Offenders
Mrs Chapman: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) how many hearings for offenders serving indeterminate sentences for public protection and whose release was refused by the Parole Board because they had completed insufficient courses were delayed by up to (a) two months, (b) six months and (c) one year after their tariff had ended in each year since 2007; [94258]
9 Feb 2012 : Column 451W
(2) how many offenders serving indeterminate sentences for public protection were refused parole because they had not completed a course specified in their sentence in (a) 2007, (b) 2008, (c) 2009, (d) 2010 and (e) 2011. [94259]
Mr Blunt: The stated reasons for the Parole Board not directing the release of prisoners serving an indeterminate sentence for public protection are not recorded centrally, but are held on prisoners' individual case file.
There are around 3,500 prisoners serving an indeterminate sentence for public protection and whose tariff expiry date has passed. In order to answer the question fully we would have to search each of these files to establish the Parole Board's reason for not directing release. This would breach cost limits.
Offenders: Drugs
Priti Patel: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many and what proportion of offenders who have been treated by Nacro (a) nationally and (b) at the Bridge Project in Witham subsequently reoffended within (i) one month, (ii) two months, (iii) three months, (iv) six months and (v) one year. [94609]
Mr Blunt: Data identifying those offenders who have been treated by Nacro nationally or at the Bridge Project in Witham is not held by the Ministry of Justice. For this reason, the re-offending rates of these offenders are not available.
Offenders: Rehabilitation
Gareth Johnson: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many offenders served part or all of their sentence working on community projects in Dartford constituency in each of the last three years. [94296]
Mr Blunt: This information is not available in relation to the Dartford constituency. The numbers of offenders allocated to Community Payback work projects in the borough of Dartford during the last three years are shown in the following table:
| Number of offenders | |
9 Feb 2012 : Column 452W
Prisoners
Rehman Chishti: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if he will review the prisoner rating system. [94260]
Mr Blunt: The National Offender Management Service (NOMS) has no plans to review the prisoner security categorisation system. It is carrying out a review of security arrangements for escorting prisoners outside of prison. Part of that review will look at ensuring that the correct security arrangements are in place for the escorting of all prisoners, taking into account the category of prisoner and assessed security risks. It will also reinforce the importance of public protection as part of the categorisation process.
Prisoners: Christmas
Robert Flello: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what estimate he has made of the cost to the public purse of Christmas parties held for adult prisoners in 2011. [89296]
Mr Blunt: Detail of the cost of one-off activities in prisons is not available centrally. This could be obtained only at disproportionate cost by examining expenditure locally in each establishment, and disaggregating and then collating the costs.
Prison Service Instruction 38/2010 provides instructions on activities in prisons. It does not preclude or mandate specific activities, but sets out that in authorising activities and events for prisoners, operational managers should consider how they will contribute to NOMS objectives or local targets, specific offender needs or the maintenance of a safe and decent regime, without undermining public confidence in the criminal justice system.
Sentencing
Mr Slaughter: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many people received sentences of between 30 and 48 months for each type of charge relating to (a) offences against the person, (b) sexual offences and (c) property crimes in each of the last three years. [94401]
Mr Blunt: The number of persons proceeded against at magistrates courts, found guilty at all courts, and sentenced to immediate custody by sentence length, for various offence types, in England and Wales, from 2008 to 2010 (latest available) can be viewed in the table.
Annual court proceedings data for 2011 are planned for publication in May, 2012.
| Number of persons proceeded against at magistrates courts, found guilty at all courts, and sentenced to immediate custody by sentence length, for various offence types, England and Wales, 2008 to 2010 (1,2) | |||||||
| 2008 (3) | |||||||
| Sentence length | |||||||
| Offence type | Proceeded against | Found guilty | Sentenced (4) | Immediate custody | Up to but not including 48 months | 30 months up to and including 48 months | Over 48 months (5) |
9 Feb 2012 : Column 453W
9 Feb 2012 : Column 454W
| 200 9 | |||||||
| Sentence length | |||||||
| Offence type | Proceeded against | Found guilty | Sentenced (4) | Immediate custody | Up to but not including 48 months | 30 months up to and including 48 months | Over 48 months (5) |
| 2010 | |||||||
| Sentence length | |||||||
| Offence type | Proceeded against | Found guilty | Sentenced (4) | Immediate custody | Up to but not including 48 months | 30 months up to and including 48 months | Over 48 months (5) |
| (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) Excludes data for Cardiff magistrates court for April, July and August 2008. (4) The number of offenders sentenced can differ from those found guilty as it may be the case that a defendant found guilty in a particular year, and committed for sentence at the Crown court, may be sentenced in the following year. (5) Includes life and sentences of imprisonment for public protection introduced by the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Source: Justice Statistics Analytical Services—Ministry of Justice. | |||||||
Social Security Benefits: Ethnic Groups
Mr Slaughter: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what proportion of appellants to the Social Entitlement Chamber of the First Tier Tribunal were from ethnic minorities in the last year for which figures are available; and what proportion of such applicants were appealing employment and support allowance, disability living allowance and incapacity benefit decisions. [94441]
Mr Djanogly: The Social Entitlement Chamber of the First Tier Tribunal does not routinely request or record information on the ethnicity of appellants.
