Driving Offences: Fines
Mr. Grieve: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what the average fine imposed for the offence of using a motor vehicle uninsured against third-party risks was in 2008. [316323]
Claire Ward: I refer the hon. Gentleman to my answer on 2 February 2010, Official Report, column 262W.
Driving Offences: Suffolk
Mr. Ruffley: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) how many drivers have been prosecuted for offences under sections (a) 3 and (b) 34 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 in Suffolk in each year since 1997; [314875]
10 Feb 2010 : Column 1075W
(2) how many drivers have been prosecuted for failing to stop after an accident under the Road Traffic Act 1988 in Suffolk in each year since 1997. [314882]
Claire Ward:
The number of proceedings at the magistrates courts for the offence of driving without
10 Feb 2010 : Column 1076W
due care and attention, driving on footway and failing to stop after an accident for the years 1997 to 2008 are shown in the following tables.
Government Car and Despatch Agency
Grant Shapps: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how much his Department paid to the Government Car and Despatch Agency in each of the last five years; how much it has spent on such payments in 2009-10; and what proportion of such payments was made in respect of the Government Car Service. [316419]
Mr. Wills: The information requested is currently being collated and verified. I will write to the hon. Member with the full information as soon as possible.
House of Lords: Reform
Mr. Grieve: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice when he plans to publish the draft House of Lords Bill. [316335]
Mr. Straw: I intend to publish the key parts of a draft Bill for reform of the House of Lords in the next few weeks.
Juries
Mr. Grieve: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) what the cost was of protective measures for juries (a) in circumstances in which allegations of jury tampering had been made and (b) in other circumstances in each of the last five years; [316319]
(2) how many juries have been provided with police protection in each of the last five years; and what the cost was of providing that protection. [316321]
Mr. Straw: My Ministry does not hold information on either the costs of protective measures for juries in which allegations of jury tampering have been made or any other circumstances and on the number of juries who have been provided with police protection in each of the last five years and the cost of providing that protection. These are an operational policing matter.
Mr. Grieve: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many (a) trials have been adjourned as a result of jury intimidation and (b) re-trials have been ordered in each of the last five years. [316320]
Mr. Straw: Her Majesty’s Courts Service does not record any data centrally on the number of re-trials ordered as a result of a trial being adjourned for jury intimidation. This could be obtained only by the inspection of individual case files which would incur a disproportionate cost.
Mr. Grieve: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many incidents of jury (a) intimidation and (b) tampering were recorded in each of the last five years. [316322]
Mr. Straw: My Department does not hold information regarding the number of incidents of jury intimidation or tampering prior to 2008-09.
10 Feb 2010 : Column 1077W
In 2008-09 the number of incidents of jury intimidation reported to Her Majesty’s Courts Service was four (4) and, from 1 April 2009 to 31 December 2009 (figures available for 2009-10) two (2).
The Ministry takes all security incidents, including jury intimidation very seriously and all instances are reported to the resident judge in the first instance and then, where appropriate, to the police.
Legal Services Commission
Mr. Sanders: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice who the chairman and vice chairman is of each of the Legal Services Commission's Regional Review Panels; and on what date each was appointed. [315712]
Bridget Prentice: The review panel arrangements were put in place in 2000 but since October 2006, the LSC has moved away from the old regional panel structure for the majority of funding/costs appeals which are now dealt with by single independent funding/costs adjudicators. There are therefore no chair or vice-chair representing these adjudicators. The appointment of individual adjudicators is made in accordance with the criteria and guidance on the LSC Review Panel Arrangements 2000 (as amended), which is available on the LSC website.
A panel can sit where the complexity or profile of a case justifies this; however, such panels have been required on fewer than 10 occasions under the post-2006 arrangements. All other appeals (either against refusal of funding or assessment of costs) have been heard by single adjudicators.
The Special Cases Unit (SCU) has its own panel and they work as single adjudicators or in committees of between three and five when required depending upon the complexity or value of the cases. The Chair of the SCU Panel is Andrew Watson, a solicitor in private practice. He was appointed in July 2008. The Vice Chair of the SCU Panel is Simon Sinnatt, a barrister in private practice. He was appointed in July 2008.
