|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
|Number of defendants proceeded against at magistrates courts, found guilty and sentenced at all courts for offences under Section 1 and 3 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, London Government office region (G.O.R) and England 2008( 1, 2)|
|Fine bands( 3)|
|Area/Section of the Act||Proceeded against||Found guilty||Sentenced||Fine||£ 0 -£ 200||£ 201 - £ 500||£501- £ 1, 000||£1,001- £ 2,000||£2,001- £ 5,000||Sentenced to immediate custody|
|(1) The figures given in the table on court proceedings 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 it 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.
(3) The levels associated with fines do not relate to the amount of the fine but to the offence committed and the statutory maximum that may be issued for that offence. Therefore as the maximum fine for each of these offences is a level 5 every fine issued for these offences would be considered as a level 5 fine; as it would cover the range £0-£5000. We have therefore shown the number of fines issued by band.
(4) Section 1 includes the following offences:
Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 Sec 1(2)(a).
Breeding or breeding from a fighting dog.
Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 Sec 1(2)(b).
Selling, exchanging, offering, advertising or exposing for sale a fighting dog.
Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 Sec 1(2)(c).
Giving or offering to give a fighting dog.
Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 Sec 1(2)(d).
Allowing a fighting dog to be in a public place without a muzzle or a lead.
Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 Sec 1(2)(e).
Abandoning, or allowing to stray, a fighting dog.
Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 Sec 1(3).
Possession, without exemption, of a Pit Bull Terrier, Japanese Tosa or other designated fighting dog.
(5) Section 3 includes the following offences:
Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 Sec 3(1).
Owner or person in charge allowing dog to be dangerously out of control in a public place injuring any person
Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 Sec 3(3).
Owner or person in charge allowing dog to enter a non-public place and injure any person.
Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 Sec 3(1).
Owner or person in charge allowing dog to be dangerously out of control in a public place, no injury being caused.
Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 Sec 3(3).
Owner or person in charge allowing dog to enter a non-public place causing reasonable apprehension of injury to a person.
In the case of sentences at magistrates courts, a change was made to the categorisation by area as part of the rollout of the Libra case management system in magistrates courts during 2008. Sentences given at courts using the Libra system are categorised according to the criminal justice area of the court, while sentences given at courts not yet using the Libra system are categorised in the same way as at the Crown court. By the end of 2008, all magistrates courts were using Libra. This change will have almost no impact on the categorisation by area; only around 0.01 percent of sentences at magistrates courts could have been affected in 2007 and 2008. Police forces do not prosecute minor offences (those that are sentenced at magistrates courts) in courts outside their areas.
Crown c ourt
Sentences at the Crown court are categorised according to the police force that prosecuted the offence including those sentences that may be given at a court outside the prosecuting police force's area.
Justice Statistics Analytical Services in the Ministry of Justice
Bridget Prentice: The consultation paper "Debt Management Schemes-delivering effective and balanced solutions for debtors and creditors", published on 18 September 2009, looked at the current operation of the debt management market. It sought views on whether any changes were needed in this area and, if so, what those changes should be.
The consultation paper set out three broad options. First, to continue with the measures currently under way to raise awareness about current schemes and enforce existing rules with operators. Second, to improve current schemes without regulation, possibly through the introduction of a protocol. Or third, to implement the Lord Chancellor's powers to approve debt management schemes contained in Chapter 4 of Part 5 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.
The responses to the consultation are currently being considered in detail to inform the Government's decision on what action is appropriate and necessary. This decision will be announced in the Government's response to the consultation which will be published as soon as possible.
The nature of the public services delivered by the Ministry of Justice-principally administering the courts, prisons, probation and tribunals systems-do not generally involve advertising, via any medium, to reach their target audience.
We are aware of only one instance where Google AdWords has been used to communicate the Department's services in the last 12 months. This involved expenditure of £759.42 on 'The Community Payback Campaign'.
All expenditure by the Ministry of Justice is undertaken in accordance with the principles of regularity, propriety and value for money contained in HM Treasury's 'Managing Public Money' and in pursuit of departmental aims and objectives.
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what methodology his Department used to determine whether answers to questions in the formulation "if he will set out with statistical information related as directly as possible to the tabling hon. Member's constituency the effects on that constituency of his Department's policies since 1997" could be provided without incurring disproportionate cost; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr. Wills: In all answers to questions formulated as identified, data were provided at a geographical level most closely relevant to the constituency of the MP asking the question, taking into account the cost limit for extraction of data.
Mr. Gerrard: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) how many armed forces veterans on (a) a court order and (b) parole were being supervised by the Probation Service at the latest date for which figures are available; 
Justine Greening: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice pursuant to the answer of 1 March 2010, Official Report, columns 932-34W, on juries, how many people were (a) required and (b) summoned for jury service in each year from 1990 to 2000; and how many of those summoned (i) were disqualified and (ii) refused to undertake jury service for each reason in each such year. 