However, a customer satisfaction survey was carried out for the Tribunals Service in 2009-10 which showed that there were no differences in the outcome of appeals by ethnicity. The following table shows the percentages of appellants surveyed whose appeals were successful or unsuccessful in the Social Security and Child Support (SSCS) jurisdiction of the Social Entitlement Chamber.
| Appeal outcomes of appellants surveyed—Social Security and Child Support Tribunal | |||
| Percentage | |||
| Base | Successful | Unsuccessful | |
The survey also reported on appellants’ level of satisfaction with the service provided. The following table shows the satisfaction levels reported by appellants to the SSCS jurisdiction.
| Customer satisfaction of appellants surveyed—Social Security and Child Support Tribunal | |||
| Percentage | |||
| Base | Satisfied | Dissatisfied | |
Youth Justice
Kate Green: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice pursuant to the answer of 16 January 2012, Official Report, column 520W, how many juvenile offenders in each youth offending team area (a) received a court disposal, (b) were sentenced to custody, (c) were remanded in custody and (d) were subject to court ordered secure remand in England and Wales between April 2010 and March 2011. [93875]
9 Feb 2012 : Column 455W
Mr Blunt: The following table shows the number of juvenile offenders in each youth offending team (YOT) in England and Wales who (a) received a court disposal; (b) were sentenced to custody; (c) were remanded in custody; and (d) were subject to court ordered secure remand between April 2010 and March 2011.
The data to answer this question have been drawn from across two administrative databases within the Youth Justice Board (YJB). The data for court and custodial disposals come from the Youth Justice Management Information System (YJMIS), the data for remand to custody and court ordered secure remand come from the Secure Accommodation Clearing House System (SACHS).
Due to delays in technical updates to the YJMIS in the latter part of 2011 there are some data quality issues with the court disposal data. For this reason, the YJB has not published this local level data and is currently waiting for the completion of the YJMIS update and a resubmission of the 2010-11 data before publishing.
These figures have been drawn from administrative IT systems, which, as with any large scale recording system, are subject to possible errors with data entry and processing and can be subject to change over time.
| Number of juvenile offenders who (a) received a court disposal; (b) were sentenced to custody; (c) were remanded in custody; and d) were subject to court ordered secure remand, England and Wales, April 2010 to March 2011 | ||||
| Youth offending team (YOT) | (a) Court disposals | (b) Custodial disposals | (c) Remanded to custody | (d) Court ordered secure remand |
9 Feb 2012 : Column 456W
9 Feb 2012 : Column 457W
9 Feb 2012 : Column 458W
| (1) Data is not available Notes: 1. Data for columns (a) and (b) The columns labelled (a) and (b) in the table show the number of (a) court disposals and (b) custodial sentences given to young people (aged 10 to 17) in each YOT area in England and Wales between April 2010 and March 2011. These are court disposals as reported by YOTs to the YJB through the Youth Justice Management Information System (YJMIS). Due to delays in technical updates to the YJMIS in the latter part of 2011 there are some data quality issues with these data (to note, the data provided here will not match the records held on local YOT case management systems). For this reason, the YJB has not published these local level data and is currently waiting for the completion of the YJMIS update and resubmission of the 2010-11 data before publishing 2. Data for columns (c) and (d) The columns labelled (c) and (d) in the table show the number of episodes started by young people (aged 10 to 17) attached to each YOT who were (c) remanded in custody and (d) subject to court ordered secure remand (remand to secure accommodation) in England and Wales between April 2010 and March 2011. An episode refers to a period a young person has spent in custody and it is possible that one young person can start more than one custodial episode at different points of each year for different offences or for change in legal basis for detention. These figures come from the YJB’s Secure Accommodation Clearing House System (SACHS) database. 3. All of these figures have been drawn from administrative IT systems which, as with any large scale recording system, are subject to possible errors with data entry and processing and may be subject to change over time. | ||||