2 Sep 2013 : Column 201W
Prisoner Corruption Unit
Sadiq Khan: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what the budget of the Prisoner Corruption Unit was in each year since 2010-11. [164469]
Jeremy Wright: This Government are committed to ensuring that the agencies are free from corruption and that those who do commit illegal acts are dealt with swiftly and reported to the prosecuting authorities. The National Offender Management Service's (NOMS') Corruption Prevention Unit (CPU) is its national intelligence hub through which corruption intelligence is passed between prisons and the police. The CPU undertakes strategic analysis of corruption intelligence across the prison estate and provides operational assistance to prisons through a network of regional and local corruption prevention managers.
The allocated budget for the operation of the NOMS CPU is provided as follows for the financial years 2010-11 and 2011-12.
| Budget (£) | |
From 1 April 2012, the CPU was integrated in to the NOMS National Intelligence Unit (NIU) within Security Group. The NIU allocated budget for 2012-13 and 2013-14 is provided as follows.
| Budget (£) | |
Prisoner Escapes
Sadiq Khan: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many escaped prisoners remain at large. [165799]
Jeremy Wright: The total number of escapes from custody has been falling since 1995 when central records began, despite an increasing prison population.
Between April 1997 and March 2012, the most recent period for which data are available, 245 prisoners escaped from either a prison establishment or from a HM Prison service escort. Of these escapees seven are currently still at large.1 Data on recapture of prisoners prior to 1997 are not centrally held and can be obtained only at disproportionate cost by manual interrogation of electronic incident and prisoner records.
Between April 2010 and March 2012 23 prisoners escaped from a contractor’s escort. Of these four are currently still at large. Data prior to this are not centrally available and can be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Most contractor escapes occur at court.
1 As of 15 July 2013.
Prisoner Escorts: Taxis
Sadiq Khan: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how much the Prison Service spent on taxis to transport prisoners in (a) 2010, (b) 2011 and (c) 2012. [164609]
2 Sep 2013 : Column 202W
Jeremy Wright: The following table shows the total amount of cost of hiring transport, including taxis, for prisoners for financial years 2010-11 to 2012-13 for public sector prisons in England and Wales.
| Financial year | Transport hire costs for prisoners (£) |
Additionally it may be helpful to note expenditure from the five years prior to this (2005-06 to 2009-10).
| Financial year | Transport hire costs for prisoners (£) |
| Notes: 1. Figures are extracted from our central accounting code and include costs of hiring transport e.g. taxis, coaches, mini-buses etc. for taking prisoners to court and for all other escorts including bedwatches, funeral escorts and regime activities not in official vehicles. Also, these figures have been drawn from NOMS central accounting records, which, as with any large scale recording system, are subject to possible errors with data entry and processing. 2. Private prisons are excluded. 3. Charges for taxis used for medical escorts are reimbursed by primary care trusts (PCTs). PCTs have the commissioning and funding responsibility for all medical escorts and bedwatches for prisons but exclude open prisons, immigration remand centres and prisons in Wales. | |
The Prisoner Escort Custody Service (PECS), which is part of the National Offender Management Service, is responsible for the movement of prisoners between prisons, police stations and courts and their care and security while in court custody. PECS manages the secure escort contracts covering all those sent to custody in the prison estate, apart from category A prisoners.
However, there are occasions when the prison service may make use of taxis to provide prisons with a cost-effective, flexible way of fulfilling transport requirements for prisoners where there is a strong operational justification for doing so. This mode of transport is comparatively cheaper than cars; it also reduces potential overheads for prisons, including maintenance and cleaning, and the impact that this might have on staff time. Additionally, this allows prisons to source transport at short notice to fulfil urgent requirements.
Prisoners on Remand: Voting
Mr Gibb: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many remand prisoners voted in the May 2010 General Election. [161096]
Jeremy Wright: Information on the number of remand prisoners who vote in UK elections is not collected.