The information requested from 1990-2000 for how many people were required for jury service, summoned for jury service, were disqualified
and those who refused to undertake jury service are not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. This is because the summoning process was undertaken and the records were held manually at each Crown court in England and Wales.
Andrew Mackinlay: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice pursuant to the answer of 22 March 2010, Official Report, column 20W, on Lionel Crabb, which Departments have retained portions of the records under section 3.4 of the Public Records Act. 
Mr. Wills: Portions of records within PREM 11/2077 will have been retained by the Prime Minister's Office and portions of records within ADM 1/29241 will have been retained by the Ministry of Defence, all under section 3.4 of the Public Records Act.
Mr. Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what methodology is used to estimate the average cost of a prison place; and whether the costs of (a) administration of the National Offender Management Service national and regional structures, (b) prisoner health care, (c) education services, (d) drug services, (e) dog handling and (f) Prison Service administration are taken into account in determining the average cost of a prison place. 
Maria Eagle: The average cost of a prison place comprises the expenditure on public and private prisons (as recorded in the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) Agency Annual Report and Accounts), increased by an apportionment of relevant costs borne centrally and in the regions by NOMS. This involves some estimation. In addition, expenditure met centrally by the Youth Justice Board (YJB) is included. The figures do not include the cost of prisoners held in police or court cells under Operation Safeguard, nor expenditure met by other Government Departments (e.g. health and education). The prisoner escort service costs are included. Where the costs of young people are recharged by NOMS to the YJB, expenditure is shown gross and not reduced by income from the YJB.
For 2008-09 the overall cost of a prison place was £45,000 (to nearest £1,000). This includes expenditure met by NOMS national and regional structures, including Prison Service administration, and the YJB. It does not include expenditure met by other Government Departments (e.g. for health and education).
In general health care and education costs are not included. Where prisons have been contracted out to the private sector the cost to NOMS includes health care and this is included in the cost per place above. In general prisoner education is not included. In general clinical drug addiction services are not included. Services which are the responsibility of NOMS (e.g. drug testing, accredited drug treatment programmes and Counselling, Assessment, Referral advice and Throughcare services) are included. Dog handling costs are included.
Before 2008-09, Her Majesty's Prison Service annual report and accounts included the direct prison cost per place. This included only the expenditure met and managed locally at each prison and excluded expenditure met at
area, region or national level. The reported figures included expenditure on health care and education which was recharged to the other Government Departments. It did not include that expenditure met directly by other Government Departments.
Mr. Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what the average cost to the public purse was of probation supervision of a person for a year on the latest date for which figures are available. 
Maria Eagle: Costs will vary depending on the nature and intensity of the supervision. The National Audit Office Report (NAO), "The Supervision of Community Orders in England and Wales" (January 2008) included an estimate of the cost of delivering a supervision requirement. The NAO reviewed five probation areas and estimated the average annual cost in those areas of delivering the supervision requirement to be £652. This estimate did not include the cost of probation overheads. Research indicates that female offenders have more identified needs on average than male offenders with a similar risk of re-offending, therefore supervision is often more expensive. The NAO report above did not account for this variable in their estimates. The Specification, Benchmarking and Costing programme in the National Offender Management Service is defining what it should cost to deliver services and this work is due to be completed by 2011.
John McDonnell: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what his most recent estimate is of the average cost of housing an individual in a probation hostel or in approved premises for 12 months. 
Maria Eagle: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 23 February 2010, Official Report, column 498W. The current grant for approved premises (formerly known as probation or bail hostels) equates to an average £26,600 per bed space for the current financial year, unchanged from the previous year. More than one resident will occupy a single bed space in approved premises over the course of a year, with an average stay of 74.7 days per resident.
John McDonnell: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what his most recent estimate is of the average cost of providing Probation Service supervision to an individual on unpaid work for (a) 160 hours and (b) 240 hours. 
Maria Eagle: The funding for the supervision of offenders sentenced to unpaid work is part of the general grant provided to probation areas. The actual costs will vary between areas and according to the type of work placement.
The National Offender Management Service Specification Benchmarking and Costing Programme, has produced a service specification for unpaid work / Community Payback based on an assumed operating model. This will enable more accurate calculations of costs and is used by probation areas and Directors of
Offender Management to assess Community Payback as part of a best value exercise.
The service specification for unpaid work/Community Payback calculates the cost of commencement, including risk assessment and offender induction during the first two hours of the sentence at £82.40. For an offender attending a weekday work group in an urban area, the ongoing cost is calculated to be £8.83 an hour. The cost of a 160 hour sentence is therefore £1,477.54 and the cost of a 240 hour sentence is £2,183.94. These calculations do not include indirect costs such as premises, which will vary between probation areas. The hourly cost of Community Payback work at agency placements, where supervision is undertaken by the organisation benefiting from the work is less costly, while operating work groups at weekends and in remote locations is proportionally more costly.
John McDonnell: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what factors are taken into account in determining the cost of probation supervision for an individual (a) with a condition and (b) without a condition. 
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|