|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Claire Ward: Information showing the number of defendants issued with a caution, proceeded against at magistrates courts, and found guilty at all courts for offences under the 1990 Computer Misuse Act in England and Wales from 2003 to 2007 (latest available) can be viewed in the following table.
|Number of defendants issued with a caution( 1, 2) , proceeded against at magistrates courts and found guilty at all courts( 3) , for offences under the 1990 Computer Misuse Act( 4) , England and Wales, 2003 - 07( 5)|
|(1) The cautions statistics relate to persons for whom these offences were the principal offences for which they were dealt with. When a defendant has been cautioned for two or more offences at the same time the principal offence is the more serious offence.|
(2) From 1 June 2000 the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 came into force nationally and removed the use of cautions for persons under 18 and replaced them with reprimands and warnings. These figures have been included in the totals.
(3) 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.
(4) Covers the following:
Unauthorised access with intent to commit or facilitate commission of further offences (Computer Misuse Act 1990 Sec 2).
Unauthorised modification of computer material (Computer Misuse Act 1990 Sec 3).
Unauthorised access to computer material (Computer Misuse Act 1990 Sec.1).
(5) 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.
Evidence and Analysis Unit-Office for Criminal Justice Reform.
Alistair Burt: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many appeals for Employment and Support Allowance are outstanding in the East of England; and how many such appeals there are in relation to mental health. 
Bridget Prentice: The Tribunals Service First Tier Tribunal-Social Security and Child Support (SSCS) is responsible for Employment and Support Allowance Appeals. The tribunal does not have a defined eastern region and collects information on an area basis. The hon. Member's constituency lies within the area known as Greater London and the South East.
Information is not collected on the number of outstanding employment and support allowance appeals that relate to mental health and could be provided only at disproportionate cost by making a manual check of each case file.
Mr. Todd: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice whether his Department plans to undertake a formal evaluation and review of the new enforcement regime for unpaid employment tribunal awards. 
Mr. Todd: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice whether the new enforcement mechanism for unpaid Employment Tribunal awards that he announced on 19 May 2009 will be (a) free at the point of delivery for those seeking to enforce an unpaid award and (b) applied retrospectively. 
Bridget Prentice: The terms and details of the new enforcement mechanism for Employment Tribunal awards are still the subject of discussion with the High Court Enforcement Officers Association. As soon as agreement has been reached on the details of the scheme and High Court Enforcement Officer involvement secured amendments to the Court Civil Procedure Rules will be brought forward. I will update you further as soon as I am able.
Chris McCafferty: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if he will take steps to ensure that compensation awarded to a plaintiff by an employment tribunal is paid without recourse to the courts. 
Bridget Prentice: There are no provisions within current legislation to allow the employment tribunals (ET) to enforce their own awards and there are no plans at present to change this. ET awards can be enforced through Her Majesty's Court Service. The Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 enabled the introduction of new provisions in April 2009 to simplify the system for enforcing unpaid ET awards in the county court. These include new information leaflets, removal of the registration fee, creation of a customer service help-line and registration of the award on the Register of Judgements, Orders and Fines. Work is also under way to create a scheme in which a nominated High Court Enforcement Officer is assigned to enforce awards originating from employment tribunals.
Paul Farrelly: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if he will (a) collect and (b) publish statistics on the number of non-reportable injunctions issued by the High Court in each of the last five years. 
Bridget Prentice: The information requested is not available. The High Court collects figures on applications, however injunctions are not separately identifiable, and there are currently no plans to amend databases to do so.
Mr. Garnier: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice pursuant to the answer of 13 May 2009, Official Report, columns 831-2W, on the National Offender Management Service, how long each of the 184 employees have been registered as surplus under the terms of the Managing Surplus Employees Scheme. 
Maria Eagle: It is not possible to provide a retrospective review of each of the 184 employees who were identified at the time of the previous answer. The National Offender Management Service was at that time transferring its information to a Redeployment Register within a new on line service that manages both recruitment and vacancy management. Information was therefore drawn from both the online Redeployment Register and a legacy system.
148 employees records had been transferred to the NOMS Redeployment Register by 13 May. 36 records were found to be inappropriately entered on the spreadsheet as those staff were not surplus and therefore their entries were deleted from the database. A detailed breakdown is given in the following table. More detailed information is not available.
|Number of staff||Number of days on register as of 13 May|
Chris Huhne: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many hours of time spent by (a) judges and (b) lay members were allocated to Parole Board oral hearings in respect of prisoners on (i) whole life tariffs and (ii) other sentences in each of the last five years. 
The Parole Board does not record the number of hours spent on oral hearings by individual members as members (other than serving judges) are paid a set fee for each hearing they attend. The average three member oral hearing day starts at 10.30am and finishes at 5 p.m. with an average of two cases being
heard. This does not take into account the time spent by members reading papers in advance of the hearing day and writing detailed decision letters after the hearing. Most three member oral hearing panels are chaired by a judge with a psychiatrist or psychologist when necessary and an independent member.
Judges are expected to allocate 15 days a year to Parole Board work, independent members 2.5 days per week and specialist members 35 days a year. The total number of three member oral hearings cases considered over the past five years is as follows:
Chris Huhne: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what the (a) longest, (b) shortest and (c) average period of time is for which a case for (i) oral hearing, (ii) paper hearing and (iii) other consideration before the Parole Board has been outstanding. 
(a) One year six months.
(b) One month.
(c) Five months.
(a) 11 months.
(b) One month.
(c) Three months.
(a) 16 months.
(b) One month.
(c) Three months.
(a) Seven days.
(b) One day.
(c) 2.9 days.
Chris Huhne: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many cases for (a) oral hearings, (b) paper hearings and (c) other consideration before the Parole Board were outstanding on the latest date for which figures are available.  [Official Report, 23 November 2009, Vol. 501, c. 5MC.]
(a) There were 1,625 indeterminate sentences for public protection (IPPs) cases awaiting three member oral hearings and 126 determinate cases awaiting single member oral hearings
(b) There were 324 IPPs cases awaiting a paper pre-tariff hearing.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|