Prisoners' Transfers
Philip Davies:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many prisoners convicted of each category of crime have been moved to a lower category of prison in the last 12 months; what the (a) original and
2 Sep 2013 : Column 203W
(b)
current category of prison is in each such case; and what length of time had been served by each such prisoner at the time of their transfer. [166308]
Jeremy Wright: All prisoners have their security categorisation risk assessed on an individual basis following conviction and sentencing. This assessment considers the likelihood of their attempting to escape or abscond, the risk of harm to the public should they do so and any other issues that impact on the security and good order of the prison. The assessment takes account of factors such as the nature of the offence, sentence length and previous convictions. Prisoners are then assigned to the lowest security category appropriate to managing the level of risk presented. The prisoner's security category is subsequently reviewed at regular intervals or whenever there is a change in circumstances affecting the prisoner's risk levels. The aim is to ensure that the prisoner continues to be held in conditions of the lowest security consistent with managing risk.
We do not generally hold data on the individual reasons for a prisoner's transfer, including transfers following re-categorisation. Where this is available, the information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost as it would involve a manual trawl through the individual records of every transferred prisoner in the last 12 months.
Prisoners: Age
Mr Nicholas Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what the average age is of (a) the prison population and (b) those serving first-time prison sentences. [166512]
Jeremy Wright: As at 30 June 2012 (the most recent data available for part (b)), the average age of both the total prison population and those serving their first custodial sentence was 34.
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.
Prisoners: Repatriation
Sadiq Khan: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) with which countries the Government are currently negotiating prison transfer agreements; [165801]
(2) what meetings Ministers in his Department have held with their EU counterparts on the EU Prisoner Transfer agreement; and when each such meeting was held. [165802]
Jeremy Wright: Prisoner transfer agreements can be a sensitive issue for some countries and it could be counter-productive to reveal details of discussions before they are concluded. However, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that my ministerial colleagues and I are actively engaging with a number of countries and remain determined to secure compulsory agreements wherever possible.
This year the following meetings have taken place between MOJ Ministers and their European counterparts where the EU Prisoner Transfer Agreement (EU PTA) was formally discussed as part of the agenda:
2 Sep 2013 : Column 204W
| MOJ Minister | Counterpart | |
|
Hungarian Minister of Public Administration and Justice, Tibor Navracsics | ||
Prisons: Doncaster
Caroline Flint: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if he will undertake an urgent review of the prison management competition for the Doncaster cluster of prisons. [166634]
Jeremy Wright: I have no plans to review the prison management competition for the Doncaster cluster of prisons. The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), has requested that PricewaterhouseCoopers undertake an audit of all my Department's existing contracts with Serco and G4S following issues that arose in relation to the current contracts for electronic monitoring.
While this audit includes existing prisons contracts, it does not extend to the competition for operating the South Yorkshire prisons as no contract has yet been awarded. That competition was run according to the terms of the competition Official Journal of the European Union notice. It adhered to Government procurement regulations, and each bidder's proposal was robustly evaluated using the same agreed methodology. Consequently, I do not believe there is any need to undertake a review of the competition.
Caroline Flint: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what the reasons were for the delay in announcing the new contract for managing the Doncaster cluster of prisons; and what effect the over-charging by firms for existing departmental contracts has had on this process. [166635]
Jeremy Wright: In light of issues with MOJ's electronic monitoring contracts the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), requested an audit of all of my Department's contracts with Serco and G4S. We have been clear that we will not award any further contracts to the two companies unless the results of this audit process are satisfactory.
The leading bidder in the competition to operate the South Yorkshire prisons is Serco. We will not take a decision on whether to award the contract until the audit of other Serco contracts has concluded.
Prisons: Electronic Equipment
Priti Patel: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice whether prisoners are required to buy their own (a) televisions, (b) games consoles and (c) other entertainment devices. [155044]
2 Sep 2013 : Column 205W
Jeremy Wright: On 30 April 2013, we announced significant changes to the Incentives and Earned Privileges (IEP) scheme. The purpose of the IEP scheme will change so that not only are adult prisoners (over 18) expected to behave well, but they will also be expected to actively work towards their own rehabilitation and, to reach the highest level of the scheme, demonstrate both an active commitment o their own rehabilitation and provide help or support to other prisoners and/or prison staff. Gaining additional privileges will require not just the absence of negative behaviour, but also the demonstration of positive behaviour targeted at rehabilitation. We have announced a review of the scheme as it applies to young people. We are currently exploring how and to what extent the principles of the review of IEP for adult prisoners can apply to young people.
Access to in-cell televisions is not provided at cost to the taxpayer. The provision of in-cell television is entirely self-financing from the rental payments made by prisoners, and all costs related to the purchase and provision of televisions and the digital switchover programme are being recovered from this charge. Where prisoners are permitted to purchase DVD players, under local IEP schemes, this is at their own expense. Prisoners are no longer allowed 18-rated DVDs since they were banned by the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), earlier this year.