Local Government Finance
Mr. Stewart Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice with reference to the answer to the hon. Member for Meriden of 22 October 2009, Official Report, column 1645W, on local government finance, what data sets not contained in the national indicator set local authorities are required to submit to the Youth Justice Board. [314954]
Maria Eagle: Youth offending teams (YOTs), based in local authorities, submit the following mandatory summary-level data items to the Youth Justice Board quarterly, annually or as required:
Annual budget/staffing data
Prevention programme case load
Young people convicted of knife-enabled offences who receive a knife ‘intervention’ and Knife Possession Prevention Programmes data
Intensive Supervision and Surveillance Programme (ISSP) data Priority and Prolific Offenders (PPO) data
Integrated resettlement support data (only for those YOTs that offer IRS programmes)
10 Feb 2010 : Column 1078W
Offender Management Act
Philip Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many (a) prosecutions and (b) convictions there have been in relation to offences under section 22 of the Offender Management Act 2007; and what the average length of sentence was in cases of conviction. [316191]
Maria Eagle: The Prison Act 1952, as amended by the Offender Management Act 2007, defines the criminal offence and penalties for smuggling contraband such as mobile phones, drugs and weapons into prisons. The Offender Management Act 2007 strengthened the penalties for smuggling contraband, and made it a specific offence with a penalty of up to two years’ imprisonment to bring a mobile phone or component part into a prison.
From April 2009, indictable and triable-either-way offences contained in the Offender Management Act have been included in the Home Office Counting Rules for Recorded Crime. Offences recorded by police will be published in next year’s annual statistical bulletin, Crime in England and Wales (July 2010).
Pleural Plaques: Compensation
Paul Holmes: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice whether he has set a timetable for the publication of his Department's response to the consultation on pleural plaques. [316608]
Bridget Prentice: The House of Lords decision has raised extremely complex and difficult issues which have required very careful consideration within Government. It has also been important to look beyond the issue of pleural plaques itself to consider how people who have been exposed to asbestos can be supported much more widely. We are actively considering all these issues and hope to be in a position to publish our response very shortly.
Post and Parcel
Philip Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice whether his Department has reviewed the operation of Rule 39 post and parcel. [316405]
Maria Eagle: The National Offender Management Service (NOMS) has recently made amendments to prison rule 39, which covers the confidential handling arrangements for the delivery of legally privileged material to prisoners. This was introduced by way of a negative statutory instrument which was laid before Parliament in November 2009 and came into effect on 1 January 2010 (SI 3082—2009). This clarified that the level of authorisation for the interception of such communications had been raised from governing governor of a prison to the chief operating officer of NOMS. It also made clear that there should be no distinction between legally privileged material which was delivered as correspondence or documentation (electronic or other) which was handed over during the course of a legal visits. Both should be afforded the same level of confidential handling arrangements.
10 Feb 2010 : Column 1079W
NOMS is also considering whether any additional practical steps might be taken to reduce the scope for abuse of rule 39, without risk of compromise to legal privilege.
Previous Convictions
Mr. Grieve: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many (a) juvenile, (b) young and (c) adult offenders sentenced in 2008 had at least 15 previous convictions. [316326]
Mr. Straw: Figures for the number of persons sentenced for indictable offences in England and Wales in 2008 with at least 15 previous convictions are presented in the table.
| Number of sentencing occasions for indictable offences in 2008 where the offender had at least 15 previous convictions, by age group, England and Wales | |||
| Age at sentence | Number of sentencing occasions(1) | Number of sentences where the offender had at least 15 previous convictions | Percentage |
| (1) Counts of offenders sentenced during the year, an offender may be counted more than once if he or she had been sentenced more than once. (2) Including offenders whose age at sentence had not been recorded on the PNC. | |||
These figures are taken from table 6.4 of “Sentencing Statistics 2008” which was published on 28 January 2010 and can be found at:
http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/sentencingannual.htm
The figures have been drawn from the police’s administrative IT system, the police national computer, which, as with any large scale recording system, is subject to possible errors with data entry and processing. The figures are provisional and subject to change as more information is recorded by the police.