offences have not been included as they are not categorised into violent or non-violent offences|
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.
OMS Analytical Services, Ministry of Justice
The definition of non-violent offences are all those indictable offences not included in the offence type, 'Violence Against the Person'. Summary offences have not been included as they are not categorised into violent or non-violent offences. 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. Data for 2008 will not be available until 'Sentencing Statistics 2008' is published.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|