Access to games consoles is limited and only available, in the adult estate (over 18), to prisoners who are on the highest level of the IEP scheme. Games consoles are purchased at prisoners' own expense. Individual access to games consoles in the young people's estate is only available to those on the enhanced level of the scheme. Young people on enhanced level are permitted to purchase computer games and a games console for their own use and from a pre-determined list of approved consoles. Young people are also permitted access to games consoles provided in communal areas when on enhanced or standard levels.
Prisons: Employment
Priti Patel: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what proportion of the budget of each prison in the UK is spent on wages of those providing external auxiliary services (a) in total and (b) excluding the wage costs of prison officers and prisoners. [159628]
Jeremy Wright: The National Offender Management Service's central accounting system does not record separately expenditure on wages relating to providing external auxiliary services at each public sector and private prison in England and Wales. To establish such costs would require an individual establishment-wide survey to identify those staff, prisoners and others employed in the provision of external auxiliary services. This would be a significant exercise and could be done only at disproportionate cost.
Prisons: Locks and Keys
Sadiq Khan: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many incidents there were of prisons needing to have their locks replaced since May 2010; what the cost to the public purse was of such incidents; and in which prison each incident took place. [165800]
2 Sep 2013 : Column 206W
Mrs Grant: I can confirm that there have been four occasions when a prison has had to be re-locked since 2010. The cost to the public purse was £337,551 (excluding VAT) and the prisons were Swaleside, Glen Parva, Warren Hill and Birmingham. The cost of the latter was met by the operator of the prison, G4S.
Prisons: Private Sector
Mr Anderson: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) what financial reductions his Department has negotiated at each privately-operated prison; and if he will make a statement; [160078]
(2) what contractual amendments have been negotiated at each privately-operated prison since May 2010; and if he will make a statement. [160091]
Jeremy Wright: The information is as follows:
The information is in the following table. The review period for data relating to this question is April 2011 to April 2013. The savings figures in the table show the total decrease in spend over the life of contracts for individual prisons arising from either one-off or annually negotiated reductions. Some savings figures reported in the table will be subject to annual pricing indexation adjustment in accordance with the terms of the relevant contract.
| Prison | Total estimated savings (£) |
The information is provided in a table which will be placed in the Library of the House. The review period for data relating to this question is May 2010 to present day, as requested.
Prisons: Security
Grahame M. Morris: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many (a) full and (b) part Tornado teams were provided from each prison establishment in England and Wales in each of the last four years; and if he will make a statement. [166346]
Jeremy Wright:
Operation Tornado is the code name used by the National Offender Management Service to describe mutual aid arrangements across the prison estate in England and Wales. These arrangements are in place to assist establishments response to serious incidents, such as concerted indiscipline, mass evacuation, etc., by providing specially trained resources above and beyond those already available at an establishment. The size of a prison determines the extent to which it is able to
2 Sep 2013 : Column 207W
contribute to Operation Tornado. A full Tornado Unit consists of two section commanders and 12 staff. Smaller establishments provide what is called a “half team”, being half this deployment.
Details of the number of Tornado Teams or half teams provided from each establishment are only available for 2013 and are set out in the following table. Information about the number of teams provided for the preceding years is not held centrally and could be determined only at disproportionate cost.
| Details of the number of operational Tornado teams or half teams provided by prison establishment in 2013 | |
| Establishment | Commitment (number of units) |
2 Sep 2013 : Column 208W
2 Sep 2013 : Column 209W
| 1 Immigration Removal Centre | |
Prisons: Seized Articles
Sadiq Khan: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many seizures of (a) Class A drugs, (b) mobile telephones and (c) knives there were from each prison in London in 2012. [166021]
Jeremy Wright: The following table shows the number of drug and mobile phone seizures in each prison in the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) London region in 2012.
| Prison | Drugs | Mobile phones |
Drugs seizures include all seizures of drugs and drug paraphernalia. The data held centrally are not differentiated by Class of drug and include seizures of drug paraphernalia. To disaggregate Class A drugs from the data would require manually examining each record, which is not possible without incurring disproportionate cost.
One mobile phone seizure could constitute a phone only, a SIM card only, or a mobile phone with one SIM card or media card inside.
Seizures of knives are held on the NOMS Incident Reporting System under a miscellaneous category. To disaggregate the knife incidents from other miscellaneous incidents would require manually examining each one, which is not possible without incurring disproportionate cost.
All figures in this answer have been drawn from live administrative data systems which may be amended at any time. 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. The data are not subject to audit.
2 Sep 2013 : Column 210W
Prisons: Staff
Sadiq Khan: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) how many full-time equivalent staff were employed in (a) publicly run prisons and (b) privately run prisons on 1 April in each year since 2008; [154381]
(2) how many full-time equivalent staff were employed in the Prison Service in each year since 2008. [154382]
Jeremy Wright: Information on the number of full-time equivalent staff employed in public and private sector Prison Service establishments each year since 2008 is contained in the following table. Information for 2013 has not yet been published and so has not been included in the table.
The public sector and private sector estates are not directly comparable, in size, complexity or function. For example, in 2012 there were 117 public sector establishments compared with 14 in the private sector. All of the High Security prisons, which typically have some of the highest numbers of staff are also in the public sector. The figures provided for the Public Sector Prison Service also include staff in regional support teams for which there is no equivalent in the private sector. The number of private sector establishments has increased over the period from 11 in 2008 to 14 in 2012. Included in the increase in private sector establishments was the movement of HMP Birmingham from public to private sector management in October 2011.
| Full-time equivalent staff in public and private sector Prison Service Establishments—April 2008 to 2012 | |||
| Public sector | Private sector | Total | |
| Notes: 1. Public sector includes staff working in establishments and in regional support teams. 2. Public sector data relates to 31 March in each year. 3. Figures are rounded to the nearest ten. Totals are rounded separately, and as such may not equal the sum of the rounded parts. | |||
Prisons: Voluntary Work
Jenny Chapman: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what guidelines his Department issues to prison governors on the engagement of volunteers in prisons. [164835]
Jeremy Wright: The National Offender Management Service (NOMS) has issued two guidance documents to prison governors and directors of contracted prisons covering services provided by partner organisations, including those using volunteers. These are:
‘Prison Service Instruction 43/2010 Pre-Appointment Security Vetting’; and
‘Prison Service Instruction 31/2012 Security Vetting: Additional Risk Assessment Criteria Following Disclosed Criminal Convictions (Ex Offenders)’.
The latter was introduced following feedback from the voluntary sector. It ensures that suitable ex-offenders can enter prisons to provide rehabilitative support to their peers following local risk assessment.
2 Sep 2013 : Column 211W
A series of guides on volunteering and mentoring in the criminal justice system, funded by the Ministry of Justice and produced by the charity Clinks, have been publicised to prison governors through the NOMS website. NOMS has also helped the Prison Reform Trust to distribute their report on volunteering within prisons by prisoners, ‘Time Well Spent’, to all governors and directors.
Under the Department's Transforming Rehabilitation reforms, the market will be opened up to a diverse range of new providers. We expect this to result in greater use of volunteers. Current guidelines will be kept under review to ensure they reflect any changes resulting from these reforms.
The documents cited above can be found via the following web links:
http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/offenders/psipso/psi2010/psi_2010_43_security_vetting_aug_2010.doc
http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/offenders/psipso/psi-2012/psi-31-2012-security-vetting-ex-offenders.doc
http://www.clinks.org/vol_guides
http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/Time%20Well%20Spent%20report%20lo.pdf
Racially Aggravated Offences
Philip Davies:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what the ethnicity of the (a) offender and (b)
2 Sep 2013 : Column 212W
victim was in each racially aggravated offence recorded in each of the last five years. [165184]
Jeremy Wright: The ethnicity of the offenders found guilty at all courts of offences containing a racially aggravated description, in England and Wales, in each year from 2008 to 2012 (latest available) can be viewed in the table.
Following the introduction of the Libra case management system during 2008, the recording of ethnicities improved and the numbers recorded as not stated or unknown decreased.
For reporting purposes as from 1 September 2009 racial and religiously aggravated offences cannot be separately identified by the Ministry of Justice on the Court Proceedings Database.
Information held centrally by the Ministry of Justice on the Court Proceedings Database does not include the circumstances behind each case beyond the description provided in the statute. It is not possible to separately identify from this centrally held information the ethnicity of the victims of racially aggravated offences.
Specific information on recorded crimes is the responsibility of the Home Office (HO).
2 Sep 2013 : Column 213W
2 Sep 2013 : Column 214W
Rape
Jenny Chapman: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) how many of those found guilty of rape in 2012 were (a) under 18 years, (b) between 18 and 21 years and (c) over 21 years old; [166065]
(2) how many of those found guilty of (a) rape, (b) sexual assault and (c) grievous bodily harm were sentenced to a non-custodial sentence in 2012; [166063]
(3) what the average number of previous convictions held by those found guilty of rape in 2012 was. [166064]
Jeremy Wright: In 2012 the majority of offenders convicted of rape, sexual assault and grievous bodily harm received a custodial sentence. For rape, nearly all, 94% of offenders received a custodial sentence. For sexual assault more than half received a custodial sentence and for grievous bodily harm around two thirds received a custodial sentence.
For the number of offenders found guilty at all courts and sentenced to a non-custodial sentence for rape, sexual assault and grievous bodily harm, by age breakdown, in England and Wales for the period of 2012 (latest available) can be viewed in the table.
The average number of previous convictions for any offence for those convicted of rape in 2012 is 4.17. The average is derived from the number of previous conviction occasions where an offender was sentenced.
2 Sep 2013 : Column 215W
| Offenders found guilty at all courts and sentenced to a non custodial sentence for rape, sexual assault and grievous bodily harm, by age, England and Wales, 20121,2 | |||
| Offence and outcome | Under 18 years | 18 to 21-year-olds | Over 21 |
| 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 Sexual Offences Act 2003, s1 and s5 4 Sexual Offences Act 2003, s2, s3, s6, s7 5 Offences against the Person Act 1861, s20. s18 Source: Justice Statistics Analytical Services—Ministry of Justice | |||
Referral Panels
Kate Green:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) what proportion of referral panel members fell within the age range (a) 20 to 30, (b) 31 to 40, (c)
2 Sep 2013 : Column 216W
41 to 50,
(d)
51 to 60,
(e)
61 to 70 and
(f)
over 70 in the most recent year for which information is available; [166253]
(2) what proportion of referral panel members fell in each ethnic category in the most recent year for which information is available; [166254]
(3) how many of referral panel members were (a) women and (b) men in the most recent year for which information is available; [166255]
(4) what information his Department holds on the socio-economic background of referral panel members. [166256]
Jeremy Wright: The information requested is not held centrally. The responsibility for the recruitment of volunteers to youth offender panels lies with local authorities and their youth offending teams.
Statutory guidance on youth offender panels states that youth offending teams must aim to recruit members to panels that are properly representative of the local community. Opportunities for participation in youth offender panels must be open to all, regardless of age, ethnic or racial origin, gender, sexual orientation, social background, religion, disability or any other irrelevant factor. The guidance is available online at:
http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/youth-justice/referral-orders/referral-order-guidance.pdf?type=Finjan-Download &slot=00000025&id=00000424&location=0A644212
Reoffenders
Philip Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many offenders who breached their licence conditions or re-offended whilst on licence were (a) returned to prison to serve the full sentence, (b) returned to prison to serve a shorter sentence than the remaining period of their licence and (c) not returned to prison in the latest period for which figures are available. [165405]
Jeremy Wright: Information on the length of time to be served upon recall to custody is not available within centrally held licence recall data sources. Information on the number of offenders recalled and those not returned to custody is routinely published within the Offender Management Statistics Quarterly bulletin. The latest available information on the number of offenders recalled to custody and not returned to custody as at 31 March 2013 can be found within the licence recall tables via the following link:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/offender-management-statistics-quarterly--2
Over the period 1999 to March 2013, a total of 622,000 offenders were released from prison on licence supervision. Between April 1999 and March 2013, 155,498 of those released on licence were recalled to custody for breaching the conditions of their licence, eg failing to report to their probation officer. Of all those recalled to custody, less than 1% (998) had not been returned to custody by the end of June 2013. This total may include some offenders believed to be dead or living outside of the UK but who have not been confirmed as dead or deported.
Offenders serving a sentence of 12 months and over are released from prison, in most cases automatically at the halfway point of their sentence, under licensed supervision to the probation service. They are all subject
2 Sep 2013 : Column 217W
to a set of standard licence conditions, requiring them to report regularly to the probation service, live at an address approved by the probation service and to be of good behaviour.
There are various reasons why offenders are recalled to custody for breaching their licence conditions besides committing a further offence. For example, an offender may be recalled if there is any deterioration in behaviour which leads the probation service to conclude that there is an increased risk of the offender committing further offences.
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.
Philip Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many offenders released on licence following a life sentence have committed (a) homicide and (b) other offences in each of the last two years. [165513]
Jeremy Wright: Data on life sentence prisoners who commit offences of homicide are taken from the NOMS Public Protection Unit Database.
The most recent figures were published in July 2012 and may be found at the following web address:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/163377/2012-compendium-reoffending-stats-analysis.pdf.pdf
In the last two years there were four murders committed by four offenders on life licence, two in each year. To provide some context, there are around 1,900 life sentence prisoners on supervision in the community at any one time.
Data on offenders released on life licences who have committed offences other than murder are not held centrally in a readily accessible format for the last two years. To obtain these data would exceed cost limits.
However, there are also data from published proven re-offending statistics for England and Wales for life sentenced prisoners. These statistics are published on a quarterly basis and the latest bulletin, which was published on 26 April 2013 on the Ministry of Justice website, is available at the following address:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/proven-re-offending--2
RSPCA
Karl McCartney: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many times the RSPCA has achieved a criminal conviction in each of the last 15 years; how many of those convictions were for breaches of the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 in each such year; and what the nature was of each offence, by type. [163563]
2 Sep 2013 : Column 218W
Jeremy Wright: Officials in my Department are currently establishing what information is held centrally to identify the prosecuting authority in each case.
However, it is known that this information is not held centrally for periods prior to 2008 due to changes in the data collection method, and so the information requested could be obtained from court files only at disproportionate cost.
I will write to my hon. Friend at the conclusion of this investigation to advise what information is available.
Karl McCartney: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many private prosecutions were brought by the RSPCA (a) in the five years prior to November 2010 and (b) in each year since. [163690]
Jeremy Wright: Officials in my Department are currently establishing what information is held centrally to identify the prosecuting authority in each case.
However, it is known that this information is not held centrally for periods prior to 2008 due to changes in the data collection method, and so the information requested could be obtained from court files only at disproportionate cost
I will write to my hon. Friend at the conclusion of this investigation to advise what information is available.
Sentencing
Philip Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what the sentencing outcomes in each offence group for those sentenced for either-way offences has been in (a) Crown courts following the defendant's election for a jury trial and (b) magistrates courts in each of the last three years. [165192]
Jeremy Wright: Offenders sentenced at the Crown court, after being tried at the Crown court, for triable either-way offences, by offence group and sentence outcome, in England and Wales, from 2010 to 2012 (latest available), can be viewed in Table 1.
Offenders sentenced at magistrates courts for triable either-way offences, by offence group and sentence outcome, in England and Wales, from 2010 to 2012 (latest available), can be viewed in Table 2.
The Ministry of Justice Court Proceedings Database holds information on defendants proceeded against, found guilty and sentenced for criminal offences in England and Wales. This database holds information on offences provided by the statutes under which proceedings are brought but not the specific circumstances of each case. It is not possible to separately identify from this centrally held information those defendants who appeared for trial at the Crown court who elected for a jury trial from those who appeared for trial at the Crown court after being committed for trial by a magistrate.
| Table 1: Offenders sentenced at the Crown court, after being tried at the Crown court, for triable either-way offences, by offence group and sentence outcome, England and Wales, 2010-121, 2 | ||||
| Offence group | Sentence outcome | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 |
2 Sep 2013 : Column 219W
2 Sep 2013 : Column 220W
2 Sep 2013 : Column 221W
2 Sep 2013 : Column 222W
| 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 proportion of offenders sentenced who are sentenced to immediate custody. Source: Justice Statistics Analytical Services—Ministry of Justice. | ||||
| Table 2: Offenders sentenced at magistrates courts for triable either-way offences, by offence group and sentence outcome, England and Wales, 2010-121, 2 | ||||
| Offence group | Sentence outcome | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 |
2 Sep 2013 : Column 223W
2 Sep 2013 : Column 224W
2 Sep 2013 : Column 225W
2 Sep 2013 : Column 226W
| 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 proportion of offenders sentenced who are sentenced to immediate custody. Source: Justice Statistics Analytical Services—Ministry of Justice. | ||||